Strike

[Boudi]

I'm on strike...or will be at 7.30...but I don't have much faith in it.   I'm a gardener whose job is getting sidelined by my bosses.  A strike at this time of year is pointless, and I'm using my day not to protest, but to spend it with Josh, who can't go to school.

Not sure why I post this, but it might be interesting to see anyone elses views on the strike

[Martin]

Well there will almost certainly be people counting up the number of people who were on strike in order to try to make out that the unions were unsuccessful in getting their people out.  So your action is not without its consequence even if you cause little disruption by striking.  At the end of the day this is a propaganda war as much as anything.

Listening to the TV I hear the constant, unchallenged, refrain from the government, that 'public sector pensions are not affordable'.  Meanwhile the government can find money to underwrite loans to businesses.  I hear the government saying that 'nobody in the private sector gets such a good deal as is being offered to the pulbic employees', yet I see FTSE 100 directors getting 50% pay rises (and, presumably, equivalent pension deals).

We are in a war of words.  The millionaire leaders of the political parties have no real knowledge of what it's like to struggle to make ends meet.  Public sector workers are just that. Workers. People who go and do a daily job, often for low salaries, their pension packages will not turn them into super-rich pensioners, they will simply have a reasonable income in retirement.  The fact that private sector workers' pensions are so ****-poor that they won't amount to much, is not a good reason to make public sector pensions just as bad. It's a good reason to force employers to improve private schemes.

Here's a novel plan.  Tax the rich. Abolish tax havens. Sack all directors who have given themselves a mega-rise while giving their workers below-inflation rises (they have proved themselves to be unworthy).  Skew education investment in favour of the poor, abolish private schooling.  Invest in technology, limit the size of banks and mega-companies so that big business doesn't become more powerful than elected governments, and have proper, proportional democracy.  Don't keep on and on ripping off the worker, telling them that there is no money left to afford them while the greedy rich keep on grabbing more.

You won't find David Cameron, Nick Clegg or George Osbourne is any poorer after this double dip.

[AndrewF]

Abolishing private schools would simply increase the size of education budget with no advantage. What you need to do is to ensure that universities do not differentiate in favour of private schools - but probably in favour of state ones. This would deal with the 'old boy network' just as effectively as abolishing the private sector without increasing the demands on the budget. Remember that folks who send their kids to private schools are paying twice for the education - once through their taxes for the place they did not take up and a second time for the place they are using in the private sector.
Also, there is a need for boarding schools for kids of people who are likely to be posted abroad so that they can get the 'right' qualifications for English uni's and have continuity of education - and there is (so far as I know) only one state school with a boarding house... - at least we were told when our kids were there that it was the only one!

[Martin]

Abolishing private schools would simply increase the size of education budget with no advantage.

The advantage is that it would remove a large inequality from the education system.  When those in power have to educate their children in the same places as the rest of us, then the standard of education will rise for all of us.  The money that rich people plough into unfairly benefiting their own offspring, is taken out of the wage packets of the poor.  That's one of the reasons they require their large pay rises to the detriment of lower paid workers.

What you need to do is to ensure that universities do not differentiate in favour of private schools

If there were no private schools then you wouldn't need to do this.  What you're suggesting is a sticking plaster to the real problem. But I agree with you that, to address the inequality in our society, we need to make inroads into the inequalities at all stages of education.  A child who has achieved three grade 'C' A levels from an inner city school has probably achieved as much as a child who achieved three grade 'B' A levels from a comprehensive school in a wealthy area.  And both have achieved more than someone who gets three 'A's from a top private school.  Universities should do more to assess the circumstances of an applicant's education and skew entrance requirements accordingly.

and there is (so far as I know) only one state school with a boarding house... - at least we were told when our kids were there that it was the only one!

No reason why this could not be changed though.

[AndyHB]

The advantage is that it would remove a large inequality from the education system.  When those in power have to educate their children in the same places as the rest of us, then the standard of education will rise for all of us.  The money that rich people plough into unfairly benefiting their own offspring, is taken out of the wage packets of the poor.  That's one of the reasons they require their large pay rises to the detriment of lower paid workers.

Would it, Martin?  We already see that the comprehensive system doesn't do this with the pupils it already has, so why would it do so for those who currently attend private schools.  Remember that the mix of abilities in the private and public systems are largely comparable - the difference is between the options for the less able, because there is far more opportunity for sporting success in the private sector.

