|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Sept 23, 2019 14:51:47 GMT
The point i was making is this idea that he went to "Private school" meaning it can be comapred to the well-known Private schools like Eton, etc. "Oh it's technically a private school and they're obviously all the same".
The prep school he went to was (and still is) a very small, local school largely used by local families. It's a normal, small town with very few "rich" families. Most parents who send their kids there do so simply out of snobbishness and nothing else and take out second mortgages/loans to cover the costs (it really is that kind of shitty small minded town where some think like that..think of a few thousand Hyacinth Bucket's and you won't be far off!). I went to a secondary which, again during my time and Corbyn's...although he was a few years before me, was mostly local kids from the area who had simply passed their 11+. There were plenty of Castle House (the prep school Corbyn was at) kids in my year, none of them did any better than any of the rest of us and most now still live in town working standard 9-5 office jobs like the rest of us (and genuinely, some are now working in local supermarkets etc like a lot of mums do just to help make ends meet). In fact a lot of people at the local comprehensive did far better GCSE-wise than me or some of my friends at the grammar.
This idea that you can sling the phrase "Private school" at something and that they're all the same, they all only allow privileged members of society into their ranks and their kids alll end up being CEO's or international ambassadors for high flying companies earning hundreds of thousands just isn't right really. There are many different types/standards of Prep schools and Private schools, i was merely pointing out the context of Corbyn's "Private" education. Anyone thinking the schools he went to were full of toff's in mini-mortar boards, poshing it up being all high and mighty and having parents rolling up in their Bentley's at half term to pick them up, is way off the mark and they should possibly stop painting all "Private" schools with the same brush, simply so they can use their own incorrect preconceptions as some kind of a stick to beat him with. There are plenty of ways you can insult, discredit and take the piss out of Corbyn....his education though, you can't really. He went to a small Primary school (none of us in town think of it as anything other than one of town's several Primary schools) where some students go on to the local Grammar school and some end up at comprehensives around Newport and Telford, and when he left there he went to (what was until recent years) a state run Grammar school.
i wish the fuckers in that grammar school would use the crossings instead of jumping In front of parked cars down the high street
I'll honestly admit Al....i fucking hate the Grammar lads in general, with their floppy fringes walking 5 abreast spread out across the pavement. And yes!!!!!! Always walking out into the road by the church where there are lines of parked cars. Thick bastards...i was NEVER like that of course
Plus, we were never allowed into town to nip to Gregg's in my day! Wankers!
I definitely don't miss wearing that shitty uniform though!
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Sept 23, 2019 14:53:59 GMT
I was talking this through with a bunch of fellow fee paying parents at the weekend, even those with socialist ideals could see no merit in it whatsoever, and to a man/woman vowed that they would never again vote labour whilst Corbyn and his crew have the reigns. None of us were rich, privileged inheritors of wealth, just hard working parents making sacrifices to give our kids a better life. They all said they were planning to vote liberal next time around. Hence this fuckwitted policy proposal is doing the country a favour as it ensures labour remain un-electable. But isn't that the whole labour policy to stop the likes of you having to pay for this type of education and it to be standard and what's expected.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Sept 23, 2019 14:59:33 GMT
I can guarantee you that if you switched out all the kids in my private school with all the kids in a local comp from year 7 and kept them there til year 13, the rates of success at each would not change. The kids who would've been left behind in the state school would be far more likely to excel, and the kids who would've excelled at the private school would be more likely to do worse. Rich children are not magically born smart, and their life choices are very often a product of their environment. eg. kid who goes to shithole school with 40 kids in a class less likely to care about learning. It is not an excuse at all to say that state schools give significantly less opportunity than private schools. They produce good grades because the kids who go there live in an environment where learning is generally more cherished, not because of their genetics. So what you are saying in essence is that it's wrong for people with disposable income to send their kids to private schools despite admitting it will give them a better education and better opportunities compared to the state system. How can you possibly argue against parents that do this , yours for instance, when all you are advocating is dumbing down the the whole sector. Private schools and grammar schools are NOT the reason for some area have shit schools with disruptive kids . I would never settle for a poor education for my kids because labor wants to conduct its far left social experiments at the expense of quality schools . Improve the schools first and see how parents respond So what type of school did you go to harry?
