Them and us - why posh Tories who claim to care about social mobility haven't got a clue

[breadandbutterfly]

...and are patronising bastards to boot.

See:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/09/social-mobility-suzanne-moore

Esp enjoy the comment at 9 April 2011 9:32AM -

"The Camerons know how to 'work' their connections, too. David Cameron got his first job as a researcher for Tim Rathbone, his godfather and Conservative MP for Lewes.

Three months later he went to Hong Kong to work at the conglomerate Jardine Matheson - Daddy was stockbroker to the chairman, providing a fast-track into the business world.

When the young Cameron was due to attend a job interview at Conservative Central Office, a phone call was received from Buckingham Palace. "I understand you are to see David Cameron," said the caller. "I am ringing to tell you that you are about to meet a truly remarkable young man."

It has been speculated that the mystery call was from Captain Sir Alastair Aird, Equerry to the Queen Mother and husband of Cameron's godmother. The Airds vigorously denied it. Others have suggested the caller might have been Sir Brian McGrath, a family friend who was private secretary to Prince Philip. But he, too, though named as a referee for the job, denies it firmly".

You couldn't make it up could you? They're all in it together.
"

Yes but Gooseberry I don't know what you mean by the 'damage done to state education'? Do you mean the move to comprehensives? The Plowden report? The National Strategies?

Do you mean the move to league tables and ICT 'GCSEs' which gave 4 GCSE passes? Because I agree, they were bad moves.

At my son's school they dress up, role play, discuss, use the 'mantle of the expert' or whatever- but they also read, are read to, bring bags of books home, learn tables by rote- the they play in the forest area or with Lego etc (year R- 2) It seems just right to me, although I do regret that he isn't learning a language or doing science experiments... would I pay thousands to keep him away from his less fortunate peers, no. What would he get extra anyway, except bought advantage?

I can only assume that people who think children have not being failed by education must "blame the parents".

When children aged six and seven have six and a half hours of school five days a week and there is not enough time to learn a times table then something is seriously wrong.

In some cases I would "blame the parents" those who are more interested in realty shit on TV or what stick insect Beckham is doing in OK magazine than reading to their kids and getting involved with the school. Those that dont check up to see homework is done or cannot be bothered to turn up on open day. Those that blame the school for their kids bad behavior.

Those I blame, school is there to educate children not bring them up.

"When children aged six and seven have six and a half hours of school five days a week and there is not enough time to learn a times table then something is seriously wrong."

Well I think most people in their right minds would think this, wouldn't they? It's certainly not the case in the majority of state schools! Wherever have you got that idea?

You are a motivated parent. You will offer any help needed by the failings in the system.

Think back three, four, nine, ten years. If I didn't teach my children their times tables, they didn't learn them. If I didn't read, they were listened to by the teacher once every half term.

It was a move away from didactism to child-direction. Didactism was seen as oppressive. Indeed I have spoken to an old-fashioned, now retired teacher who at one point in her career had to ask her children to whisper their times tables chanting, as it was so violently deplored by the profession.

Sorry I should have added: those children who did not have parents who would do the work with them at home were bound to fail. They were bound to, unless they were exceptionally bright and motivated.

"Wherever have you got that idea?"

Golly gosh -- it must be from the statistics on failing children! silly me

Look at the backlash against free schools. Some highly motivated parents want to establish access schools.

No they want taxpayer paid for "private" schools for them and those like themselves.

One such school (guess which) has skewed the catchment area to include "good" middle class primary schools but to exclude a nearer school in a council estate area. The reason given for the exclusion "they are on the other side of a railway line that seems to be a "natural" barrier.

It gives a new meaning to coming from the wrong side of the tracks.

newwave -- I knew it. Condemn the children for the sins of the parents.

"Those I blame, school is there to educate children not bring them up."

Teaching them to read and do their times tables is not bringing them up. There are many reasons why parents do not help their children and unwillingness is only one of them.

It seems your sympathy for disadvantage is limited.

Are you all denying there is anything wrong with state education?

So what's your complaint then? Why ever do you mind about private?

school is there to educate children not bring them up.

In so many cases they have to though because the parents simply do not, add into the mix people basically being paid to have children and you end up with the least capable on so many levels having the most children.
School being fun is probably a highlight in the life of some poor souls but you cannot expect my DC to adhere to the same curriculum, they have different needs and the state doesn't seem to be flexible enough to cover the spectrum.

newwave -- I knew it. Condemn the children for the sins of the parents.

How you extrapolated that from my post I will never know.

There are many reasons why parents do not help their children and unwillingness is only one of them.

OK, I can accept say that a single Mother doing two jobs to get by may have a problem same if the parent(s) are themselves are ill educated HOWEVER those are not the type of parents described in my post now are they.

By all means "attack" me but please base it on what I have said.

wook - I typed in haste. I meant to say more money (as in more money per child) not less money would be spent. I should not try to do 2 things at once!

newwave - It was Labour who took away assisted places and it was under Labour that school fees rose fast than inflation and even house prices for the school I went to.

I went to a private school after I was written off by the LEA in our area. My parents were the ones who had faith in me. I passed the 11+ but due to having 'learning issues' I was placed in a special needs class at a school 35min drive away. The special needs class was full of children with behavioural problems. If I had gone to that school there is no way I would be in the position I am in today (3 A'Levels, degree from redbrick and professional accreditation).

To laugh at Smallwhitecat is sick as the government continue to do an awful job of supporting special needs. Yes it is worse for a child who is stuck in a state school which is wrong. At least before parents without the funds had a way to help their child(ren) through the assisted places scheme.

In addition, when you purchase an education for your child you are not purchasing an undeserved advantage. You are purchasing an opportunity, just the same as the parents who buy homes in good catchment areas. It is up to the child to make the most of that opportunity.

