Strike

[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.

Complete rubbish.

[JJ]

I work for a charity run as a collective, and interestingly when we have interference from any overseeing type of body it's to make sure that we are immune from possible litigation and looking bad, and not to check that we are serving our 'customers' properly.  We are ordered to do things to satisfy the top rather than to satisfy the service users.  It's as if everyone is worried about threats from above.

[AndyHB]

Complete rubbish.

You may want it to be rubbish, Martin, but it has been the regular finding of review after review over the last 30 years, at least.  The original idea of comprehensive education was to have totally mixed ability classes for every subject.  This was quickly dropped - in secondary schools at least - for all the main subjects, such as Maths, English and separate Sciences.  Today, very few secondary schools do not stream pupils according to ability in many subjects.  The only ones that are generally not streamed are Design & Technology, RE, PE and Art. Otherwise, wherever there are more than a single class's-worth of pupils taking an exam subject, you will tyend to find streaming.

[Martin]

Andy, you've just shown that you didn't understand what I wrote.  I was not saying anything about mixed ability classes.  If the rich and the powerful had to send their children to the same schools as the rest of us, then they would ensure that state schools got better funding, more resources, better teaching standards, lower class sizes etc.

Furthermore, such a move would help to break down class barriers (though there are many other factors).

The very basis of the capitalism which the rich worship, is that, by working hard, and being lucky enough to have a good brain, one may achieve success.  The whole idea of private schools which confer advantage to those whose parents can pay, runs counter, even to the ethos of capitalism.  A brainy child from a poor family will more quickly become disillusioned if she realises that the system is designed to keep her in her place.

[Martin]

Rich get richer. Poor get poorer

[AndyHB]

Andy, you've just shown that you didn't understand what I wrote.  I was not saying anything about mixed ability classes.  If the rich and the powerful had to send their children to the same schools as the rest of us, then they would ensure that state schools got better funding, more resources, better teaching standards, lower class sizes etc.

Would they?  There are plenty of rich and powerful who send their children to state schools, yet the reason many of the schools their children attend are good has got very little to do with them, and a lot more to do with the fact that they are often amalgamations of previously good schools with previously reasonable schools; good teaching and admin. staff; location; raw 'material'; access to outside influences, such as work experience opportunities, and places to visit; and other factors.  Rather than blaming 'teaching standards' many ofd which are far higher than when you and I were at school, blame the politicians for their constant tinkering with curricula, educational policy, ideas of best practice, etc.

[Martin]

Would they?  There are plenty of rich and powerful who send their children to state schools, yet the reason many of the schools their children attend are good has got very little to do with them, and a lot more to do with the fact that they are often amalgamations of previously good schools with previously reasonable schools; good teaching and admin. staff; location; raw 'material'; access to outside influences, such as work experience opportunities, and places to visit; and other factors.  Rather than blaming 'teaching standards' many ofd which are far higher than when you and I were at school, blame the politicians for their constant tinkering with curricula, educational policy, ideas of best practice, etc.

Sigh, Andy, you are showing that you still haven't grasped it. It doesn't matter that some (a few) of the rich and powerful send their children to state schools. The majority don't. These people are not idiots.  They choose private education because it buys them something - some of what it buys them is a better academic standard, some of what it buys them is status, an education where they are taught that they are the elite, the ruling class, where they are taught all those little nuances that allow them to be prosper.  It's a divisive system where the common people's education is looked down upon even if can be just as good, where the old-boy network flourishes, and the same families, same crowd with the same outlook keep and grow their wealth and their power and pass it on from generation to generation.  You have to undo such a system before you have a chance of fixing the problems it creates.

[AndyHB]

Sigh, Andy, you are showing that you still haven't grasped it. It doesn't matter that some (a few) of the rich and powerful send their children to state schools. The majority don't. These people are not idiots.  They choose private education because it buys them something - some of what it buys them is a better academic standard, some of what it buys them is status, an education where they are taught that they are the elite, the ruling class, where they are taught all those little nuances that allow them to be prosper.  It's a divisive system where the common people's education is looked down upon even if can be just as good, where the old-boy network flourishes, and the same families, same crowd with the same outlook keep and grow their wealth and their power and pass it on from generation to generation.  You have to undo such a system before you have a chance of fixing the problems it creates. 

If this is your understanding, Martin, it shows how little you understand about private education, Martin!!  Yes, there are some who will send their little horrors to such schools for this reason, but many send them for other reasons.  For some it is the sports education; for others, its because they don't want to send their children to schools in the countries in which they work - if there are any that cater for ex-pat children anyway (when I was at school there were probably 1/4 of the student body in this situation and the same applied for many of the other 'local' independents like Marlborough, Radley and Stowe).  For some, it's because there simply isn't the room in the local state system, and they therefore scrimp and save to enable their children to get any education at all.

I'm afraid that you want to simplify the issue beyond all reality to make a false argument.

[Martin]

I'm afraid that you want to simplify the issue beyond all reality to make a false argument.

I'm afraid you want to keep your head in the sand about the real reasons that rich and powerful people send their children to private schools Andy, you'll dig up any objection you can to the argument that people with money choose private education to acquire an enhanced future for their children.  What does it matter if 1/4 of those attending the private school that you attended were there because their parents were abroad? 3/4 of them weren't! And would those who were working abroad have chosen state schools over the private schools had they been based in Britain?  What if state schools had been available with a number of boarding places, would they have chosen those schools?  There is no reason why the state can't provide a system where boarding costs are paid for by the parent but schooling is provided in the normal state system.