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Sept 23, 2019 15:01:03 GMT
I'm not sure I fully agree with that (apart from the mammoth's cock bit). I went to Madeley (Sir John Offley) primary school and was one of five who passed their 11+. Most of us went to Newcastle High School afterwards. We joined a fairly large group of kids who had been to Edenhurst Prep School in Newcastle. They were so far ahead of us in terms of knowledge, educational achievements and knowing ‘how to learn’ and get the best out of school it was quite astounding. We were as proud as punch what with us being the few who had passed, but had the wind knocked out of us when we realised how far behind we were compared with Edenhurst and other prep-school kids. I’m not sure that we ever really closed the gap, particularly as after the first year we were streamed so most of us Madeley kids ended up in the lower stream and the Edenhurst lot went in to the top stream. (As an aside, if I recall correctly, the only ones who passed the 11+ at Madeley that year were boys. I don’t recall any of the girls passing which probably says quite a lot about the expectations of the school & parents at the time). The point i was making is this idea that he went to "Private school" meaning it can be comapred to the well-known Private schools like Eton, etc. "Oh it's technically a private school and they're obviously all the same".
The prep school he went to was (and still is) a very small, local school largely used by local families. It's a normal, small town with very few "rich" families. Most parents who send their kids there do so simply out of snobbishness and nothing else and take out second mortgages/loans to cover the costs (it really is that kind of shitty small minded town where some think like that..think of a few thousand Hyacinth Bucket's and you won't be far off!). I went to a secondary which, again during my time and Corbyn's...although he was a few years before me, was mostly local kids from the area who had simply passed their 11+. There were plenty of Castle House (the prep school Corbyn was at) kids in my year, none of them did any better than any of the rest of us and most now still live in town working standard 9-5 office jobs like the rest of us (and genuinely, some are now working in local supermarkets etc like a lot of mums do just to help make ends meet). In fact a lot of people at the local comprehensive did far better GCSE-wise than me or some of my friends at the grammar.
This idea that you can sling the phrase "Private school" at something and that they're all the same, they all only allow privileged members of society into their ranks and their kids alll end up being CEO's or international ambassadors for high flying companies earning hundreds of thousands just isn't right really. There are many different types/standards of Prep schools and Private schools, i was merely pointing out the context of Corbyn's "Private" education. Anyone thinking the schools he went to were full of toff's in mini-mortar boards, poshing it up being all high and mighty and having parents rolling up in their Bentley's at half term to pick them up, is way off the mark and they should possibly stop painting all "Private" schools with the same brush, simply so they can use their own incorrect preconceptions as some kind of a stick to beat him with. There are plenty of ways you can insult, discredit and take the piss out of Corbyn....his education though, you can't really. He went to a small Primary school (none of us in town think of it as anything other than one of town's several Primary schools) where some students go on to the local Grammar school and some end up at comprehensives around Newport and Telford, and when he left there he went to (what was until recent years) the local state run Grammar school.....incidentally, one of my old teachers was also one of Corbyn's from years earlier and about 2 years ago did an article in our local rag where he described Corbyn as a "thoroughly mediocre student" as well as "bland", so some things never change with age it appears!
Fair enough. I take the point you are making, but in the ‘right circumstances’ a private primary school can make a difference to the final outcome because the kids who attend are taught ‘how to learn’ and they gain an advantage over other ‘normally educated’ kids which many don’t lose.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Sept 23, 2019 15:02:03 GMT
I'm not sure I fully agree with that (apart from the mammoth's cock bit). I went to Madeley (Sir John Offley) primary school and was one of five who passed their 11+. Most of us went to Newcastle High School afterwards. We joined a fairly large group of kids who had been to Edenhurst Prep School in Newcastle. They were so far ahead of us in terms of knowledge, educational achievements and knowing ‘how to learn’ and get the best out of school it was quite astounding. We were as proud as punch what with us being the few who had passed, but had the wind knocked out of us when we realised how far behind we were compared with Edenhurst and other prep-school kids. I’m not sure that we ever really closed the gap, particularly as after the first year we were streamed so most of us Madeley kids ended up in the lower stream and the Edenhurst lot went in to the top stream. (As an aside, if I recall correctly, the only ones who passed the 11+ at Madeley that year were boys. I don’t recall any of the girls passing which probably says quite a lot about the expectations of the school & parents at the time). My kids started childcare nursery at 6 months due to our work. When they actually started preschool they were ahead of the other kids. After a couple of years it evened out. I still maintain that I’d you invest time and effort in your kids they will succeed. I try and make my kids do clubs. Nothing too elite. They both had swimming lessons, daughter does dance and the lad does scouts and football. We also take interest in their school work. Obviously this costs but it’s not the biggest amount in the world. For example scouts probably cost me £250 a year with the camps As such they are quite Independent well rounded children who want to learn and want to get better at what they do. Make a few sacrifices and invest time in your kids. Get them active get them interested in learning and other activities and you give them an ethic to succeed. A private education may help but if parents do not take some responsibility then the kids suffer. Rather than fuck about with private schools (tax and charitable status aside) is like to see government fund kids from poorer backgrounds to have extra curricular activities with caveats to ensure parents contribute some time. The sad fact is that some parents don’t invest in their kids. Take reading for example, reading with your kids when they are young and encouraging them to read every night has huge benefits in knowledge. If you can’t be arsed how will your kids take a greater interest. I fully agree with what you are saying above. Supportive parenting is by far the most important ingredient in the upbringing and further development of a normal child up to their transition in to a teenager. What the fuck goes wrong after that is anybody’s guess (although some of them DO turn out ok in the end).
