'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.

Actually, all I think you can ask of anyone is that they act with integrity and always consider their effect on others. I don't see how anyone could ever accuse you of being immoral, happygardening - you always listen with courtesy to others, think deeply about your motives, are willing to engage with others and explain yourself, recognise that you have been given a good hand in life, and do what you can to give back to society. All that seems pretty moral to me.

'doesn't contribute to society '

I thought he hoped to contribute in the future to scientific research, eschewing a high salary for work that will benefit the World? Morality is more complex than suggested above.

Sorry, who said "doesn't contribute to society?"

It was a comment Happy made when she was explaining her rationale. I'm agreeing with you Rabbit. Moral decisions aren't made in a vacuum and can be complex.

I'm glad someone agrees with me!

Rabbit, Slipshod, nobody is saying that happy is "immoral', just that she's chosen, by her own very honest admission, to opt out of the moral argument on this subject. We pick our battles...

Equally, happy's son sounds like a thoroughly likeable young man with the best possible intentions. My fairly modest point is that there are untold numbers of kids of similarly high intelligence and with equally laudable motives whose gifts, under the present cruel binary system, may never be harnessed. This, in my view, is why society cannot afford private education.

I haven't got to this age without noticing that life is not fair. We each have particular advantages. However, even if we are to assume than not all children are suited to the kind of first class education happy's son enjoys, is it not just a bit mad, sociologically speaking, to make personal/parental wealth the qualifiying metric?

"there are untold numbers of kids of similarly high intelligence and with equally laudable motives whose gifts, under the present cruel binary system, may never be harnessed. This, in my view, is why society cannot afford private education."

Why would denying the development of the talents of some children in favour of denying the development of the talents of all children make society a better place? The moral course of action is to maximise the development of the talents of as many as we can.

AuntGlegg - I have made your point to happygardening on many occasions, myself. I don't disagree with you, I just felt the need to make clear to happy, given my regular attacks on her reasoning, that I respect her position, because it is not one taken without thought, and not one taken by a person who doesn't care. And I don't think our current society, deeply flawed as it is, will really be the loser in her ds's individual case if the reality is that he has been saved from poor mental health through being misunderstood and badly catered for in one school, and is now in a position where he is equipped and wants to go out and try to do something useful for society. He sounds like a very clever boy with lots of potential. Obviously, we don't KNOW whether he would have turned out one way if he'd stayed in the state sector and don't KNOW he'll stick to his principles when he leaves the private sector, but nothing in life is certain. At least in this case, though, happygardening has not just tried to justify herself by accusing others of jealousy, or stupidity, or hypocrisy. If we all were willing to listen to each other a bit better and try to understand each other a bit better, maybe happygardening would never have had to make the choice she did. At least she recognises it was not a morally neutral choice.

Couldn't agree more, Rabbit. And as a SEN governor myself and parent of an SEN child, I think Happy was spectacularly badly served by her son's school ( too many are). It's not that I don't understand ,and in many cases sympathise with, the reasons parents choose to go private. And however arch I may sound, I wouldn't presume to judge personal circumstance. It's the principle of private education - the reduction of life chances to a marketable commodity - that I find deeply flawed. Happy asked, quite far upthread, how her choice affected society, and I tried to give an answer as I see it. That's all.

"It's the principle of private education - the reduction of life chances to a marketable commodity"

Well of course life chances are going to depend in part on the resources to which DC have access. That's not a principle, merely a fact of life. Wanting to reduce all DCs to some mythical lowest common denominator before throwing them to the wolves and seeing what becomes of them doesn't seem a particularly civilised thing to want to do.

AuntGlegg - you had every right to make your point and it was well made. I'm sure happygardening will accept it with the good grace she usually does.

What's more, I think happygardening's ears will be burning when she reads all this!

Respectfully, Bonsoir, I think you miss my point. Or perhaps I didn't explain it well enough. My concern is that, for reasons rehearsed above, the common denominator is effectively lowered by the existence of a private sector. I think it's a little sweeping to assume that attempts to level the field are "denying the development of talents of all children. As there has never been a 'control experiment' - at least in the UK - with all children of all abilities and incomes receiving a broadly similar education - we can't know that the general outcome would be worse. I'd say it was worth a try.

I saw this on Facebook the other day. I don't know much about the Finnish system, so I don't know how accurate it is. Anyone know? I thought it relevant to the "lowest common denominator" idea though, if it is true, as it would seem that they are doing quite well.

