You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
emove any benefits they once received, forcing them to either live on the streets or rely on charity in the form of foodbanks etc. In fact it's even worse than that, many who have jobs are using food banks or even worse are resorting to pay-day loan-sharks to feed their kids. Did that sort of thing exist in the 70s?
No.
"Did that sort of thing exist in the 70s?" Yes!
No really it was all wonderful and perfect in the 70's there was nowt wrong and there was absolutely no reason for Thatcher to get elected.
She did some bad stuff to industry but she got in for a reason.
The thing with Bozza (as Andrew Rawnsley pointed out in Sunday's observer) is that he doesn't even understand the capitalism he then claims to be the saviour of us all. And this isn't be cause he's thick, its because he's lazy!
He says the only driver for an individual to be entrepreneurial and set up companies, and drive forward technology etc is money. End of. Full Stop. Nothing else. Greed is good, blah, blah, blah…..
Well Bozza… it isn't. Henry Ford didn't set up Ford to make shad loads of cash. He wanted to develop mass transport. Were Bill Gates and Steve Jobs rapacious grasping capitalists who's primary objective was making more money than they knew what to do with? I doubt it!
The only form of capitalism the muppet haired *-wit understands, where the pursuit of money trumps everything, is that sort that his chums in the City have delivered us! Anyone care to suggest how RBS, HBOS, and their diseased ilk are driving forward anything apart from their own unjustifiable bonuses, or are contributing anything to a wider society? What that form of capitalism is, is purely parasitic! Far from driving anything forward, It feeds of the economy like a leech, unconcerned completely with the health of the host (as RBS driving companies into bankruptcy has so graphically illustrated!)
And thats the system that the blonde *-tard triumphs, because he's so terminally un-inquisitive that he'd never think to question the economic self-interest parroted to him endlessly by his corporate lobbyist friends, who must have thought all their birthdays and christmases had arrived at once when that fool was voted in
He says the only driver for an individual to be entrepreneurial and set up companies, and drive forward technology etc is money. End of. Full Stop. Nothing else.
Where does he say this?
mt - Member"Did that sort of thing exist in the 70s?" Yes!
Odd. I was there. I don't remember food banks or %4k APR loan shark companies.
I [i]was[/i] on drugs most of the time, but I think I'd remember that...
Thatcher takes the rap for the change in the UK economy from a low value-added, to a high value added one. Heavy manufacturing has been replaced by specialized manufacturing and an ideas based economy.
The structural change resulted in a generation being put out to grass on benefits, as victims of change. This was the unspoken price that was paid. What the Conservative governments of the 80s & 90s failed to appreciate was that, without significant investment in education, the children (and now grandchildren) of those who were victims of change in the 70s and 80s are still redundant and on benefits.
It really galls me to think of that wasted resource and talent that the people on long-term benefits represents. Think of all the geniuses that we are missing, through lack of education/ opportunity. I think it's scandalous.
That's not to say she didn't have an overall deleterious effect on the country, but she would not approve of today's political elite. Boris wouldn't have stood a chance of getting in her cabinet.
Sorry, but this is utter ahistorical bobbins. Thatcher's cabinets were rammed with (wealthy, influential, "high born") people like Boris Johnson. Thatcher was arguably self-made to a degree (although marrying money didn't hurt), but her support base and ministers were predominantly people exactly like Boris. You say you lived through it - do you remember the disdain that the old Tories had for the self-made Michael Heseltine, about whom Alan Clark said "the trouble with Michael is that he had to buy all his furniture".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Thatcher_ministry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Thatcher_ministry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Thatcher_ministry
Yes woppit I to was there in the 70's.
OK so I wasn't on drugs during the 70s (Mr Woppit 😉 ) but I have a pretty good reason for not remembering, I was five! But speaking to my folks it was a pretty dark and miserable time, literally. Reading through most of this thread it sounds like many feel that Thatcher was a bad thing which, considering the length she was PM is not surprising - a lot of what she did was highly controversial.
I'm no political historian, I'm not a Thatcherite and neither am I a socialist so for this reason I found Boris's speech interesting. When he talks of Thatcher rescuing the UK from a pretty deep shambles one can't disagree that something was needed and that something was MT. For those who bark loudly about her evils and that of the Conservative party what exactly was the rest of political Britain going to do about it back then? strike? That worked well didn't it.