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Sept 23, 2019 15:07:01 GMT
I was talking this through with a bunch of fellow fee paying parents at the weekend, even those with socialist ideals could see no merit in it whatsoever, and to a man/woman vowed that they would never again vote labour whilst Corbyn and his crew have the reigns. None of us were rich, privileged inheritors of wealth, just hard working parents making sacrifices to give our kids a better life. They all said they were planning to vote liberal next time around. Hence this fuckwitted policy proposal is doing the country a favour as it ensures labour remain un-electable. But isn't that the whole labour policy to stop the likes of you having to pay for this type of education and it to be standard and what's expected. If it becomes "standard and what's expected" who is going to pay for it if not the tax payer?
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 23, 2019 15:07:14 GMT
So what you are saying in essence is that it's wrong for people with disposable income to send their kids to private schools despite admitting it will give them a better education and better opportunities compared to the state system. How can you possibly argue against parents that do this , yours for instance, when all you are advocating is dumbing down the the whole sector. Private schools and grammar schools are NOT the reason for some area have shit schools with disruptive kids . I would never settle for a poor education for my kids because labor wants to conduct its far left social experiments at the expense of quality schools . Improve the schools first and see how parents respond So what type of school did you go to harry? Catholic secondary modern
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2019 15:10:37 GMT
I can guarantee you that if you switched out all the kids in my private school with all the kids in a local comp from year 7 and kept them there til year 13, the rates of success at each would not change. The kids who would've been left behind in the state school would be far more likely to excel, and the kids who would've excelled at the private school would be more likely to do worse. Rich children are not magically born smart, and their life choices are very often a product of their environment. eg. kid who goes to shithole school with 40 kids in a class less likely to care about learning. It is not an excuse at all to say that state schools give significantly less opportunity than private schools. They produce good grades because the kids who go there live in an environment where learning is generally more cherished, not because of their genetics. So what you are saying in essence is that it's wrong for people with disposable income to send their kids to private schools despite admitting it will give them a better education and better opportunities compared to the state system. How can you possibly argue against parents that do this , yours for instance, when all you are advocating is dumbing down the the whole sector. Private schools and grammar schools are NOT the reason for some area have shit schools with disruptive kids . I would never settle for a poor education for my kids because labor wants to conduct its far left social experiments at the expense of quality schools . Improve the schools first and see how parents respond Yes. It is wrong for a child's life to be decided (and it is a huge factor on life) by whether or not their parents could afford to send them to a private school. I no more deserved the chance than any other person on Earth. I'm advocating for an equal sector, with proper funding for state schools. That's nothing to do with my view on private schools though, which is purely based on morals. Kids lucky enough to be born richer should not get more opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Sept 23, 2019 15:13:07 GMT
So what type of school did you go to harry? Catholic secondary modern Just wondered if it was the same type of school as me with your spelling of labor
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 23, 2019 15:17:54 GMT
So what you are saying in essence is that it's wrong for people with disposable income to send their kids to private schools despite admitting it will give them a better education and better opportunities compared to the state system. How can you possibly argue against parents that do this , yours for instance, when all you are advocating is dumbing down the the whole sector. Private schools and grammar schools are NOT the reason for some area have shit schools with disruptive kids . I would never settle for a poor education for my kids because labor wants to conduct its far left social experiments at the expense of quality schools . Improve the schools first and see how parents respond Yes. It is wrong for a child's life to be decided (and it is a huge factor on life) by whether or not their parents could afford to send them to a private school. I no more deserved the chance than any other person on Earth. I'm advocating for an equal sector, with proper funding for state schools. That's nothing to do with my view on private schools though, which is purely based on morals. Kids lucky enough to be born richer should not get more opportunities. The overwhelming majority of kids that go on to further education are educated in public secondary schools , the reason some kids don't have good educations is not because off private schools
