Junky, why not go for a ride or something instead, old chap?
I am ill at the moment so cannot
Why not put an e-mail in your profile so that folk can contact you or tell us all what job you do 😉
With regard to the 'equal start' you keep banging on about, is that not what the national curriculum is for?
No that would be to make sure they all study the same things it would not make it equal or else no one would pay for private as it owuld be a waste of money.
Forgive me but whether a pupil attends the local comprehensive or Eton he/she still follows the national curriculum and will sit the same GCSEs and A-levels regardless of the school they attend.
Non sequitor - You are confusing studying the same things and getting the same standard of education. I am not sure whether this is deliberate but its a poor point,
Private schools do not need to follow the national curriculum either but I will happily forgive you your error.
The state system really does need to take a look at how much better things are done elsewhere and make class sizes smaller and offer after school prep/homework time like their private counterparts.
That costs more money hence why they get better results. That is the lesson spend more money get better results oh and of course select on ability.
There will always be have and have-nots, nobody has as yet managed to eradicate that,
No one has really tried though many tells us over and over again that it is inevitable as it suits their agenda
some are more motivated in life than others and are justly rewarded for it.
yes everyone rich has earned it especially the Queen and the Duke of Westminster and pop stars and Jordan and oh you get the point [ nice meme but not true]
I have no issue with choice but in this case choice means allow the rich to have an unfair advantage which reduces social mobility and further curtails us being a true meritocracy with true social mobility.
We may not be able to stop it all but that is no reason to not try or just accept it.
Fair and worse isn't an upgrade on unfair and better.
Lovely phrase/soundbite to be fair but that is not really the choice is it as its only better for the rich or the minority
the disparity in quality is an issue when it is down to money not ability. Whilst we retain the private sector it will allways give better outcomes as it has more money per pupil.
Northwind - Member
Disbanding them today would move towards equality, but the worst sort of equality.
I agree and there was an interesting perspective in yesterday's Guardian from a Finn arguing that their system was far from perfect especially since top-performing students aren't pushed enough:
I am concerned that the Finnish education system is letting down our brightest students. In every country, there is a debate about whether education systems should group children according to their ability. In Finland, we have taken a firm stance not to do this based on the belief that having mixed groups has distinct advantages, such as children teaching each other........In many Finnish classrooms, however, the pace is determined by the lower-achieving students. In the lower grades, all children from the most talented to the least talented are grouped together. Some commend our system for serving all students well, regardless of family background or socio-economic status. But it means our brightest cannot maximise their potential. No other country has so little variation in outcomes between schools, and the gap within schools between the top and bottom-achieving students is slim.We are kidding ourselves if we think these smart young people can make up the gap at university. Firstly, we run the risk that their intellectual energy is diverted into less worthwhile pursuits, getting them into trouble at school. Secondly, starting from behind makes it much less likely that the Nobel prize-winners of tomorrow will come from Finland.
http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/dec/04/education-finland-pisa
Deviant, the independent sector has more freedom of choice regarding curriculum and exams taken. There is significant difference between type, standard and design of exams (eg, modular v linear testing etc) and a proper IB not Gove's pretend one. Its a good control to have - what would teachers do if they were free from gov interference and had fewer resource constraints? There is a 'real' control experiment right in front of our eyes.
Zokes - official stats - there are currently 25,912 foreign students studying in the UK independent sector respresening 5.1% of the total student population (up from 3% in 2006). Is that enough precision for you? According to the body that represents [i]them[/i], this reflects the fact that, "the brand of British education continues to be regarded as a mark of quality worldwide...[and that]...independent schools are recognised by the OECD as being the best academic schools in the world and they are preparing pupils to be successful in a global world."
Still the OECD, the various organisations, the parents of 25,912 and me could all be totally wrong or totally duped!!!
*Reaches out to Junky in his hour of need*
Out. Not around. You filthy lot.
It was also pretty nippy out there today flashy! Note to self, time to dig out the overshoes.
Junkyard - lazarusLovely phrase/soundbite to be fair but that is not really the choice is it as its only better for the rich or the minority
That's not the choice at all! The choice is to improve state schooling rather than bringing down private schooling.
Free schools from what I have heard from comprehensive school teachers are generally set up by well off or at least middle class parents who have the time. They wreck good perfectly good comprehensive schools nearby as they take away good students leaving the schools with the lesser achieving students. That in itself is bad because it's causing students to grow up and learn in a divided society. It's just completely daft, schools need educated teachers that have learnt to teach in year long training courses with plenty of classroom experience.