In a time of very similar politicians, largely speaking the same language from almost the same side of the fence I find Boris a bit refreshing. I will be very upset if Ed Miliband ever gets in. IMO Labour still have at least another five years of apologising to do. What was it? "We've abolished Boom and Bust" Ha, you had no idea what you were doing you bloody loonies...
When he talks of Thatcher rescuing the UK from a pretty deep shambles one can't disagree that something was needed and that something was MT. For those who bark loudly about her evils and that of the Conservative party what exactly was the rest of political Britain going to do about it back then? strike? That worked well didn't it.
fallacy #1: something needed to be done, Thatcherism was something, therefore Thatcherism needed to be done.
fallacy #2: the only alternative to Thatcherism at the time was striking.
fallacy #1: something needed to be done, Thatcherism was something, therefore Thatcherism needed to be done.
Really? Quoting the BBC.
But like so many stereotypes, the cliches of the grim 1970s have more than a grain of truth. These were desperately difficult years for Britain, both politically and economically.In many ways they marked a reckoning for a country that had been too complacent for too long, basking in the sunshine of post-war affluence, and indifferent to the fact that our foreign competitors had not only caught up with us - they were leaving us behind.
Sailor Ted, however, soon ran aground, his ship scuppered by the lethal combination of an energy crisis, a financial crash and a second miners' strike in two years.And though Labour's Harold Wilson got the country back to work, it came at the price of inflation at almost 30% and a humiliating bailout from the IMF.
Perhaps never before had the political establishment seemed so impotent and irrelevant - little wonder, then, that for the first time in years, emigrants actually outnumbered immigrants.
Sounds just dandy...
In a time of very similar politicians, largely speaking the same language from almost the same side of the fence I find Boris a bit refreshing.
Yes he'd make such a refreshing change from the public-school educated elite currently running the country. 🙄
I will be very upset if Ed Miliband ever gets in. IMO Labour still have at least another five years of apologising to do. What was it? "We've abolished Boom and Bust" Ha, you had no idea what you were doing you bloody loonies...
Not this old chestnut. 🙄
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html
Boris = Politician with ambition = Morally bereft tosser.
If, just for a moment, the political sides would stop lobbing historical rocks at one another, in a blame game that no one will ever win, they could look at where we are at the moment and seek to develop a future which does not entail sacrificing one or more generations of the country's inhabitants or destroying it's brilliantly inventive and entrepreneurial spirit.
Sadly, I cannot ever see this happening because the vacuous idiots who are immersed in their own myopic ideologies will never develop a social conscience that will enable them to look beyond their own political ambitions.
Politicians, burn them all.
Yes he'd make such a refreshing change from the public-school educated elite currently running the country.
I'm no Tory boy but as it happens I was public school educated, as was one of my sisters from GCSE through A Levels, my other sister was state educated. We all did OK, nothing exceptional, but you'd not know now which of us went to which school. What exactly what is your issue with public school education? The elite bit I can understand but you make it (public school) sound like a dirty thing? Weird.
What was it? "We've abolished Boom and Bust" Ha, you had no idea what you were doing you bloody loonies...
This was not an attack at Labour although it was GB who uttered the words, more an attack on politicians in general, it is my considered opinion that they ride what ever wave they can find and claim to be responsible for it and, when it all goes tits up, spend the next five years blaming everyone else.
If, just for a moment, the political sides would stop lobbing historical rocks at one another, in a blame game that no one will ever win, they could look at where we are at the moment and seek to develop a future which does not entail sacrificing one or more generations of the country's inhabitants or destroying it's brilliantly inventive and entrepreneurial spirit.Sadly, I cannot ever see this happening because the vacuous idiots who are immersed in their own myopic ideologies will never develop a social conscience that will enable them to look beyond their own political ambitions.
I'm with Rogerthecat, stop mucking about, stand up and be counted, say something different, do something different or stop pretending you know what you're doing. Can't see it happening as every time someone says something really useful but politically sensitive they get flamed. The 'whip'? Now there's democracy in action 🙄
I'm no Tory boy but as it happens I was public school educated, as was one of my sisters from GCSE through A Levels, my other sister was state educated. We all did OK, nothing exceptional, but you'd not know now which of us went to which school. What exactly what is your issue with public school education? The elite bit I can understand but you make it (public school) sound like a dirty thing? Weird.
You suggested that Boris Johnson would be a refreshing change - I was suggesting he is anything but a refreshing change (apart from being mildly amusing). Pretty obvious really. 😕
In a time of very similar politicians, largely speaking the same language from almost the same side of the fence I find Boris a bit refreshing.