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 23, 2019 15:20:05 GMT
Catholic secondary modern Just wondered if it was the same type of school as me with your spelling of labor Well your grammar is piss poor for a teacher 😉😉
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Sept 23, 2019 15:33:49 GMT
So what you are saying in essence is that it's wrong for people with disposable income to send their kids to private schools despite admitting it will give them a better education and better opportunities compared to the state system. How can you possibly argue against parents that do this , yours for instance, when all you are advocating is dumbing down the the whole sector. Private schools and grammar schools are NOT the reason for some area have shit schools with disruptive kids . I would never settle for a poor education for my kids because labor wants to conduct its far left social experiments at the expense of quality schools . Improve the schools first and see how parents respond Yes. It is wrong for a child's life to be decided (and it is a huge factor on life) by whether or not their parents could afford to send them to a private school. I no more deserved the chance than any other person on Earth. I'm advocating for an equal sector, with proper funding for state schools. That's nothing to do with my view on private schools though, which is purely based on morals. Kids lucky enough to be born richer should not get more opportunities.The sort of world you are advocating doesn’t exist though. A kid born to parents who are alcoholics or druggies doesn’t deserve that, it’s just ‘luck of the draw’. A kid whose parents die early doesn’t deserve that, it’s just ‘luck of the draw’. A kid born to parents who are really musical, arty or sporty will get more opportunities in those fields, it’s just ‘luck of the draw’. And so on and so forth. It’s just ‘luck of the draw’. You can’t help who you are born to, or born as and the opportunities which appear to you will be different from those which present to nearly everyone else. Some will do better, some worse. Some will take the opportunities and some won’t. A kid “born richer” is a lucky kid if he/she takes the opportunities presented. But they might be fuck ugly, really unhealthy, a weak little wimp, or some kind of social misfit. They probably don’t deserve that, it’s just ‘luck of the draw’.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Sept 23, 2019 15:35:23 GMT
Just wondered if it was the same type of school as me with your spelling of labor Well your grammar is piss poor for a teacher 😉😉 He knows that already. It is occasionally pointed out to him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2019 15:40:05 GMT
Yes. It is wrong for a child's life to be decided (and it is a huge factor on life) by whether or not their parents could afford to send them to a private school. I no more deserved the chance than any other person on Earth. I'm advocating for an equal sector, with proper funding for state schools. That's nothing to do with my view on private schools though, which is purely based on morals. Kids lucky enough to be born richer should not get more opportunities. The overwhelming majority of kids that go on to further education are educated in public secondary schools , the reason some kids don't have good educations is not because off private schools No it isn't. But give me one good reason why a child who's parents have more money deserves to get the opportunity over one who's parents don't? 'In 2018 the proportion of private-school students achieving A*s and As at A-level was 48%, compared with a national average of 26%; while for GCSEs, in terms of achieving an A or grade seven or above, the respective figures were 63% and 23%. At both stages, GCSE and A-level, the gap is invariably huge.' The majority of the highest achieving students are from private schools. The vast majority of private school children are from richer backgrounds. That is nothing to do with rich kids being smarter, it's to do with privilege and luck, and that is wrong in a society that preaches 'opportunity for all'.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2019 15:41:41 GMT
Yes. It is wrong for a child's life to be decided (and it is a huge factor on life) by whether or not their parents could afford to send them to a private school. I no more deserved the chance than any other person on Earth. I'm advocating for an equal sector, with proper funding for state schools. That's nothing to do with my view on private schools though, which is purely based on morals. Kids lucky enough to be born richer should not get more opportunities.The sort of world you are advocating doesn’t exist though. A kid born to parents who are alcoholics or druggies doesn’t deserve that, it’s just ‘luck of the draw’. A kid whose parents die early doesn’t deserve that, it’s just ‘luck of the draw’. A kid born to parents who are really musical, arty or sporty will get more opportunities in those fields, it’s just ‘luck of the draw’. And so on and so forth. It’s just ‘luck of the draw’. You can’t help who you are born to, or born as and the opportunities which appear to you will be different from those which present to nearly everyone else. Some will do better, some worse. Some will take the opportunities and some won’t. A kid “born richer” is a lucky kid if he/she takes the opportunities presented. But they might be fuck ugly, really unhealthy, a weak little wimp, or some kind of social misfit. They probably don’t deserve that, it’s just ‘luck of the draw’. Just because we'll never reach perfection doesn't mean we shouldn't affect the things we can change to make the world more fair.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Sept 23, 2019 15:42:24 GMT