So, yes, at the moment, there will be some situations in which children will have to go to private boarding schools, but no, this is not the major reason that people send their children to private schools.  To use it as such, is a ****-poor attempt to obscure the truth rather than an attempt to elucidate it. 

[AndrewF]

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.

I don't know what happened to it but I did post a reply to this some days ago... - Ah well, here it is as far as I can remember:
The most important part of your reply is this bit " 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.", and of that the most important part is "if they must".  The problem is making them do so if they are in an area where the housing is expensive and the rich parents are the only ones who can afford to own them. Unless there is a lot of low-cost rental housing there as well the less-well-off will not be in the catchment area. In addition to this the children of such families will be like fish out of water as they will not be able to afford the school trips etc (or even the same sort of holidays) as their contemporaries from rich backgrounds and will not want to be at those schools as a result.
In addition to this you comment on the finances. You suggest that the govt should move to redress the balance of money going to the top schools. They already have done this as much as they can. The top schools get NOTHING from the Govt - and they are still better off than the state schools. What more can the govt do to remove funds from them?
I do not actually think we are as far apart as you think ideologically. I would be very happy for everyone to go to schools which are as good as the top ones now are. The trouble is that I do not believe human nature will allow this, as those with the money will always find a way to ensure that the schools which have traditionally been those the elite went to stay that way. I think our difference is more in methodology rather than ideology!
In later posts you emphasise the separation which results from having the privilege of private education - but as I say, even if these schools were forcibly 'nationalised' they would still be the ones the 'elite' go to and the said elite would ensure that more money goes to them than to other state schools, ensuring they stay the elite establishments they currently are. Making them into state schools will not prevent this, since, as I say above, there will be a self-selection by the parents (and the kids themselves) against the 'hoy-poloy' getting in in any significant number.

[Martin]

To address your points in order Andrew. 

You're right that geographical inequality exists on the basis of rich and poor areas.  It's one of those things that's difficult to address, and abolishing private education will not eliminate all inequalities, but it will help a lot.

I live near to Alderley Edge - an area where there is one of the highest incidences of millionaires in Britain.  But even within Alderley Edge there is a sizeable council estate.   If all children went to their local state schools, then the schools there would contain quite a sizable minority of children from those estates.  I'm sure that you're right, that children from underprivileged families would notice their lack of privilege in such a school - as for going on school trips, perhaps skiing trips to Austria should be replaced with other less expensive trips, perhaps help should be given to less privileged children, it already happens with school dinners after all.  But the point is that the mix of pupils, if encouraged and managed well, will lead to a better understanding between rich and poor communities.  The disparity between rich and poor would become more apparent to the coming generation, and the pressure to change the system so that it is fairer would grow. 

You don't have to go back to Marie Antoinette to realise that the rich love to deny the plight of the poor.  From walled estates with private police forces to exclusive clubs and first class compartments, the rich only want the poor in their lives when they want to increase their own wealth with the services that the poor are forced to offer at so-called 'competitve' (meaning low) prices. Dickens' ghosts were exposers of the uncomfortable truth.

As you say, the top schools get nothing from the Government, but they still have more money to spend on their pupils than the state schools.   What I was talking about was increased funding to state schools in deprived areas to lower class sizes and improve educational resources - provided at the expense of the taxpayer - something worth spending taxes on as opposed to aircraft carriers. The government can't remove resources from those privileged schools they don't fund - which is precisely why they should abolish private education.

You may be right that these ideals will never be realised - whether it's due to human nature or propaganda is the question.  But, as I say, that doesn't mean that it's wrong to be an idealist.  If you get a growing majority of idealists who call for real change, then sooner or later something will give. You have to remember who the opposition are.  Those who send their children to schools like Eaton, Harrow and Westmisnter are people given to getting their own way - these are the people who tell you that adequate pensions can no longer be afforded.  It is they who set your expectations, it is they who tell you that resistance is useless, that human nature will not allow your ideals to become reality. Look at the link I posted a few posts back Rich get richer. Poor get poorer.  This is surely one of the reasons why things are not affordable for the poor.  Once they were.  They can be again, but not without a lot more supposed 'idealist thinking'. 

Don't be defeated.  Keep on resisting evil.

[AndrewF]

Martin,
i could not agree more about increasing the school budget at the expense of the defence one - though I think I would target the Trident programme, before the aircraft carriers... but I am afraid I just don't see that abolishing private schools would make any difference.
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 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?
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!
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.
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!

[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.

[Martin]

"We have created a situation where many people live in relative poverty while others have far more than they can ever hope to spend.

In fact, the divide between the wages of the rich and the poor is growing in nearly all of the world's leading economies.

It doesn't have to be this way."  - John Sentamu

[AndyHB]

"We have created a situation where many people live in relative poverty while others have far more than they can ever hope to spend.

And I doubt whether the Archbish. of York was suggesting that we drag everyone down to the lower of these levels.  I'm afraid that, at least in the education arena, that is what you have espoused here tends to do, Martin.  Exactly what the right solution is, I'm not too sure: just none of the existing ones.