And both have achieved more than someone who gets three 'A's from a top private school.  Universities should do more to assess the circumstances of an applicant's education and skew entrance requirements accordingly.

Wrong; the 3 individuals need to be measured on the amount of improvement they have made in their 13 years of education.  Often, the greatest improvers never even make it to A-levels because it requires a considerable level of initial ability to even get to the level at 15/16 in be a viable A-level student.

and there is (so far as I know) only one state school with a boarding house... - at least we were told when our kids were there that it was the only one!

My first teaching post was at a state boarding school!  I believe that there are several of these, even now.  In fact, there is a State Boarding School Association.  http://www.sbsa.org.uk/

[JJ]

It's not only the quality of the education that's different in public schools to state schools, it's the whole ethos.  It's vastly different even for pupils of the same comparable ability.  Public schools and their culture of knowing that they are top dogs, the best, the most privileged, encourage confidence in most of their pupils.

Our son went to both a comprehensive, and then to a well known public school while we went abroad, and there was no comparison between them.  It's just so taken for granted that the best is there for them - my heart broke when we went round the school for the first time to see how much these children had compared to our local, albeit highly regarded, Village College.   The same boy who was ragged for being a compie intake came out looking and behaving like a toff for a while, until he opted to come out again to go to 6th Form college in Cambridge, another hothouse for pampered teens, but nothing like boarding school. 

[Martin]

Well said JJ.

I would be far more worried if AndyHB was agreeing with me!

[AndyHB]

It's not only the quality of the education that's different in public schools to state schools, it's the whole ethos.  It's vastly different even for pupils of the same comparable ability.  Public schools and their culture of knowing that they are top dogs, the best, the most privileged, encourage confidence in most of their pupils.

I know of plenty of state schools who regard themselves as the top dog, and sadly this tends to destroy the confidence of the pupils unless they start very self-confident.  I can also think of several pupils at the public school I attended who were less confident when they left than they had been when they came in.  I think the only real difference is that public schools realise that they need to provide good quality material/equipment AND can afford to do so.  I'm not convinced about the ethos necessarily being different.  The state school our daughters went to had pretty well the same ethos as the public school I attended - aim to get every pupil to at least the level their innate ability allows. 

Unfortunately, the way state schools are set up, very few of the brightest are really pushed; this can often be seen by the number of very bright pupils who end up in special needs classes.  The way that state schools tend to work is that the middle ability range is catered for well, but the top and bottom levels aren't.  This means that Martin's utopian idea of the brighter pupils pulling the less able up to their level is largely just that - utopian.

[JJ]

I didn't mean the educational ethos Andy - more the overwhelming sense of what was right to wear and what wasn't - the quality of it, the colour of it, the make of parental cars on Saturday afternoons visits and what was spoken about in those town cafes - lines and lines of mums and boys shopping for leathery things - not plastic - the homogeneity of the people at parents' days as if they had come out of the Daily Telegraph style and financial pages, the assumptions about class, food, political allegiance, sisters, entertainments, exeats, odd little traditions, rowing picnics in summer term.  Things out of the ken of your average teenager shopping in Braintree town centre on Saturday afternoons and going back on the bus.

[AndrewF]

When those in power have to educate their children in the same places as the rest of us, then the standard of education will rise for all of us.
I simply do not believe this Martin. The same schools will have the same teachers - they will simply be paid by different people. The same schools will still have the same 'old-boy networks'. The same schools will still get the majority of top university places, not because the children going there are any brighter but because A) their background leads them to expect this outcome and B) because they are taught by teachers who expect them to go to these uni's and instil the same expectations in the pupils. This is not the case with many comp pupils, whose paucity of expectation is a huge hindrance to achievement. This is why grammar schools (even when they do not have entrance requirements) do so much better than most comps in their areas. If you are told from the word go that you are expected to achieve you are far more likely to do so than if you are told that you probably won't - a very good reason why secondary modern schools failed. They shouldn't have, because they should have instiled the idea that a good plumber (or whatever) is just as important as a good banker; but there you go!
Anyway those with money will always find ways of getting into the 'best' schools even if there are only state schools, thus crowding out the parents with less money - ensuring that the school would not change much for a very long time. As I say, the only effect would be an increase in the schools budget. The rich parents would supplement the schools capitation from the govt ensuring that the standards did not fall

    What you need to do is to ensure that universities do not differentiate in favour of private schools
If there were no private schools then you wouldn't need to do this.