The overwhelming majority of kids that go on to further education are educated in public secondary schools , the reason some kids don't have good educations is not because off private schools No it isn't. But give me one good reason why a child who's parents have more money deserves to get the opportunity over one who's parents don't? 'In 2018 the proportion of private-school students achieving A*s and As at A-level was 48%, compared with a national average of 26%; while for GCSEs, in terms of achieving an A or grade seven or above, the respective figures were 63% and 23%. At both stages, GCSE and A-level, the gap is invariably huge.' The majority of the highest achieving students are from private schools. The vast majority of private school children are from richer backgrounds. That is nothing to do with rich kids being smarter, it's to do with privilege and luck, and that is wrong in a society that preaches 'opportunity for all'. Unfortunately the fact that some working class families don't seem to value education is a factor.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Sept 23, 2019 15:44:52 GMT
The overwhelming majority of kids that go on to further education are educated in public secondary schools , the reason some kids don't have good educations is not because off private schools No it isn't. But give me one good reason why a child who's parents have more money deserves to get the opportunity over one who's parents don't? 'In 2018 the proportion of private-school students achieving A*s and As at A-level was 48%, compared with a national average of 26%; while for GCSEs, in terms of achieving an A or grade seven or above, the respective figures were 63% and 23%. At both stages, GCSE and A-level, the gap is invariably huge.' The majority of the highest achieving students are from private schools. The vast majority of private school children are from richer backgrounds. That is nothing to do with rich kids being smarter, it's to do with privilege and luck, and that is wrong in a society that preaches 'opportunity for all'. " But give me one good reason why a child who's parents have more money deserves to get the opportunity over one who's parents don't?" There isn't a "good reason". But if the child's parents choose to spend their money in that way, are you saying they should have no right to do that? That they should have no right to spend their own money in any legal way they see fit?
|
|
|
Post by estrangedsonoffaye on Sept 23, 2019 15:46:44 GMT
www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/AccesstoAdvantage-2018.pdfAn interesting read and one which applies heavily to this thread. Particularly interesting is the fact that non-selective schools with students with matching exam results to independent schools apply significantly less and are accepted significantly less to Oxbridge and indeed to Russell Group universities. Which brings me to a wider point, State Schools are naturally because of their funding, under-prepared to adequately prepare their students for entrance exams, interviews etc at high level unis than those of independent schools, despite the fact that the student at the state school may match or even out-strip the privately educated counterparts. That's clearly a bias that needs addressing, it's not just about the discrete exam results. I'd say the same issue applies with those applying to do medicine and the support given to those doing the UKCat either from their school or parents. If you can't afford teaching resources or have limited access to them, your exam results will mean next to fuck all.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2019 15:48:41 GMT
No it isn't. But give me one good reason why a child who's parents have more money deserves to get the opportunity over one who's parents don't? 'In 2018 the proportion of private-school students achieving A*s and As at A-level was 48%, compared with a national average of 26%; while for GCSEs, in terms of achieving an A or grade seven or above, the respective figures were 63% and 23%. At both stages, GCSE and A-level, the gap is invariably huge.' The majority of the highest achieving students are from private schools. The vast majority of private school children are from richer backgrounds. That is nothing to do with rich kids being smarter, it's to do with privilege and luck, and that is wrong in a society that preaches 'opportunity for all'. Unfortunately the fact that some working class families don't seem to value education is a factor. As a teacher at a private school, I can tell you full well that that problem is not solely with the working class families. State or private education has a proven effect on your average future salary and education prospects.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Sept 23, 2019 15:48:42 GMT
Maybe it's better to fight poverty than richness?