If Boris ever made it to be Prime Minister he'd be laughed off the political stage. He has no chance, he lives in a London centric bubble where amazingly he manages to charm his way out of the mess he gets into but that's as far as it goes. In that documentary on him he came across as ruthless, nasty and arrogant.
NW +1 again. And again from the Guardian:
A stubborn gap in attainment between Britain's best- and worst-performing students has pinned the UK to the middle of international education rankings, [u]despite years of effort by successive governments to raise standards.[/u]
[My emphasis] - and the lesson is?!?
Deviant you say " The state system really does need to take a look at how much better things are done elsewhere and make class sizes smaller and offer after school prep/homework time like their private counterparts".
Clearly class sizes would be made smaller if more money was spent on the schools and teachers. The state system (as in the schools themselves) don't get this opportunity. Private schools are often dripping in wealth, do you think we can get close to even halving classroom sizes in state schools without immense financial change?
On the counties global ranking, cultural considerations need to be considered. China and other parts of Asia place far more emphasis on working hard and long hours, it is considerably more competitive to get university and business school places in their cities.
On the counties global ranking, cultural considerations need to be considered. China and other parts of Asia place far more emphasis on working hard and long hours, it is considerably more competitive to get university and business school places in their cities.
Scandinavian countries place emphasis on the opposite - yet they are prosperous and well-educated.
The choice is to improve state schooling rather than bringing down private schooling.
Again we cannot reduce the disparity whilst they remain open they will always be far far better than the rest and only the rich can get there
Of course improving standards is the key as well
A stubborn gap in attainment between Britain's best- and worst-performing students has pinned the UK to the middle of international education rankings, despite years of effort by successive governments to raise standards.
Personally I think the current system is adequate for the best and terrible for the worst who get 11 years of being stupid and being in low sets and knowing everyone is brighter. they end up not trying and get even worse results and are often disruptive. the school then view these folks as a problem and just try and manage behaviour rather than attempt to teach them what they would like to learn or what may be useful in later life, we should be teaching them to their full potential as well IMHO. this will be different from what the most able/gifted get,
I would streamline at 11 into various school types much as the germans do as education is about giving all folk the best education for them
Sometimes [ and i think NW is making this point] comprehensive makes it a bit mleh for everyone.
I assume THM point is that it does not work and particularly for the less able/ non academic. I dont disagree sometime one size fits all means only a few folk have comfortable shoes and the rest of us have to make do
I dont mind selection as long as it is on ability and not wealth.
Even then socio economic background is still an affect on outcome though it may be environmental or it may be that the rich as more intelligent
There is probably some truth in both points of view.
They wreck good perfectly good comprehensive schools nearby as they take away good students leaving the schools with the lesser achieving students.
Whats stopping the lesser achieving students going to the free school as well?
Ransos - Yep true, Scandinavian counties are far more affluent than us or to put it another way if you like, they have huge middle classes and smaller populations as a whole. Affluent societies statistically do better, more money to put into the schools, parents statistically place more emphasis on kids learning/homework etc. It's not the way I like it and far from anything ideal/fair but it's fact.
China has a huge and rapidly growing middle class too.
Either way, perhaps the bigger issue is that it is insane and unforgivable that there is such a division of wealth in this country. Our government is failing poorer kids left right and centre.
Ninfan -
There's a perfectly good comp school full of a range of kids, some rich, some poor, some academically better than others. Then a free school is set up elsewhere by those with the time (more likely to be parents that aren't working i.e supported by their partner), along with charities and educational experts...
Free schools are therefore full of middle class suburban kids built in middle class suburban catchment areas. We already have a very segregated school system. Scandinavian schools have found that there is no more segregation than before in their free schools but they don't have such division in their society to begin with.
Look at the money given to free schools too, they have far less kids in them so essentially the money spent on each child is far more than in a standard comprehensive school. Basically they are great for those in them (providing your teacher has actually learnt to teach via a PGCE!!) but they create division.
The answer is to spend more money on current schools as well as clubs and out of school activities in communities rather than stripping them back and screwing them over, reduce class sizes and appoint more trained teachers.
That's not the choice at all! The choice is to improve state schooling rather than bringing down private schooling.
How about we publicly fund existing private schools, and remove the fees (except for foreign students) - entrance on merit only.
What for? They are fine on their own and thrive partly because they are independent. Poor use of tax payers money IMO.
Why not improve the existing publically funded system instead? By the sounds it it, you are (in effect) calling for the re-introduction of grammar schools or some form of state-funded system, selective system where teaching can be tailored better according to needs.