The point about public school is that the vast majority of politicians in positions of responsibility now come from privileged backgrounds - hardly a broad representation of society.
(Although personally I think public schools (and religious schools) should be abolished anyway - they simply entrench privilege).
it is my considered opinion that they ride what ever wave they can find and claim to be responsible for it and, when it all goes tits up, spend the next five years blaming everyone else.
I'm with you there.
Can't see it happening as every time someone says something really useful but politically sensitive they get flamed.
I'm interested to know what you think is an example of this.
(Although personally I think public schools (and religious schools) should be abolished anyway - they simply entrench privilege).
Not sure how religious schools entrench privilege but if there is a common theme between the two types of schools it is that they typically do good jobs at educating children. Seems very odd, if not surprising, that anyone would want excellence to be abolished. What next, get rid of Oxford and Cambridge and the Russell Group Unis?
Religious schools entrench social division (never mind indoctrination of children) more than privilege admittedly.
Seems very odd, if not surprising, that anyone would want excellence to be abolished.
The Finnish school system constantly ranks much higher than ours, and there are no grammar schools, private schools, religious schools or academies.
It places a great emphasis on equality - something you don't seem too bothered about.
Ah, the system that was highlighted in yesterday's broadsheets as suffering from an "accelerated decline in maths standards." hmmm, how odd to see Grum and Gove defending the same thing (a little awkwardly perhaps given the stats!). You choose "great" things to attack and defend!
Something[i] I know [/i]you are not too bothered about
Really?!?!
Ah, the system that was highlighted in yesterday's broadsheets as suffering from an "accelerated decline in maths standards."
And yes still doing better than us, despite not having any excellent private/religious schools.
Despite the clear downturn, Finnish students remain one of the best performers among the OECD countries. Finland came in sixth place among the OECD countries in mathematics, third in literacy and second in science. Finland remains the best in literacy and science among the European countries.
How do they do it?
Really?!?!
Your regular staunch defence of public schools certainly suggests so. Why are you against greater equality in education?
I have no idea what Gove said BTW - link?
teamhurtmore - Member(Although personally I think public schools (and religious schools) should be abolished anyway - they simply entrench privilege).
Not sure how religious schools entrench privilege but if there is a common theme between the two types of schools it is that they typically do good jobs at educating children.
Religious schools can be very selective over the students they pick. So is it because they are better educators, or because they can pick the better students?
IMO Labour still have at least another five years of apologising to do. What was it? "We've abolished Boom and Bust" Ha, you had no idea what you were doing you bloody loonies...
Yes, it was clearly all LAbour's fault that there was a [b][i][u]GLOBAL[/u][/i][/b] financial crisis 🙄
A crisis perpetuated by what? A deregulated financial sector?
Now then, remind me which side of the political fence most proponents of 'light touch' regulation sit.
ask1974 "can't disagree that something was needed and that something was MT"
I'd like to pint out that though I did manage to work (redundancies and Punk rock aside) through some of the 70@s it would be wrong to say I was needed.
Yes, it was clearly all LAbour's fault that there was a GLOBAL financial crisisA crisis perpetuated by what? A deregulated financial sector?
Now then, remind me which side of the political fence most proponents of 'light touch' regulation sit.
Indeed. It would appear we've all miraculously forgotten how in the mid-noughties the tories were screaming that we should regulate the banks more tightly and raise taxes to build a surplus for the impending crash. They must have adulterated the water with some sort of mind altering substance. The tragic thing is that a lot of otherwise sensible people actually believe this fiction.
Can we dispose of the incorrect statement that Finland has no private schools? It's not true. There are.
Really? Quoting the BBC.
What is that you think you've demonstrated?
Can we dispose of the incorrect statement that Finland has no private schools? It's not true. There are.
AFAIK there are a few independent schools but they are publicly funded and aren't allowed to charge fees.
Seems very odd, if not surprising, that anyone would want excellence to be abolished.
I think they want religious schools and private fee paying schools to be abolished - who mentioned abolishing excellence apart from you?
You do like to misrepresent what folk are saying 😕
they are also selective [ as are private schools] so it is not surprising that they get better results.