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Sept 23, 2019 15:49:26 GMT
The sort of world you are advocating doesn’t exist though. A kid born to parents who are alcoholics or druggies doesn’t deserve that, it’s just ‘luck of the draw’. A kid whose parents die early doesn’t deserve that, it’s just ‘luck of the draw’. A kid born to parents who are really musical, arty or sporty will get more opportunities in those fields, it’s just ‘luck of the draw’. And so on and so forth. It’s just ‘luck of the draw’. You can’t help who you are born to, or born as and the opportunities which appear to you will be different from those which present to nearly everyone else. Some will do better, some worse. Some will take the opportunities and some won’t. A kid “born richer” is a lucky kid if he/she takes the opportunities presented. But they might be fuck ugly, really unhealthy, a weak little wimp, or some kind of social misfit. They probably don’t deserve that, it’s just ‘luck of the draw’. Just because we'll never reach perfection doesn't mean we shouldn't affect the things we can change to make the world more fair. The world isn't fair; it's as simple as that. And it never will be. There will always be people wealthier than others. People better looking than others. People more talented than others. People more caring than others. People healthier than others. I think you need to adjust to that or you are going to lead a very frustrated and unsatisfactory life. (if i may be so bold!)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2019 15:50:16 GMT
No it isn't. But give me one good reason why a child who's parents have more money deserves to get the opportunity over one who's parents don't? 'In 2018 the proportion of private-school students achieving A*s and As at A-level was 48%, compared with a national average of 26%; while for GCSEs, in terms of achieving an A or grade seven or above, the respective figures were 63% and 23%. At both stages, GCSE and A-level, the gap is invariably huge.' The majority of the highest achieving students are from private schools. The vast majority of private school children are from richer backgrounds. That is nothing to do with rich kids being smarter, it's to do with privilege and luck, and that is wrong in a society that preaches 'opportunity for all'. " But give me one good reason why a child who's parents have more money deserves to get the opportunity over one who's parents don't?" There isn't a "good reason". But if the child's parents choose to spend their money in that way, are you saying they should have no right to do that? That they should have no right to spend their own money in any legal way they see fit? Why don't poor families have that right? I'm not blaming families, children, or anyone else really. I just do not see how you can justify the richer in society getting access to far better education than the poor could afford. It is entrenching the class system and goes completely against the idea that 'if you work hard you'll rise to the top'.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Sept 23, 2019 15:51:14 GMT
Just because we'll never reach perfection doesn't mean we shouldn't affect the things we can change to make the world more fair. The world isn't fair; it's as simple as that. And it never will be. There will always be people wealthier than others. People better looking than others. People more talented than others. People more caring than others. People healthier than others. I think you need to adjust to that or you are going to lead a very frustrated and unsatisfactory life. (if i may be so bold!) that's called karma
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2019 15:51:35 GMT
Just because we'll never reach perfection doesn't mean we shouldn't affect the things we can change to make the world more fair. The world isn't fair; it's as simple as that. And it never will be. There will always be people wealthier than others. People better looking than others. People more talented than others. People more caring than others. People healthier than others. I think you need to adjust to that or you are going to lead a very frustrated and unsatisfactory life. (if i may be so bold!) It never will be perfect or completely fair. So why bother fighting racism? Or pay gaps between genders? Why not stick with the Feudal system? because it'll never be Utopia so why bother trying to fix anything?
|
|
|
Post by musik on Sept 23, 2019 16:01:25 GMT
It never will be perfect or completely fair. So why bother fighting racism? Or pay gaps between genders? Why not stick with the Feudal system? because it'll never be Utopia so why bother trying to fix anything? My teacher from when I was 10 to 12 years old admired China communism and we were told everyone in society should have the exact same salary, and wear the exact same type of clothes. We weren't allowed to join any sport events, running, tennis, football with our class. Reason? Everyone weren't equally good at it. She was extreme. Are you extreme?
