Message #3454

[Martin]

As I say, my belief is that those who send their kids to them now would continue to make the schools unwelcoming to anyone not from their background, and to subsidise them on top of the govt spending so they would continue to be the 'elite' establishments they now are.

I don't think that would happen Andrew. Even now, within the state system, schools run by local authorities have to declare their income, even the income generated by Parent/Teacher Associations.  There are things that such money can't be spent on - suppose the PTA of a LA run primary school wanted to fund extra teachers for instance. What could happen is that funding would be reduced by the LA because the budget was no longer needed. So it's easy to see how fairness could be introduced with a reasonable political will.  If the overriding objective was fairness to all, then it could be substantially achieved.

I was brought up in Shamley Green, which is also one of the most expensive areas of the country to buy property in (think Eric Clapton and Richard Branson for starters!), and it too has a reasonable Council estate, but even so it was quite clear that the 'council' kids went to the local school and the kids of house owners generally didn't. If getting the kids into their preferred schools had meant moving to the relevant catchment area 99% of those people would easily have been able to, and would not have hesitated to do so. In this way they would swamp the catchment area, meaning that another school would be needed, and guess whose kids would end up going to each school?

Again, I'd say that it depends on the political will involved.  If it was generally accepted, within government, that fairness and integration were desirable goals, any new school would be built with that in mind, positioned so that its catchment was not only from one social grouping.
You're right to believe that its a battle - that those with the money and power will not give up on trying to swing the system in favour of their own children.  That, in essence, is the 'ideal' they strive for -and they don't give up on it.  But fair minded people can also be idealists, and our ideals are for much higher minded causes.  In the political debates, fairness can win, it just needs people to keep on saying it.

The point is that, no matter how the govt legislates, this is a problem which is almost entirely intractable, since the people who most need to change their attitude (not something a govt can control incidentally) are precisely the ones with the greatest self-interest in NOT changing their attitude!

So the rules and the objective of government, and of fair-minded people must be to oppose these attitudes, to insist on fairness, to set up the system in such a way that redresses the balance between rich and poor.   If we take your attitude and just give up, saying that there is no stopping these people, that all outcomes where the poor get poorer and the rich get richer are inevitable, then that is what will happen.   

This is why I believe we have to tackle it from the other end and ensure that those from the 'less good' schools (which are actually often just as good if not better!) have positive discrimination in terms of universities, so that they can prove to their contemporaries from the 'elite' schools that they are just as good - and can get into the 'old-boy' network of University (as opposed to school) colleagues.

It's not an either/or - it's a both.  Yes we should tackle it from the other end, as you say, but we should tackle it from both ends.  If, as you argue, change is going to be extraordinarily difficult to bring about, then we need all measures rather than just some.

This does require a greater emphasis on schools and also (and I believe crucially) a re-setting of the expectations the kids learn to have of themselves as a result of the expectation the teachers (and  often also parents) have of them getting into 'good' universities. The poverty of expectation among so many kids is truely tragic!

Yes I agree, expectations are the key.  As I mentioned before, it is propaganda, that keeps the cycle of low expectations in place.  Kids don't achieve because they are told they will not achieve - the fact that they don't achieve is reinforced in their children who in turn believe that they will not achieve.  That's why, if enough people say that private education can't be abolished, it won't be abolished.  If enough people say that government can't interfere with directors' pay rises then 50% pay rises will abound in the boardroom, while the workforce gets lower than inflation rises.  We have to challenge the accepted 'wisdom'  and believe me, the argument from fairness is a strong one. What we need to do is to make it heard and refuse to accept the hype that it cannot be brought about.

A man once talked about the kingdom of heaven being among us - but you can't see it he said.

It's an important thing to believe, that heaven can be built on earth - not because it can ever be fully achieved, but because we must never believe that we have done as much as is possible, that we have to accept, as normal, a certain level of evil, because we can't eliminate it.  We must always dream the dream, strive for the goal and never talk defeat.