Any selective school can achieve better than average results, and Church and other faith schools are selective: They usually take a less than representative sample of deprived children and more than their share of the children of ambitious and wealthier parents. This covert selection goes a long way towards explaining their apparent academic success. “Selection, even on religious grounds, is likely to attract well-behaved children from stable backgrounds,” said a spokesperson for Ofsted in the Times Educational Supplement, 16/2/01.
they ahve a lower % of free school meals and statemented kids as well which is odd given their humanitarian mission wouldn't you say
Of course the 'religious schools' discussion is interesting
Bearing in mind that about 25% of all primary and middle schools are owned and run by the Church of England
So Grum, why do so many foreign students come to the UK rather than Finland to be educated? Are they mad or simply mis-informed?
So Grum, why do so many foreign students come to the UK rather than Finland to be educated? Are they mad or simply mis-informed?
They come to the UK to be educated at school (what this offshoot of discussion is about), or to university (totally irrelevant straw man in the context of this discussion)? If the former, lets have some numbers...
Yes, but why Zokes?. Why spend money to come to the UK when we are apparently so poor. And god forbid, some of our schools are even exporting education, setting up schools in fast growing economies to satsify the increasing demand. And these are establishments that folk want to abolish. Can't see the logic personally. But may be, as suggested above, all our Asian friends are simply too stupid (?) to realise and are all being duped by their agents. Looking at those in front of me, I find that hard to believe.
Answer the question. Are they coming for school (relevant to this conversation), or university (irrelevant to this conversation) education?
If the former, please also provide figures to back this up. If the latter, quit changing the subject and defend your argument.
Are they mad or simply mis-informed?
Are these really the only two answers you can come up with?
Every time you "answer" your own question its some little obvious dig, slur or misrepresentation.
A Skoda may be a better car than a BMW but the BMW still has the prestige.
Perhaps its just that and the fact they can speak English?
Easy to think of hundreds of reasons tbh
when we are apparently so poor
Are you disputing the stats now ?
Yes, but why Zokes?. Why spend money to come to the UK when we are apparently so poor.
Because they want the prestige/historical reputation, English language skills, and the networking connections of going to a school for the privileged probably.
Do you really have to keep putting trolly little comments like this into all your posts?
Are they mad or simply mis-informed?
Again, why do you have a problem with equal educational opportunities for everyone?
Zokes, actually neither are relevant to this thread actually since its about BJ and his main thrust re-education included IQ and actually attacking Mrs T for closing more grammar schools than Tony Crossland. But leaving that (the subject of the thread) aside they are coming for both. I don't have the nationwide statistics at the secondary level, but this is an issue "highlighted" at recent headmasters' conferences and not necessarily in a good way. I am sure the stats are available, I will have a look. Anecdotally, in my younger son's case he has had and Asian, and Italian, a Dane and a Jamaican join in his house alone for the sixth form. So out of 15 in his year,there is a Russian, Asian, Dane, Jamaican, Italian and even a Scot! The orchestras are dominated by highly talented Asian musicians (all well beyond grade 8 and diploma standards). And in recent chats in the common room, there were strong debates about whether the fact that places can easily be filled from overseas students was a good thing or not this year. Not sufficient data for PhDs or peer reviews, I grant you.
But yes, they are coming to the UK for secondary and tertiary education - i have been asked to house some of them! They are neither mad nor misinformed - simply making good choices.
They are neither mad nor misinformed
Lucky no-one has suggested they are mad or misinformed then, or that private schools here don't (generally) provide a good standard of education, Captain Strawman.
The point you seem to fail to grasp is that Finnish schools offer a similarly good standard of education without entrenching privilege.
simply making good choices.
Good choices that are (pretty much) only available to the wealthy.
why do you ask, when you say you know what I think?Again, why do you have a problem with equal educational opportunities for everyone?
I do not have a problem about equal education opportunities for everyone (which is why I am involved). But I do not see abolishing certain tyoes of schools as the answer. Different thing altogether.
I do not have a problem about equal education opportunities for everyone (which is why I am involved). But I do not see abolishing certain tyoes of schools as the answer. Different thing altogether.
So should everyone get to go to public school? Otherwise how do you suggest we establish equal opportunities for all (which is what Boris has subsequently claimed his speech was all about)?
Interestingly this is Boris's Great grandfather: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Kemal_Bey
But I do not see abolishing certain tyoes of schools as the answer.
How can we have equal schools when we have fee paying selective schools with smaller class sizes?
Are you really going to claim they dont entrench privilege or deliver better results for their pupils?
How are they part of the solution?
