Boris

There isn't a great deal of point trying to debate this with you whilst you will not recognise that people make choices other than around 'disruptive pupils' or indeed that their excessive fears of possible disruption may be based on prejudices, big or small.

But consider that there are some 'outstanding' ofsted rated schools in London which are primarily used by black pupils. They tend not to be used by local white middle class people despite their willingness to bus their children long distances to other 'outstanding' schools in the state sector, or to faraway private schools.

It's a bit Flat Earthing to pretend that race and class are not factors. You could acknowledge this without having to make the leap that people shouldn't do so if you like. Despite the repeated falsehoods I haven't ever said what people should do, but if there is an Elephant in the room it's worth pointing out...er Jumbo...

 

Both my girls went to Newton farm school in Harrow. Up until recently it was right up there with the absolute best schools in the country. 95% of the pupils were Asian. According to your warped thinking this was because white people didn't want their kids to go there because......????? The real reason was that the school was so good that you had to live within 100 meters of the school gates to get in. 100 meters. The population ratio in that area was about 95% to 5% Asian to White.

Don't fall into the race trap because you'll just dig deeper.

 

I would be extremely surprised if people would chose not to send their kid to an excellent school because of the race of the children there.

I can only speak from my own experience. You will be surprised no doubt to learn that I went to private school. However, it certainly wasn't because my parents wanted to segregate me or whatever you think goes on. Indeed, the make up of the pupils at my school was about 40% christian, 30% Hindu, 20% Jewish with a smattering of Muslims, Japanese and Chinese. We all got along just fine. Studied together. Played sport with each other. Made fun of each other. And in the later years went to pubs together.

I guess this was because we didn't have someone like you telling us how different we were. Moose - you'd be amazed that if you let kids of all races just hang out together without making a big deal about it they'll actually get on with one another.

 

There's nothing to dig Diamond. It's a credit to you that education comes first above every other consideration. I've heard a lot of different conversations from parents with other things on their minds.

 

You've had "a lot" of conversations with parents who say they want to pay for private education because they don't want their kids to mix with other races? Where you at a Klan meeting when this happened?

Given your propensity for making things up that people have said in this thread excuse me for being sceptical. Maybe it's just me, but it feels like the country has moved on from these kind of attitudes.

 

How did we 'move on' from those attitudes? Or are people just a bit more careful with their language?

 

Well from my experience at schools, university and in the workplace everyone just gets on. The concept of race doesn't enter anyone's head and we're all just equals. Isn't that moving on?

Of course there is the odd extremely embarrassing moment when an entrenched elderly person may say something inappropriate but it's extremely rare to find anyone with racist views under the age of 50. Such people are viewed as dinosaurs now. Almost with the same pity when you see a 1980s football hooligan still giving it the large one with his bald head and pot belly petruding out of his polyester Chelsea shirt.

From my experience London is a wonderful multi cultural city now.

 

Actually I wouldn't disagree with this greatly, but social outcomes are very different to attitudes.

 

As attitudes gradually change, social outcomes will follow.

We don't need someone perpetually looking for some sort of " 'ism " ready to stoke up the fire like some sort of radical Imam.

 

I'm a bit confused now. Is Boris an albino and actually from black heritage? If so, you can't say fairer than that.

 

Says the man with the beard perpetually on the lookout for heresy. :sign15:

 

I think that if we accept that education, like health, is a right of our people, rather than a privilege, then I can see Moose' point of view to an extent. Ultimately, as a capitalist, or more accurately a believer in meritocracy, it would be unfair for some kids to be doomed from birth because of poor parents.

However, even in Broken Britain, I don't think that this is currently the case and nor do I think that the root to improving things further is to target the private education establishment. Surely we're better off by increasing the base level of education across the country so that each child at least receives an educational opportunity in life which will enable them to meet their potential. If rich people want to pay for a school with a boating lake and oak paneled dining hall, then that's fine, as long as everyone else is given a fair shot at leaving school to earn enough money to make a choice about how their children are educated.

 

So presumably there was a time when there were attitudes that needed changing ZZ, when people other than just mad-eyed lefties could spot inequality. Thatcher, for example, was infuriated by the 'old boy' network.

Where did you stand then and what was the precise date that normal people stopped bothering about different outcomes for different groups of people?

 

We can all spot inequality, Moose. We all know that rich people can pay for schools that poor people can't. We don't need you to point that out, thanks very much.