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 23, 2019 16:02:23 GMT
The overwhelming majority of kids that go on to further education are educated in public secondary schools , the reason some kids don't have good educations is not because off private schools No it isn't. But give me one good reason why a child who's parents have more money deserves to get the opportunity over one who's parents don't? 'In 2018 the proportion of private-school students achieving A*s and As at A-level was 48%, compared with a national average of 26%; while for GCSEs, in terms of achieving an A or grade seven or above, the respective figures were 63% and 23%. At both stages, GCSE and A-level, the gap is invariably huge.' The majority of the highest achieving students are from private schools. The vast majority of private school children are from richer backgrounds. That is nothing to do with rich kids being smarter, it's to do with privilege and luck, and that is wrong in a society that preaches 'opportunity for all'. A levels isn't what I said , the facts are the majority and in most cases it's 65 / 70% of university students were from state schools . The top 3 or 4 unis is 60% ish . In the bottom third it's 80% or more
|
|
|
Post by yeokel on Sept 23, 2019 16:03:27 GMT
" But give me one good reason why a child who's parents have more money deserves to get the opportunity over one who's parents don't?" There isn't a "good reason". But if the child's parents choose to spend their money in that way, are you saying they should have no right to do that? That they should have no right to spend their own money in any legal way they see fit? Why don't poor families have that right? I'm not blaming families, children, or anyone else really. I just do not see how you can justify the richer in society getting access to far better education than the poor could afford. It is entrenching the class system and goes completely against the idea that 'if you work hard you'll rise to the top'. It is virtually impossible to argue pragmatically against such a utopian, unrealistic viewpoint as yours. “ It is entrenching the class system and goes completely against the idea that 'if you work hard you'll rise to the top'.” I was born in to a poor family living in a pre-fab in May Bank. My father worked fairly hard, became fairly successful and then celebrated that success by becoming an alcoholic! I worked hard, and had more success than my father and look upon myself as something of a success. My daughters have worked hard and been to university (which I never did) and both now have really good jobs and career prospects as well as the beginnings of comfortable lifestyles. They are both considered “posh” by many of their friends. They, nor their friends would not have any idea what a pre-fab in May Bank could look like, or be like. Those social changes or successes had nothing to do with “class”. And "class" certainly never held any of us back.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Sept 23, 2019 16:05:15 GMT
Unfortunately the fact that some working class families don't seem to value education is a factor. As a teacher at a private school, I can tell you full well that that problem is not solely with the working class families. State or private education has a proven effect on your average future salary and education prospects. But also what I am saying Lil having worked IN the LEA sector and WITH the private ONE factor is the value that SOME parents put on education. The emphasis on academic learning also does not suit everyone. In my opinion many of those at the bottom of the LEA system are learning to fail, get little from the system other than ' knowing their place'( "Learning to Labour' Willis). Thus disruption. Parental support, peer culture, attitude and money are also factors.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Sept 23, 2019 16:08:50 GMT
The sort of world you are advocating doesn’t exist though. A kid born to parents who are alcoholics or druggies doesn’t deserve that, it’s just ‘luck of the draw’. A kid whose parents die early doesn’t deserve that, it’s just ‘luck of the draw’. A kid born to parents who are really musical, arty or sporty will get more opportunities in those fields, it’s just ‘luck of the draw’. And so on and so forth. It’s just ‘luck of the draw’. You can’t help who you are born to, or born as and the opportunities which appear to you will be different from those which present to nearly everyone else. Some will do better, some worse. Some will take the opportunities and some won’t. A kid “born richer” is a lucky kid if he/she takes the opportunities presented. But they might be fuck ugly, really unhealthy, a weak little wimp, or some kind of social misfit. They probably don’t deserve that, it’s just ‘luck of the draw’. Just because we'll never reach perfection doesn't mean we shouldn't affect the things we can change to make the world more fair. Sounds like you are a fan of eugenics.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Sept 23, 2019 16:15:15 GMT
A small anecdote. A friend of mine worked at a ( difficult) Stoke on Trent primary school. A parent brought in their child's medicine...I think it was insulin at around 9.00 am. On accepting it the secretary or it may be teacher said " It's out of date" Parent's reply " That's your problem" The school had enough problems/ way disproportionate. amount of statementrd pupils. Proves nothing really but it is something that has stuck in my mind so I thought that I would share it.
Also I imagine but have no "facts" to back it up that having a disproportionate amount of pupils for whom having English as a second language makes teaching more difficult. Could be wrong. Of course some will argue that it brings other enrichment.
|
|