Thanks for this, Speedwellblue - really interesting. Finland's tax revenue stands at 43% of GDP. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Ears are on fire! Thank you for seeing things from my point of view even if you don't agree. That surely should be the very essence of MN. Thank you rabbit for kind comments about me, I do try to listen to others peoples agreements and respect their views, think deeply about my motives, try to engage and yes luck has dealt me a good hand.
I understand people's objection to independent ed and often feel slightly uncomfortable that my DS's have do much when I know many children, whose welfare I feel passionately about, have so little.
I'm as guilty as the next person of occasionally justifying my position by accusing people of jealousy hypocrisy or stupidity. I try to not make things too personal but sometimes I get so goaded I can't help myself! But to err is to be human.
Humans are so different, increasingly education and many others area of course have become a one size fits all. This I know from my own work its so frustrating we are not able to do what we know is right because it's not what's currently being prescribed. This is one of the main reasons we've turned away from the state sector because we wanted some thing different, education is for life, for this DS we wanted Div, we wanted boarding, we wanted an intellectual education, we wanted there actually to be no limit on what he could learn, as everyone knows I'm not interested in swimming pools, gyms and bathrooms, I dont want to man teddy bear stalls or be a leading light on the PTA, I want an education for my DS that is free of endless interference, attune with our views on education, learning because it there, learning for life to improve your quality of life/your view on the world. We are just lucky, it's nothing more than that DS2 was given the opportunity to receive an education that did exactly what we wanted (there are plenty of very well regarded big names I personally wouldn't waste my money on) and we couldn't find it anywhere else and we had the means. No school of course is perfect (especially this week as DS2 is only off till Wednesday) and no school is right for every child and I accept there are excellent state schools out there with happy thriving children and rubbish independent schools. But for us it works. Maybe it's immoral I can see that argument, of course all who want it should have the same, but I know having been beaten into the ground by my job that however hard you try this will never happen.

Also meant to say of course there are many equally bright if not more bright children put there who won't receive as good as an education as my DS is receiving he is as aware of this as we are. I can't square this circle. But sending my DS to a state school would have squared it either.

Children are not sealed empty vessels to be uncorked, filled with a dose of morality by a teacher in a PSHE class, corked back up and sent on their way until the next lesson. The development of a sense of right and wrong is dependent on many factors, some of which are under the control of a school and some of which are not. Others have mentioned the key importance of family attitudes. To this I would like to add the growing influence of a child's peer group. Accumulated life experiences have an effect too, since a child's ability to react wisely and with due consideration is constantly being refined as the child receives feedback from the environment. (In fact, this process continues throughout adult life.)

So, I cannot 'buy' Mr Walden's notion that the provision of a moral compass is the province of schools and all would be lost without their input. It just creates too simplistic a picture.

The unspoken implication of Mr Walden's assertion, namely that children who attend private schools end up more moral in their behaviour than their counterparts in state schools, has also given me pause for thought.

I was reminded of some research I had come across a little while ago that looked at the relationship between prosocial behaviour and class. (Prosocial behaviour is behaviour promoting harmonious relations in groups - not quite morality but related.) The particular behaviours studied included generosity, helpfulness, empathy and compassion. See, for example:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20649364

healthland.time.com/2011/12/21/got-money-then-you-might-lack-compassion/

newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/12/19/classandincome/

Mr Walden might be surprised to learn that those of lower socioeconomic status - not his natural customer base - outperformed those of higher socioeconomic status, showing themselves to be better at tasks requiring prosocial behaviour. Understandably, the results have caused some controversy and there was a flurry of articles covering the work in the mainstream media.

While I can see that the work cannot be dismissed - it was published in peer-reviewed scientific journals by university-based researchers - I remain cautious about the findings.

The researchers made it clear that they don't think the wealthier participants in the experiments were cold hearted. They had simply not had access to the sort of life experiences which promote prosocial behaviour to the same extent as the poorer participants. The hardships endured by and witnessed by poorer individuals whilst immersed in their struggling communities, and the ways in which they learn to respond to these circumstances, seem to be the essential elements.

Much has been written about the 'extras' that wealthier students bring to the table as they seek to gain admission to university courses and opportunities for further study. In some ways, it would be reassuring to know that those from more disadvantaged backgrounds might have their own unique hardship-honed talents to offer too.