Why ever do you mind about private?

Because private schools are in many/most cases a bastion of bought privilege, a way to perpetuate the class system, the old school tie network, they give an unfair advantage in getting to the better universities.

Tony Blair hired private tutors for his children. You're not going to be able to stop Labourites buying advantage. But some Labourites wish to deny the same opportunities to other less well-off. less well-connected parents.

To laugh at SmallWhiteCat is sick

Please C&P where anyone has laughed at her.

The assisted places scheme was a way of putting taxpayers money in private schools, The amount paid to private schools for an assisted place was more than was spent on a child in a state school at that time, do you think that was fair.

In addition, when you purchase an education for your child you are not purchasing an undeserved advantage. You are purchasing an opportunity.

Advantage or opportunity it amounts to the same thing.

claig

Labour or Tory, same double standards however if you check you will find more Labour MP's kids use state schools and more Tory kids go private.

newwave Finland has private schools. My friend went to one. It was what they call a Steiner School. Her parents were diplomats and the British government paid for her to attend boarding school in England while her parents were posted to overseas locations every two years.

Probably because there are more well-off Tories. Many well-off people like the Beckhams etc. will probably send their children private. So what? Create grammar schools, which are often better than many private schools, so that state educated children get just as good an education as what money can buy.

newwave: I based it on this - which you said.

"In some cases I would "blame the parents" those who are more interested in realty shit on TV or what stick insect Beckham is doing in OK magazine than reading to their kids and getting involved with the school. Those that dont check up to see homework is done or cannot be bothered to turn up on open day."

Your reasons for objecting to private schools have NOTHING to do with education and everything to do with the politics of envy.

newwave It is not correct that the amount paid to private schools for an assisted place was more than what was spent by keeping the child in the state school. When my parents asked to appeal the decision to send me to the awful school they were told that they should be greatful that the LEA were willing to pay over GBP10k a year educating me. My boarding school fees were around GBP8k a year.

I later learnt that my sisters friend was in care outside of term time. I never knew until recently. I would be surprised if boarding school fees were more expensive than care.

Will C&P in a moment.

newwave: I based it on this - which you said.

"In some cases I would "blame the parents" those who are more interested in realty shit on TV or what stick insect Beckham is doing in OK magazine than reading to their kids and getting involved with the school. Those that dont check up to see homework is done or cannot be bothered to turn up on open day."

So how the hell is that blaming the children ffs.

Your reasons for objecting to private schools have NOTHING to do with education and everything to do with the politics of envy.

How very trite anytime someone objects to unearned, inherited or bought advantage it's the "politics of envy".

"Because private schools are in many/most cases a bastion of bought privilege, a way to perpetuate the class system, the old school tie network, they give an unfair advantage in getting to the better universities".

If your basing it on the above then I suggest that a sense of fairness is not envy.

Still I doubt you would want a level playing field for all children as you seem to think advantage (as long as it is your childrens advantage) is ok.

Want2

Thank you. and I will take you at your word, I do beleive however the amount spent per pupil is not £10k a year now let alone over 12 years ago.

If anyone is aware of the current amounts please post them.

Students from state schools make up a greater proportion of undergraduates at Oxford and Cambridge than they do the applications. If people don't apply, they can't get in.

The problem lies with the state education system. It's their responsibility to prepare able students for Oxbridge, not Oxbridge's responsibility to make up the shortfall in academic progress during the first year of undergrad. Far from cramming/spoon feeding for the public exams, many of the schools which have huge numbers going to Oxbridge teach the A-level syllabus almost in passing as they teach a far more challenging, interesting and enquiring 6th form syllabus which actively prepares students for independent learning. This is critical because O &C are not primarily teaching universities and contact time is minimal on many courses, especially arts and humanities.

There was a big academic gap between A at A-level and first year undergrad when I was there in 93, so I can only imagine that's greater now.

Of course, the other issue is that the private schools with big numbers going to Oxbridge are super selective- St Pauls takes the top 5% of the 13+. However, there's nothing to stop state education following a selective model if they wanted to. They choose not to. That's fine, but they shouldn't expect Super bright Child A to achieve the same in a mixed ability class teaching std A-level syllabus (ooh Hitler again, can't wait!) as in a class of people of the same/greater academic potential being stretched far beyond that.

nulliusxinxverbax Tue 12-Apr-11 22:41:41
ha ha ha Smallwhitecat, very clever

I love the way you just used your sons special needs to justify sending him to private school, and try and make us all feel guilty and stupid.

The first part is laughing is it not?

I was very frustrated at school. I was unable to communicate my knowledge and found writing extremely difficult. The school I went to had a support system in place for dyslexic students and an educational psycologist on staff to help design a curriculum for students such as myself. I fully understand why swc sent her child to private school. It is my opinion dyslexia is genetic so DH and I have already put money aside to allow for the probability that our child(ren) might be dyslexic.

nulliusxinxverbax Tue 12-Apr-11 22:41:41
ha ha ha Smallwhitecat, very clever

I love the way you just used your sons special needs to justify sending him to private school, and try and make us all feel guilty and stupid.

The first part is laughing is it not?

Fair enough.

I was very frustrated at school. I was unable to communicate my knowledge and found writing extremely difficult. The school I went to had a support system in place for dyslexic students and an educational psycologist on staff to help design a curriculum for students such as myself. I fully understand why swc sent her child to private school. It is my opinion dyslexia is genetic so DH and I have already put money aside to allow for the probability that our child(ren) might be dyslexic.

This I understand although help of this level should be available in the state system. That is not the same as sending a (please excuse the word) "normal" child to a public school at taxpayers expense.