Yes you would because someone from Eaton (now a state school) will still be far more likely to be expecting to get to a top uni  - it is very largely a paucity of expectation of the pupils because the teachers do not expect it in the first place and because of the kids backgrounds.

Increasing the state schools which provide boarding houses could indeed be done, but probably only easily by taking over the private schools - and see above for my opinion of what that would do!


Having said that, this is of course a generalisation and, as with all generalisations, there are exceptions, not only in the schools as a whole but also in individual teachers within the schools and indeed in parental expectations/involvement and pupil expectations - actually the parental involvement is one of the biggest single factors I believe.


I believe that there are several of these, even now.  In fact, there is a State Boarding School Association.  http://www.sbsa.org.uk/

I stand corrected...

[Martin]

I simply do not believe this Martin.

Then we differ quite emphatically. Even if the old boy network still exists after private education is abolished, it will be weakened.  Those schools who get the top university places, will , if they must admit children from non-wealthy backgrounds, be getting those children into top universities. The money wil always find a way to get into the top schools unless there is a movement, from government, to redress that balance. That means extra funding for schools in deprived areas - something I would advocate.

I'm an idealist taking about ideals.  But the only reason that ideals can't become policy, is that people deny that possibility.

[AndyHB]

I didn't mean the educational ethos Andy - more the overwhelming sense of what was right to wear and what wasn't - the quality of it, the colour of it, the make of parental cars on Saturday afternoons visits and what was spoken about in those town cafes ...

That, of course, assumes that all independent schools cater for only that kind of person.  The school I went to had financiers' sons, clergy sons, dons' sons, diplomats' sons - yes; but it also had the sons of local and less-local merchants, medics and tradesmen.  Iirc, a local journo did a survey of the school shortly after I left, and the two social groups that weren't involved - though probably could have been catered for if necessary - were the A and E bands.

Historically, many of the early grammar schools were established for the edication of those members of society that were not included in the higher eschelons of society.

[AndyHB]

Here's a novel plan.  Tax the rich. Abolish tax havens. Sack all directors who have given themselves a mega-rise while giving their workers below-inflation rises (they have proved themselves to be unworthy).

And who would do the sacking, Martin?  The Government couldn't, because the bulk of these people are in the private sector.  Rather, I'd clamp a 100% tax rate on any bonuses over 50K, and then reduce this a bit each year over time, until companies and organisations learned that paying bonuses as opposed to or in addition to a proper salary was simply unacceptable.

You won't find David Cameron, Nick Clegg or George Osbourne is any poorer after this double dip.

Nor will you find Blair or Brown any worse off, and they have as much responsibility for the crisis as the three above.

[AndyHB]

When those in power have to educate their children in the same places as the rest of us, then the standard of education will rise for all of us.
I simply do not believe this Martin.

Sadly, the evidence of 66 + years has shown this to be a vastly overstated understanding, Martin.  If anything, the standard of education for the middle-level remains the same, whilst the levels for the top and bottom both reduce.

[Martin]

And who would do the sacking, Martin?  The Government couldn't, because the bulk of these people are in the private sector.

You state the problem very clearly Andy. These directors' jobs are extraordinarily secure, far more secure than such performance-based roles should be.  Shareholders are not going to do the sacking, since most  shares are controlled, not by the people whose money pays for them, but by proxies in the form of, say pension fund managers and unit trust managers, looking for gain through buying and selling shares rather than having a say in how the companies are run.  You are wrong, though, when you say that governments can't get involved.  What you mean is that governments won't get involved, because, for them, the market is sacrosanct and they are worshippers of that ideology. 

Could any other ideology grow? Not easily when the press and television tell us that there are no alternatives. But other possibilities exist for running companies, models, say which give the workforce some control, some say in how the company is run and who runs it.  After all, it is the workers who really constitute the company.  They are the co-operating team whose industry produces profit or loss, success or failure,  it is they who stand to lose most if the company fails.

You won't find David Cameron, Nick Clegg or George Osbourne is any poorer after this double dip.

Nor will you find Blair or Brown any worse off, and they have as much responsibility for the crisis as the three above.

Indeed. There is no socialist party, only capitalist parties and it's capitalism that is failing.