My view is that the education would be better served by improving the general standard of state schools to match the aspirational, and more successful state and private schools. Whereas, as far as I can make out, you seem to think state schools are already good enough, but want to do away with private schools anyway, lest the privileged few get a leg-up with their networking. In fact, most of your argument is about the toffs not wanting to mix with the riff-raff, not about improvement of education at all! If I am right, it is me that is doing the "bothering" and you that is being... well, something else.

 

I don't want to overstate the importance of going to a private school. There are 'problem' areas in the most prestigious schools but that doesn't extend to every single private school in the country. Its not like if you go to a state school you are forced to go into serfdom. Most people don't go to private school and most people do very well for themselves.

I have heard many people phoning into radio debates on LBC or whatever saying that because they pay for private schooling/healthcare they are being taxed twice blah blah blah, I can't say more than that.

But I do believe that everyone should suffer equally in this case, even though that is a strange way of looking at it. You have a very bleak view of state education if you consider it suffering! When it comes to children - who did not choose their parents, their family's wealth, their colour, background or anything else - I fully believe in a level playing field, period. Obviously when somebody is old enough to take care of their own life and decisions they can and will get help from wherever they can, but not in school. People from private schools are the ones who come from economically stable homes best placed to do well in state schools anyway.

Getting rid of private schools would have pretty much zero impact on education for the majority of private school goers, but it removes an antiquated institution (?) in private schools. For me the principle of equality trumps the principle of being able to spend money on whatever you want.

 

Parents of private school children may mention that they are paying for education twice on phone-ins, but that is usually as a defence. They are still paying their public tax, and then some more for the private school. I've never heard anyone suggest that they should pay less tax because of it.

"Children don't choose their parents...etc", is true. But there will never be equality, whilst African children are born a 30 mile walk from their school, if they have a school to go to, and can afford it. Whilst the faith, catholic or church schools only admit their own religion, whilst there are special needs schools, whilst there are schools in run down areas and schools in richer areas. While there better schools nearer one childs home than another, or where there are worse teachers in one school than the next, but who do their level best to prevent any assessment of their skills. Where parents scrimp and save for extra home tuition, in a subject that their child struggles in, etc, etc.

Yes, wouldn't be great if all those inequalities would suddenly disappear overnight.

Personally, I would prefer to say to my kids. "There are kids your age that have got an advantage. That means that you will need to work harder to compete in the jobs market".

 

"Getting rid of private schools would have pretty much zero impact on education for the majority of private school goers"

Well we don't know what would happen is the correct answer.

But this is a big risk you are taking with 1000s of children's futures to satisfy your ideological social engineering experiment!

 

"For me the principle of equality trumps the principle of being able to spend money on whatever you want."

Even if you abolish private schools there would be no equality. Some state schools are excellent. Some are shockingly poor. How is that equality of opportunity?

As an aside, imagine the backhanders that would go on if you did this. The best state schools would suddenly have a 10,000 capacity sports stadium built for them from an anonymous benefactor, the grand opening conincidentally being the same time as the catchment area was modified to include the Fitzsimmons estate

 

"For me the principle of equality trumps the principle of being able to spend money on whatever you want."

So someone that works bloody hard earns a little bit or extra cash over the average man should be prevented from spending that cash as they see fit. Any extra cash gained through effort should go into a massive tax pot where everyone gets the same paid out.
Those that can't be bothered to work, or are happy doing a less taxing but less paid roll then get the same benefit as those that have worked their arses off.

Sounds fair to me, where do I sign up? Cuba?

 

I agree with that, but you can't defend something by saying nothing can be done about it. If that was the case then society would never progress anywhere.

That comes into it too and I would also agree with that - you have to live your own life regardless of anyone else. But as I said before, its not a defense of it happening.