FWIW i have no problem with grammar or selective schools but they should be based on ability not the wealth of your parents
Education should educate each individual to the fullest of their potential. That may be grammar school for some , comprehensive for others or technical college for others
I dont see how fee paying improves equality - could you explain?
actually neither are relevant to this thread
Yes, we get that.
But you seemed to want to make a point about secondary education. I'm just asking you to defend your viewpoint, with reliable figures, not anecdotes. Otherwise your viewpoint is just that: your viewpoint, and not fact, which is what you seem to be making it out to be.
You don't seem to like this, and are now trying (unsuccessfully) to evade a line of questioning seem to have brought upon yourself, but cannot defend.
grum - Member
Lucky no-one has suggested they are mad or misinformed then
Admittedly the correct thread not this one, but I obviously misread this among arguments why Asian parents send their kids to UK secondary education yesterday
Several things:1. Their parents still consider UK one of the best place for education - [b]largely duped by agents[/b] or they are old fashion etc, old news, old impression etc.
2. Their parents have been [b]heavily influenced [/b]by the advertisements or agents.
I should have asked if they were duped and influenced, shouldn't I? Tut, my standards are falling. So sorry.
Are you quoting chewkw there? I don't read his posts, he's completely loopy.
+1 for not reading chewk - th eonly poster on here that I never ever read. even for here its ranty gibberish
zokes at least he has not flounced with you
Careful now or he will insult you ever time you ask him a question or challenge him , claim you do the insulting then flounce away insulting you again whilst being unable to ever respond to anything you post ever again as he lacks the self control to respond without insults
You are free to decide if that is a good thing or a bad thing 😉
zokes - Member
Answer the question. Are they coming for school (relevant to this conversation), or university (irrelevant to this conversation) education?
zokes - Member
actually neither are relevant to this thread
Well which is it, relevant or not, it's confusing enough working out why these Asians (and others) come to the UK, or don't (if you say so) without having you change you mind so quickly.
You don't seem to like this, and are now trying (unsuccessfully) to evade a line of questioning seem to have brought upon yourself, but cannot defend.
Not evading anything. I simply do not have exact stats to answer the question re numbers in secondary education to hand. Do you? Perhaps you could help us both.
See even goading draws a blank 8)
Seriously THM thats pretty lame that you cannot engage without insults and need to withdraw whilst blaiming me
I dont have any real issue with you though we seldom agree.
Indeed Grum, it was chewkw and I had forgotten originally that it was on the other thread. I cannot comment on whether [b]he[/b] is loopy or not. Seems rather unkind that. But his ideas in his case, do appear so. Different thing altogether. 😉
Banning fee paying schools is the ultimate spiteful move.
How about improving state education instead?
By opting to use a fee paying school parents are taking some of the burden away from the state, surely this is a good thing?.... If everybody relied on the state for everything we'd be bankrupt very quickly, people should have the freedom to choose in every aspect of their lives.... if this means some people get the benefit of a private education then so be it.
Surely the problem is underachieving state schools and not fee paying schools?
What's next, banning home/extra tuition as it may give an unfair advantage?.... When fee paying schools have been closed do we look to ban any after school clubs where the 'rich' people's kids may be networking and establishing unfair advantages early in life?!.... the envy and resentment in this thread is shameful, rather than raise state school standards to those set by fee paying schools the idea is instead to lower standards in line with inferior schools?!.... Ah I get it now, obviously too hard to correct the failings of the state system so instead we'll wreck the private school system!
Those nasty men in top hats must be stopped...i know let's ban people from buying nice cars too, is unfair that not everybody can afford one... and houses too, we must all live in the same functional crapbox as it's unfair that not everybody had a nice house!
I didn't think people still thought like this... What horrible bitter individuals.
Quick stats check Zokes and international students rose again last year in the UK as they did the previous years despite rising fees (secondary level). Plus number of foreign students being educated in overseas schools established by UK schools has risen sharply and is closing on the number of students who come here.
So stats show that not only do we attract foreign students we also export our educational excellence. Off for a quick ride now but may post the links later. The stats are indeed interesting as you would expect. Can't see where or how they contradict my earlier points, but feel free to tell me. As you know I rarely debate on the basis of fact!!!!
What's next, banning home/extra tuition as it may give an unfair advantage?.... When fee paying schools have been closed do we look to ban any after school clubs where the 'rich' people's kids may be networking and establishing unfair advantages early in life?!.... the envy and resentment in this thread is shameful, rather than raise state school standards to those set by fee paying schools the idea is instead to lower standards in line with inferior schools?!.... Ah I get it now, obviously too hard to correct the failings of the state system so instead we'll wreck the private school system!
