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.
"

newwave Well it was what they told my parents they would be spending on educating me. My father was livid because my parents were mid divorce and the last thing he needed was to pay for school fees. He still says he would run over the women who reigned over the appeal process given half the chance and he wrote her a letter after I got through each stage; GCSEs, A'Levels, graduated and accounting exams. This woman told my parents that I could aspire to be a secretary at most when I wanted to be a research scientist.

Want2b

And good luck to you. Its late and I have work tomorrow and a site meeting (groan) so goodnight

"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."

It's blaming the parents: condemning the children for the parents' failings.

You may find it trite: it doesn't mean it isn't true.

I suspect you don't understand the word condemn.

I mean, condemning them to failure for the parents' wrongdoing.

"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."

Doubt it all you like: but I'd assume you haven't read my posts. It is appalling the way tens of thousands of children have been failed by state education. You seem to think the system that has done this is perfectly acceptable.

there is absolutey no reason why a "normal" child should not have the best educational opportunity available to them, though, is there?

my dd2 is at a private school (so is dd1, but for other reasons). why on earth, given I have spent the last 4 years fighting to get dd1 the education she deserves, would I not give the best opportunity I possibly could to dd2 as well?

I could not care less who her classmates are (as someone who has, at worst been homeless for several years, and at best lived on a sink council estate when growing up, I do not say that lightly).

What i do care abotu is that dd2 is not overlooked, that she is not pushed down the list of priorities because she is a quiet child, that she has the oppportunity to experience minority sports (hell, any sport would be good!), as well as alternative Art subjects too, as well as the standard routes. where she can have a choice of foreign language to learn, where she can experience clubs and activities too. where learning is actually valued, not derided, and where she can learn to the best of her abilities, and not be used to monitor the efforts of other children

It should be but it isn't. I also agree with you that some of the assisted places were questionable. I know one girl in my school should never have qualified. First of all she was pretty thick but good at 'acting' (no she was just thick). Her dad was self employed and was driving around in a top of the line brand new mercedes, lived in a big house and her mother didn't work. I guess he had a low income the year they applied for her place.

goodnight newwave!

All this wasted energy on condemning private schools would be better put to fighting for change in state schools. Until you see how the curriculum fails children - and stop blaming the parents - you won't start to fight for that change.

Although as I say, change has begun -- too late for too many failed children from deeply disadvantaged backgrounds. School should have been the place that lifted them up: instead it left it to the parents to do the work they should have, and now (and many others) blame the parents.

Poor parents have many, many more problems than watching shit on TV. They may have been badly educated themselves, through no fault of their own. They may be in terrible domestic situations. They may have absolutely no idea how to help. They may be overwhelmed by money worries, depression, double shifts, crappy jobs. I really curl my lip at you sweepingall this away with a silly comment about watching shit on TV. That is just so smug.

Gooseberry I just read your question on the Martha Lane Fox thread. Brilliant question! She didn't exactly do a great job of running lastminute.com and certainly didn't increase shareholder value. I sold my M&S shares when they brought her on board because the one thing she has always been good at is making money for herself at the expense of shareholders.

Oh thanks! I was always surprised at her meteoric rise at the expense of others. But now she's a multi-millionaire -- I guess that goes with power and people don't care where it comes from.

'This generation of children was failed by education policies which saw many successful methodologies as oppressive and basically, abandoned them. Policymakers then introduced by stealth a curriculum which left the education of the most basic educational requirements to parents, while the fun stuff, the environment, the dressing up, the posters, the discussion groups, was left in school hours. If children had parents who didn't care, who couldn't help, who wouldn't help, who were busy, who were working, who were single, who were ill-educated, they were simply lost, dumped, fell by the wayside.'

You are dead right there Gooseberry.
I work in many different state schools and the curriculum makes me want to weep with shame. Absolute shite.

Completely disagree. In maths, literacy and science the standards at primary school are much higher than when I was at school and I ended up at a good university at a time when less than 20% made it (from a comp). That is, they are covering topics much earlier and in imaginative ways.

I have reservations about some aspects of the curriculum much higher up and choices of subjects (teaching of languages and history) but not much that can't be addressed by teachers and schools already rather than politicians. Or Toby Young.

Just caught up with this thread - but thought I'd go back to a earlier point.