Hang on, weren't you saying before that the leg up wasn't all that much and it was only at the top schools where the advantage was that great? Now you are suggesting that 1000s of kids futures would be in danger if they go a state school. What gives those children the birth right to such a seemingly unchangeable, fantastic education over a child born into a less fortunate background? Your idea of state school is a bit off I think too. My mate has just became a fully qualified doctor, two others are doing scientific phds, one works as some sort of risk assessor for citibank and all sorts. You can't have much faith in the ability of your child if you think that just by attending a state school they will have their whole future risked! (I don't mean 'your' child btw, its none of my business if you have kids or not). Perhaps I have more faith the ability of privately educated children then you do! :]]

Private schooling is not a compatible belief to have in a society purporting to be a meritocracy. If you progress on merit then obtaining a headstart on the rest of the kids simply on the basis of background is not a reasonable situation. Assuming you are correct about the size of the advantage in private schools, imagine how many privately schooled children obtain jobs on the basis of grades which they would not have achieved in state school? Those kids in state school who obtain the lower grades that those privately schooled children would have received if they had been educated there themselves are then unable to get the same jobs despite having the same academic ability. We therefore end up with possibly brighter state school kids who achieved the same level of grades as private school kids under more challenging circumstances not getting the right level of job for their ability.

All that being said, grades and academia are of course far from the be all and end all of existence. Its rarely the case that your grades would entirely decide your future...

Again, as with a few of zztops comments I wouldn't consider that a defense of private schools - nothing was ever achieved by people shrugging their shoulders and saying "oh well, that's the way it is".

 

That's quite obviously not what PG said. You can work harder and earn more money (if only the world were this simple, mind) and spend it however you like on a whole host of things, but children's education in this country, where state schools should be good and improving year on year etc etc, PG thinks allowing people with enough money to pay for their otherwise equal to the rest of the kids in the country to go to a private school should not be an option.

He didn't say all excess money earned should go in a tax pot or whatever, and he didn't say that lazy people should get 'the same benefit' as those who work their arses off. The point being made was that it is not a child's fault whether or not their parents have money, and it is not anything to do with the child's choices etc whether or not the parents are lazy, hardworking, stupid, smart... that's the whole point beig made here as far as I can tell. Also calling education a benefit in this country is wrong.

 

"Hang on, weren't you saying before that the leg up wasn't all that much and it was only at the top schools where the advantage was that great? Now you are suggesting that 1000s of kids futures would be in danger if they go a state school. What gives those children the birth right to such a seemingly unchangeable, fantastic education over a child born into a less fortunate background? Your idea of state school is a bit off I think too. My mate has just became a fully qualified doctor, two others are doing scientific phds, one works as some sort of risk assessor for citibank and all sorts. You can't have much faith in the ability of your child if you think that just by attending a state school they will have their whole future risked! "

Nope - I've always said that only the very top private schools provide a contacts network which gives people a social advantage over and above the education itself. The majority of private schools just fix the failings of the State in providing good education in a certain area. If you take those away you are risking the education of 1000s of kids who go to those middle rank institutions because the failings of the State still exist.

Also I've never claimed all State schools are bad - some are fantastic. However, if you are a parent and your kid gets allocated a poor school with poor discipline, it's the parent's business if they want to sacrifice other expenditure and pay for private education. A kid can be as brainy as can be, but if his lessons are constantly being disrupted or has a teacher who doesn't push the kids then he's going to get lower grades inevitably.

 

Eh?

Where did I say anything about taxes, people not working, doing lesser roles, benefits...?

I didn't say that you have to save all your money for private school and then hand it to the government. You can buy a solid gold dog with it, who cares? There would just be no private schools to spend it on, that's all.

 

"Private schooling is not a compatible belief to have in a society purporting to be a meritocracy. If you progress on merit then obtaining a headstart on the rest of the kids simply on the basis of background is not a reasonable situation. Assuming you are correct about the size of the advantage in private schools, imagine how many privately schooled children obtain jobs on the basis of grades which they would not have achieved in state school? Those kids in state school who obtain the lower grades that those privately schooled children would have received if they had been educated there themselves are then unable to get the same jobs despite having the same academic ability. We therefore end up with possibly brighter state school kids who achieved the same level of grades as private school kids under more challenging circumstances not getting the right level of job for their ability."

If we have all State schools then it also not a meritocracy that some kids get into a great State school and some have to go to a disruptive one. Unless all schools are identical then there will always be an advantage for someone.

To a certain extent this is already taken into account - some of the top universities now I gather make lower entry grade offers to State school pupils than Private school pupils. This was certainly discussed extensively although I confess I don't know if it actually happens.

As things stand you may get a bright kid who falls into the wrong crowd and gets poor grades even though he is intellgent. This is a tragedy and needs addressing by government policy towards State schooling. However, I don't see that you improve this situation by taking another kid out of private school and leaving 2 kids on the scrapheap, as opposed to 1 kid. Seems just an ideological levelling of the scores to me and an incorrect way of thinking about things.