There are so many logical fallacies in your post so it's hard to know where to start.
The key point you seem to be missing though, is that I am advocating a more egalitarian system which retains excellent standards for all, such as the Finnish system. I'm not talking about wrecking anything.
Don't let me stand in the way of your silly rant though.
Banning fee paying schools is the ultimate spiteful move.
How about improving state education instead?
The two go hand in hand IMO.
I didn't think people still thought like this... What horrible bitter individuals.
What a twisted world view you have that you think people who want a fairer system are 'horrible bitter individuals'.
By opting to use a fee paying school parents are taking some of the burden away from the state, surely this is a good thing?....
Yes they are doing this to benefit us not to benefit their own children. Its clearly philanthropic in nature thanks for lettign us all know the real reason
if this means some people get the benefit of a private education then so be it.
its not some people its rich people
Why not make Mways so expensive only the rich can use them and you use the A roads and then they can argue they are freeing up the crappy roads for you?
Its about giving ALL children an equal start not ensuring the wealthy get a better start. Given they have wealth even in state schools socio economic factors predict outcomes anyway so they would still thrive as a quick glance of the stats would demonstrate
I have no issue with the brightest getting a great education i do have if it is only the richest.
the envy and resentment in this thread is shameful,
Physician heal thyself.
I never realised education was this poor -= state or private so we know which to blame?
I didn't think people still thought like this...
I think they only do in your simplistic charicature
What horrible bitter individuals.
Thankfully you dont come over as at all bitter , angry or ranty.
You like to pick your facts THM that support your view andignore those that contradict it [ we all do to some degree to be fair] More are coming here but internationally our standards are less than world leading. Whatever the reason it is that they come here it is not that our education is world class [ unless they are very poor with stats]. It may well be the perception that it is world class so perhaps its our spin/marketing that is world leading rather than our education.
Junky, why not go for a ride or something instead, old chap?
Actually, same applies to all sorts of folks here who seem to get waaaay too involved sometimes!
Junkyard - lazarusBy opting to use a fee paying school parents are taking some of the burden away from the state, surely this is a good thing?....
Yes they are doing this to benefit us not to benefit their own children. Its clearly philanthropic in nature thanks for lettign us all know the real reason
Its about giving ALL children an equal start not ensuring the wealthy get a better start.
Junkyard you know full well i didnt say that people put their children through private school to free up the state system in a show of altruism, i simply stated that less strain on the state system is a pleasant consequence of having more children in the private system.....likewise if more people took out private health care it would ease some of the pressure on the NHS, i'm sure not many people think like this while taking out their policy but again its a happy consequence of taking yourself out of the state system and taking more responsibility for yourself.
With regard to the 'equal start' you keep banging on about, is that not what the national curriculum is for?
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.
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.
I just favour a live and let live attitude to life, some have money and will want to pay to get things done quicker, have their child educated in smaller classes, have elective surgery instead of spending months on waiting lists etc etc, the important thing is that i dont want a country where choice is taken away, there should always be the choice to have state supplied whatever or to find the equivalent in the private sector.
There will always be have and have-nots, nobody has as yet managed to eradicate that, to be honest i'm not sure its even possible as some are more motivated in life than others and are justly rewarded for it.
Cut it down a little... private schooling does create a 2-tier system which is not desirable, but it doesn't impair the performance of state schools at all. Disbanding them today would move towards equality, but the worst sort of equality.
And yes, private schools do take away a little pressure from state schools- and the resourcing that goes to them (ie parents paying fees) wouldn't go to state schools otherwise, so it's not a direct competition for those funds.
In an ideal world, you remove the 2-tier system by equalising them. Failing that, you just do your damnedest to close the gap. But the gap itself isn't the problem. Yes it's unfair but unfair doesn't matter, what matters is the quality of education. Fair and worse isn't an upgrade on unfair and better.
There will always be have and have-nots, nobody has as yet managed to eradicate that, to be honest i'm not sure its even possible as some are more motivated in life than others and are justly rewarded for it.
That's extremely unimaginative. Do some research, there have been plenty of examples throughout history where collective well-being has been prioritised over individual wealth. In the long run they didn't survive, but that was mostly because they were crushed by outside forces rather than because they were inherently unworkable.
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]