"When £7k per child is being spent on their well being and education then I'll use them, as it stands only £2k a year is being spent, unwisely and you can tell."

mama - The average spend per state pupil is £6,600pa.

The average private school fees are roughly between £8,500 -£9,500 pa(boarding elements deducted).

IMO - there is much more to this than money.

I don't know a lot about the UK education system any more. My dd is in the Belgian state system and I am well impressed so far. Desks in 2s facing the front, really strict discipline, homework 3 nights a week, a class book that has to be signed each day. Dd's teacher has 27 pupils and no teaching assistant - though there is extra help for any child who struggles. My dd (7) is in 1st primary and has gone from zilch to reading chapter books and doing multiplication in 2 terms. Her joined up handwriting is beautiful.

I don't know how they do it, but it obviously can be done. They spend time on gym, swimming, science and art projects too, but the focus is definitely on the 3 Rs. There is only 4.5 days of school - Wednesday afternoons are free - supposedly for dance classes. sport etc etc.

I think a lot of it has to do with the Kindergarten system where most dcs are in school at 2.5/3 yo. The formal learning starts much later, but when it does, they are ready for it. They are used to school, paying attention, the long day, studying topics etc. Also I think that teachers put up with no mucking about in class at all.

muminlondon: "Completely disagree."

You may do so but the statistics demonstrate failure. Whether you agree or not has very little to do with those children going on to have successful lives. If you want to set your face against it then do so. Obviously that's not going to help: as long as people refuse to accept the problem, there will never be a resolution. And increasing numbers of people who never before considered going private will impoverish themselves to do so.

Porto: private UK preps focus their time so well that many are able to spend the entire afternoon everyday on the sports field. And still achieve amazing results.

Really Jack, well I was told by our state primary school secretary admittedly in 2006 that it is £2200 per pupil per year and I pay £7k a year in school fees for yr1-6 so I know my figures are spot on.

They may have absolutely no idea how to help. They may be overwhelmed by money worries, depression, double shifts, crappy jobs

That's us, but it's not an excuse, don't bite off more than you can chew and plan for the future.

My point is that the reasons don't matter. The children need educating, whether their parents are motivated, feckless or troubled. It's not their fault.

mama my figures are averages (across all schools). And, yes a state primary in an affluent area would get significantly less per pupil than, say, an inner-city secondary school.

The figures come from an IFS report which examined Gordon Brown's target of matching per pupil state funding with private school fees. He did indeed close the gap significantly - but not totally. The problem, of course, being that the private schools increased their fees also. They were forced to because teaching salaries increased in line with the rise in state school funding.

However - the attainment gap between state and private schools (based on A'level performance) widened during this time. The speculation is that private schools 'raised their game' to compete with the improved state schools and to justify the increased fees.

Mamatotomy - my son's private school has no whiteboards, no gym, no school hall let alone one equipped as a theatre, the plaster is falling off the walls and you'd be lucky to get any hot water in the loos. There is no playground equipment AT ALL, no lovely sports pavilion.

The teaching is excellent, however, with a very few exceptions. And discipline is strong. That's what I'm paying for.

excuse me

Just to clarify on earlier messages. At no point have I laughed at someone or their childs special needs.

I laughed at the thinly vieled attempt to guilt trip people into agreeing with someones argument. this, "oh well actually my child has to go private because he has SN so dont critisise me".

Well actually lots of children with SN go to state schools, it isnt a qulifying factor. And then making out he is disadvantaged, well not compared to the other children with SN who go to states schools.

I and many others im sure could reel out a list of our own childrens problems, I could mention the many hardships I had after the birth of my child.....Doesnt change the fact that the only reason some go to private schools is because their parents have the money. there is no other reason.

IFS Report of Labour's education spending plans.

Actually the (then) predicited 2010/11 spend of £6,670 per pupil included 'capital investment' - so the actual figure will be lower, once BSF has been deducted.

"Well actually lots of children with SN go to state schools, it isnt a qulifying factor. And then making out he is disadvantaged, well not compared to the other children with SN who go to states schools"

So it's better for a SN child to be disadvantaged compared to a non-SN child in a state school - than to benefit from a private education?

Mmm... Interesting.

If you want to stop that disadvantage jackstarb send them all to private school, not some.

Dont you see that just makes, according to those lines of thinking, the state school SN child twice as disadvantaged