To be brutally abrupt, if there is an extremely intelligent kid who has has frittered his education away by being in with the wrong influences, he is of less use to employers than the less intelligent kid who was lucky and got to a good school. The educated weaker specimen may have lower long term potential, but employers are often hiring someone who can add value in the short to medium term. They can always go out and poach their top guys from elsewhere. Unfortunately employers don't have time or resource for a "Good Will Hunting" adventure to get the intelligent guy back on track.

Such a shame when potential is wasted, but blame the government, not the private schools.

 

Fair points, and I agree with you about the majority of private schools not providing a free ticket to paradise.

Where we diverge is I think it is up to the children to deal with it within reason. Parents should not have the choice, because given the choice of course a parent is going to want to make things easier for their child, its the natural thing to do. Private schools exist because parents care about their children. However many cannot afford to do so (even sacrificing a lot) and care about their child just as much. I did not go a great state school, but so far as I know everybody who wanted to do well did do well and those who didn't want to do well did badly.

Not wanting private schools isn't a criticism of parents who send them to private schools, or a criticism of the children to go there.

Some do well anyway, some don't. That is life. Artificially increasing the chances of good schooling and grades for those who can afford to sacrifice income/outright afford it simply doesn't sit with the way I would like the country to work.

 

I respect your point of view and you communicate it well. Think ultimately we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

We'll have to beg to disagree. If someone wants to spend money to educate their kid therefore freeing up resources for people who want education paid out of taxes, who are we to stop them as long as the education provided meets basic minimum standards. If state education isn't up to scratch, banning private education isn't going to fix it. It's like poking your eyes out if you don't like the colour of your car.

I just don't see why we should treat education any differently to anything else. If you want to pay more you get more. If what is achievable at an afforable or state provided price isn't good enough, then improve it.

 

You put your argument across extremely well, PG. We wouldn't agree on all this of course, but you have certainly made me think!

But just to extent your thoughts on equality...

...I am sure you agree that disruption is more prevalent amongst those kids that can't get through the lessons easily, the strugglers, etc. Smarter kids, I would suggest, enjoy the lessons more and act accordingly.

So how about streaming? Is it fair that smarter kids get the benefit of less disruptive classes, just because they were born a bit smarter? After all, they can't choose their parents and therefore cannot choose their genes!

 

I can tell you first hand that this disruption is unfortunately not limited to less gifted students.

I went to a Grammar school that selected from the top whatever % (20%? Can't remember) of 12-plus candidates. This means that my classmates were made up of others who should be theoretically more gifted children when compared to the average.

I still experienced a lot of disruption in lessons from some of the other students (same names all the time, of course). Some kids just don't want to learn, unfortunately, no matter how smart they are.

I don't mean to say that less gifted kids who are struggling won't be disruptive (there is ample evidence that some will), only that toxic behavior in class is certainly not limited to the lower end of the intelligence spectrum.

The question of how to handle disruptive students in a nation which (rightly) mandates education for all children is a very difficult one to answer.

 

Some weirdness going on here. Posts disappearing.

C'mon, who's not putting coins in the meter?

 

I have lost all posts between 1.14am and 12.45pm

 

The excellent debate from this morning has been ripped from history and thrown into the abyss. In future centuries historians will weep at this cultural vandalism.

 

I thought in particular both the apologies offered by you and ZZ were heartwarming and I thank you once again. ZZ went quite beyond expectations with his calls to scrap not only public schools, but also the House of Lords and the Monarchy. So much so that I did fear he might have received a bang on the head.

 

Never let it be said that I am not prepared to listen to others, Moose.

Personally, I was somewhat puzzled by your argument that the state schools were as good as public schools whilst you also maintain that Public schools provide an advantage with their better teachers. Such confusion. So, you can imagine how pleased I was that you have agreed to seek a 12 month refresher in socialist dogma in North Korea, away from all this "freedom" nonsense that only serves to cloud the issues. Of course, there is always the possibility that you may prefer it out there, and stay for good, but if you do return we will look forward to hearing your views with more clarity, in 2015.

 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/johnson-must-crack-down-uk-jihadists-084456528.html#TZtZrpu

Now whilst I agree with the sentiment, the fundamental premise worries me. Unless it was a driving offence in this country you have always been innocent until proven guilty.

I suppose you could make it illegal to travel to those countries without official clearance. a reverse visa if you will, but his latest outburst does seem a little ill-thought out.