'State schools are creating amoral children'

[BurgenSnurgen]

...because state schools are under so much pressure to improve results that there's no time to teach them right from wrong.

So says Chairman of the Independent Schools Association

Bit speechless really. It's giving me the absolute RAGE.

That's interesting, slipshod- what sort of things?

@ TOSN That seems odd, rude and stupid in pretty much equal measures, Nneoma

Well that is the image I get of her anytime I read her post. Not pleasant I know.

I just hope she is genuinely concerned about the girl she is mentoring. The type of pity that she shows towards people she deems disadvantaged is stifling.

Not also sure why she loathes private ed for its elitism but wants her daughter in Cambridge/Oxford.

Martorana- collaboration; humour; violence; love; envy;
Iots I suppose. I agree with Nit that cultural materialism is important in shaping our environment and thus our response to it, but I think that is a kind of editing of our nature which seems to have remained reasonably constant.

Oh, fuck. Not again.

Here's another way of looking at it... Is there any evidence within society that, all other things being equal (ie taking into account the likely influence of home life and wealth), people who have been privately educated are morally superior to the rest of us, or at least, not as amoral? Do they avoid tax less? Or use company paper for personal reasons less? Or speed less in their cars? Or commit adultery less often? What do they do or not do to demonstrate their superiority?

What "not again"?

I doubt it rabbit frankly I don't think any right minded person thinks any sector has a monopoly on turning out the morally superior except maybe Quaker schools. If they were achieving this I sure there wouldn't be shouting it from the roof tops because isn't humility part of moral superiority?

Is Mart being stalked unkindly ?

See Slipshod for me, if I were to accept that anything was innate, I'd have to believe that something/someone/an order put it there, and I don't.

Do you Nit I don't believe that something/someone/an order put us here but I think I'd like to believe some part of personality is innate, rather than we're born a blank sheet and can be completely influenced by what goes on around us be it good or bad.

happy - I think that is why headmasters of private schools need to be careful when the word "amoral" passes their lips, or they might just find themselves being blamed for all the amoral students who pass through their schools. There are so many other ways he could have expressed himself that would have been less unfortunate, as I think many are in agreement that opportunities in sport, music, drama, critical thought, voluntary work, etc, are of great value and can give people a sense of meaning to their lives.

(that's re your comments on right minded people...).

But do you accept Chomsky's theory that language is innate? Or that birds flying is?

I don't think we're born a blank sheet. Even if you don't believe in a God or creative force of some sort (although I find it hard not to believe in a creative force, as the Big Bang theory sounds pretty forceful to me and appears to have created something!), surely if you believe in evolution, then you believe that living things have evolved as a result of their interactions with each other and the world around them, meaning there must be some kind of ordering going on, to enable living organisms to survive together. Every so often, something happens that throws everything out of the window so you almost have to start again, but otherwise, we are gradually changing over time, not just changing after birth, so something must have been hardwired into us before we breathe our first breath. Also, we can't train other animals to behave exactly like humans, however hard we try.

Dawkins thinks morality comes from our tribal village pasts when we were all interconnected.

.....but it is culture and Civilization which have developed it so that we are as nice as we are.

Read Stanislas Dehaene on what is innate.

I think Dawkins, who irritates the hell out of me, is right; morality is essentially a social construct. The desire to advance the interests of your own child is instinct. The attempt to advance the interests of all children is moral. Which is why the whole private v state thing is ultimately a moral decision. Independent schools cannot, as they're forever suggesting (in a for god's sake don't remove our charitable status/tax dodge kind of way) be "part of the solution" because they are the problem. They leach ( not all, but too many) talented teachers and pupils from the state system ;just as importantly, if not more so, they leach the kind of able, involved parents who have the resources and , frankly, the leisure to raise hell when schools are failing their sons and daughters. So we're left with this crazy educational apartheid that wastes talent and fosters mistrust on both sides. Viewed sociologically , private schools are a really crap idea.

Thanks for the recommendation Bonsoir.

Is morality just a way of living that does not result in our mutually assured destruction? Or would it be moral to extinguish ourselves before we cause any more harm to the planet?

Glegg you're wrong if you think the likes of Eton are stuffed with involved parents who have the leisure to raise hell. Parents who send their DC's to Eton et al do it because they trust in and believe what the school offers and they don't want yo spend there every spare moment manning teddy bear stalls or complaining that the school is failing their DC.

You buy into what it offers and trust that it's doing what it's meant to do so that you can carry on doing what your meant to do.

Exactly, happy. They pay not to have to worry, not to have to do anything about education. If that option were not open to them, if it was their children's future at stake, they'd be out there on the barricades too.
Paying to abdicate your stake in public education is one way of doing it, but - unless you truly believe there's no such thing as society - it cannot be viewed as moral.

Maybe it's not moral perhaps it comes back to the natural instinct to do the best for your individual child. You have the means and the opportunity and therefore you do it.
My DS1 spent three years in a so called "high performing academy" frankly we were exceedingly disappointed with it and the way he was managed, my DH has lots of meeting with the head etc, "on the barricades" so to speak even the GP and the LEA ed. Psych had a go but nothing changed for my DS or any other child in the school. In the end we gave up paid tutors to help him and just counted the says off till he left. If we were in the same position again knowing what we know now we wouldn't even waste our breaths on it. Just sort it out by paying tutors etc therefore again abdicating my "stake in public education". This isn't the first time my DS's have been let down by state ed at one school I was told by the special needs governor after endless meeting about DS2 that they had neither the time motivation or money to help him. When I moved DS1 from a "well regarded" village primary to a prep on saying good bye to his class teacher I commented on the fact that I didn't think DS1 was as thick as she thought he was.
Her reply:
"Oh no I don't think he's thick I actually think he's very bright but he's got something wrong with him and I haven't got the time or the interest to find out what it is!"
So Glegg I don't man barricades for DS2 I just pay for what Im unable to get in the state sector, this frees me up to do what I'm meant to do. Maybe not morally justifiable and doesn't contribute to society but to quote Clarke Gable "frankly madam I don't give a dam".

Fair dos, happy. At least you're honest about it.

Maybe you could argue there is morality in your being freed up to work for the direct benefit of others, whilst not being asked to sacrifice your natural instinct to protect your own? Lucky you've got a public sector job, happy, it's easier to argue then than if you are a Fred Goodwin.