What for?
Do I really have to explain this?
What for? They are fine on their own and thrive partly because they are independent.
Evidence?
Why not improve the existing publically funded system instead?
Why not do both?
What for?
Do I really have to explain this?
thrive partly because they are independent.
Evidence?
Why not improve the existing publically funded system instead?
Why not do both?
As I recall, 'public' schools have charitable status. Removing that might be a start...
grum - Member
Do I really have to explain this?
Well effectively "nationalising" a part of the economy that works well, needs some explaining.
Evidence - free choice on curriculum, type of exams, hiring, above average numbers of ethnic minorities - all based on what the professionals want not a (to quote the late Sir Robin Day) Here-today-gone-tomorrow politician. So they can make they own choices on A level/Pre U/IB rather than Gove's latest wheeze and thank goodness for that.
Why not do both? Its not required, simple. The government have enough to do (failing) to sort out one, why let them mess up both? As the OECD notes, part of our education system is world class even if some on here dislike that fact.
Well effectively "nationalising" a part of the economy that works well, needs some explaining.
I've already explained. Works well for who?
Evidence - free choice on curriculum, type of exams, hiring, above average numbers of ethnic minorities - all based on what the professionals want not a (to quote the late Sir Robin Day) Here-today-gone-tomorrow politician. So they can make they own choices on A level/Pre U/IB rather than Gove's latest wheeze and thank goodness for that.
Some of that might be true - it's not really evidence though is it. So in fact it's just your opinion that non-state automatically = better. Nothing to do with being better funded naturally.
Spoken like a true Tory (but you're not of course).
Above average numbers of ethnic minorities? Do all the foreign students get included in that?
It's target market, the economy (£300-400m in fees coming in from overseas), the wider communities etc....Perhaps that's why Red Ed also supports them and their charitable status unlike his big bro!
Fine if it is not better, what's the worry? Keep the status quo. My point is that keeping constant political interference/influence out of teaching is better. Different argument altogether.
"Gove's latest wheeze" spoken like a true Tory, clearly!!!
No average minorities does not include foreigners - I was surprised at that but checked on Zokes' request. When he wakes up, perhaps he will take back his evidence diatribe. But I doubt it.
these show [ for state schools] that in 2012, the most recent year for which figures are currently available, 74.4% of pupils were from a White British background and 25.6% were from a Minority Ethnic background. Among pupils at ISC schools in England in 2012, this compares with figures of 73.3% and 26.7% respectively.
PAGE 13
It does exclude non british and is true
I was rather surprised by that tbh but its a marginal difference.
EDIT: Despite my lateness of pst after THM i wrote that ages ages ago to Grum. It was not intended to read as if I doubted THM on this but I was surprised by the figure - it excludes Scotland though its english schools only.
Probably as some ethnic minorities have a culture of self improvement and excellence (e.g. Chinese, Indian) and don't spend their time trying to make everyone equally mediocre.
Remember the message from The Incredibles; if everyone is special, then no-one is.
😆
Hmmmm, seems to be a running consensus of opinion that wealth, especially excessive wealth, is the root of all evil and anything related to it is a bad thing. My opinion is a little coloured here as my business is geared towards dealing with (and selling to) the very wealthy, from my perspective they are the source of my income so it's hard to agree with this even if I agree with some of the sentiment expressed if not the arguments themselves.
I spoke to someone the other day spent the evening sat in darkness because they had no money for a leccy card, with no food, no prospect of work, no money for his kids xmas pressies and what income he got was via illegal means. And he's one of many doing the same thing or already in prisonshould not be happening, in this country, in the 21st century, when there is such massive wealth, that is not being taxed or shared.
Clearly this is not right. However this idea of sharing is not one I agree with, tax yes, use the money to drive up educational standards and give everyone a better start in life yes, but share? Semantics I appreciate but share is the wrong word, a little too Robin Hood 😯
Welfare and immigration is significantly to blame. There are always jobs, just lots of them are not very attractive so we allow immigrants to come in, accept low wages and take these jobs. Then welfare pics up the bill at huge expense and traps people in a situation very difficult to escape from.
Back to BJ there was one statement regarding this that I agreed with in principle, he could have used better wording but let's not get distracted by that;
"It seems to me therefore that though it would be wrong to persecute the rich, and madness to try and
stifle wealth creation, and futile to try to stamp out inequality, that we should only tolerate this wealth
gap on two conditions: one, that we help those who genuinely cannot compete; and, two, that we
provide opportunity for those who can."
We need a minimum wage that tracks inflation and stops both government and large business from exploiting low paid workers. Reduce immigration and definitely make sure that foreign workers aren't a 'cheap' solution - they aren't better skilled they just cost less, fix this and you fix a big issue. But don't stop entrepreneurs from getting rich and don't take away their privileges, just tax them and close as many tax loop holes as possible.
State schooling is a problem and until we pay teachers more it'll not be fixed. Removing independent schools is not the solution, that's just daft. You've got to remember that not all independent schools are Eatons, Harrows or Wellingtons, most are just good schools with good facilities - and bedrooms! but not necessarily better educational facilities than the better state schools. There are some very, very good state schools, we just need a government able to bring the poor performing schools into line. What was it Tony said? "Education, education, education". Spot on but as usual hollow words... Don't care who does it just do it already.
seems to be a running consensus of opinion that wealth, especially excessive wealth, is the root of all evil and anything related to it is a bad thing
Really can you highlight someone other than you saying this?
What folk have said is that it gives an unfair advantage to their kids, - the stats back this up hence you have to start off with a ludicrous straw man as the facts support our view which is nothing like what you say.
You object to sharing - have you ever met a parent who does not teach their kids to share ?
How can you object to sharing 😯
The top 1 % own 46 % of the wealth I find it difficult to justify
How can someone not be uncomfortable with this?
[img] 
?w=600[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
I'm not really reading this thread but this jumped out at me:
However this idea of sharing is not one I agree with, tax yes, use the money to drive up educational standards and give everyone a better start in life yes, but share?
Simply ensuring everyone's educated will not do much imo. We've already seen education inflation with degree-educated people doing menial jobs. Some people will always succeed because they have aptitude, some will always be on the bottom, because they don't. As a society we should aim to bring up the bottom of society and make it more comfortable.
To answer your question - share? Yes, damn right. If you have more than you need, why not?
ask1974 - Member
Welfare and immigration is significantly to blame. There are always jobs, just lots of them are not very attractive so we allow immigrants to come in, accept low wages and take these jobs. Then welfare pics up the bill at huge expense and traps people in a situation very difficult to escape from.
😆
'Huge expense' that is completely eclipsed by the treasury's own estimates of tax avoided by those lovely 'wealth creators' who also don't pay a living wage to their employees resulting in them having to claim income support, housing benefit etc.
But it's definitely the poor and the immigrants that are the problem 😆
ask1974 -
"Welfare and immigration is significantly to blame. There are always jobs, just lots of them are not very attractive so we allow immigrants to come in, accept low wages and take these jobs. Then welfare pics up the bill at huge expense and traps people in a situation very difficult to escape from".
Welfare benefit does not cost the country anything like as much as the government has you believe. It's a continual excuse for them to carry on making cuts and pass the blame away from the mistakes they made and allowed banks to make.
Cuts are made to the very people who need the benefit system. Open your eyes and stop listening to the press, it's not the reason the country has financial problems. You either have a system where yes, a minority will always take the piss and take advantage or one where far too many people who need the benefits don't get them and fall into worse health/living conditions like now. There isn't much opportunity for someone to carefully assess every situation and check upon people, it's too expensive.
The reason the country has issues is because of the banks. As it goes the massive tax breaks companies like Amazon and Google get add up to more than the benefits.
Immigration has overall without doubt benefitted the country, doctors, teachers, builders... Polish people particularly have benefitted our economy. These are workers with skills, most of them have not taken the advantage.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25298354 ]More Boris[/url]
Welfare and immigration is significantly to blame
ok, let's see the figures that back this up.
Junkyard of course I object to such extremes of wealth disparity, who wouldn't. And of course I agree with sharing through a structured tax system, in fact my point regarding 'sharing' was a semantic view of the word that got lost a little in translation - let's leave it at that before I dig myself into a hole... 😉
ok, let's see the figures that back this up.
Trailmonkey I wasn't suggesting that these two areas are responsible for the current mess, more highlighting the fact that I believe them to be intimately tied to the problems faced by many with little or no means. I maybe wrong but it's only an opinion so happy to be corrected.
What folk have said is that it gives an unfair advantage to their kids, - the stats back this up hence you have to start off with a ludicrous straw man as the facts support our view which is nothing like what you say.
The stats would, I assume, simply point out that better schooling raises a child's prospects, not that we should remove the best schooling we have. However I completely agree with you that we need to vastly improve our state school system though.
