1. Of course they won't! Do you want to change it is the question.
As we have an establishment holds the keys nothing will change, no matter what people say, unless there is a revolution and I hardly see that happening. Our politicians are cut from the same cloth, no matter what party they represent.
As for me, I've no need to change anything. I'm in comfortable middle age and have enough for what I need.
i went to a bog standard state school.....i couldnt care a less about what politician went to what school as long as they can do their job......why people have chips on their shoulders over it i have no idea.....I thought we lived in a 'free' country and that you could educate your children how you wish....i am sure if we all could afford it most of us we would send our children to private school or even private tutors.......
You do realise just because your educated at certain places doesnt make you instantly a good or bad person.....you have good people that come from private schools as well as good at state schools and the same goes for bad......prejudice and class wars are the argument you go to when you have no meaningful arguments to give.....
Indeed it was, but at least it was divided on intellectual ability.
In my town all the schools are failing, so all the parents that can afford it send their children twenty miles away to better schools.
The local schools then go into a downward spiral getting worse year by year, with only the poorest pupils attending.
Education is still divisive, but now its divided on the lines of wealth.
I would rather it be divided on intellectual ability than wealth, at least poor pupils had a chance with the old grammer schools.
No, it was divided on passing an exam at the age of 11.
As we have an establishment holds the keys nothing will change, no matter what people say, unless there is a revolution and I hardly see that happening. Our politicians are cut from the same cloth, no matter what party they represent.
[1]As for me, I've no need to change anything. I'm in comfortable middle age and have enough for what I need.
Not really, i've never smoked in my life.
[2]It is easy to deride state education, but I did OK out of it in the 1970s and so did my peers.
1. Never liked the "I'm alright Jack" line.
2. Who is deriding it? I am all in favour of an inclusive system that benefits all, not just the few.
i went to a bog standard state school.....i couldnt care a less about what politician went to what school as long as they can do their job......why people have chips on their shoulders over it i have no idea.....I thought we lived in a 'free' country and that you could educate your children how you wish....i am sure if we all could afford it most of us we would send our children to private school or even private tutors.......
You do realise just because your educated at certain places doesnt make you instantly a good or bad person.....you have good people that come from private schools as well as good at state schools and the same goes for bad......prejudice and class wars are the argument you go to when you have no meaningful arguments to give.....
No, that is not true. The vast majority can't afford to send their children to fee paying schools.
No, it was divided on passing an exam at the age of 11.
That's still fairer than dividing education by the wealth of the parents, as is currently the situation.
You seem to have issues with people sending their children to fee paying private schools, but not with middle class parents picking and choosing the best state schools for their children while the poorest make do.
I find your views hypocritical and odd.
Says the former grammar school pupil who now wants to prevent others from benefitting from the same opportunity he enjoyed. Keep pulling on that ladder, it'll come up eventually!
I think the Sutton Trust did a study about this not long ago and found that most of the top jobs in this country went to those privately educated, and it doesn't seem to be improving. It's the old boys' network still in action. We should have moved on from all that guff by now. Does anyone really believe that only 7% of the population are capable of doing these jobs?
I have looked into this in the Cabinet and it turns out half of it currently comes from State Education (the Tories are in the majoirty while the Lib Dems are are 50/50)
The combined income of my wife, who went to a comprehensive and neither of us went to university, and I would put us in the top 5% of household incomes in the UK, so we're doing OK.
As for missed opportunities that I might have had, who knows? Going to a Secondary Modern school hasn't stopped me from doing what I want to do in my life. If I'd have gone to a Grammar School the opportunities might have been different, but as I left school 35 years ago it's hardly worth worrying about now.
I left school a similar length of time ago. My mother prevented me from even taking the Grammar School exam for reasons connected entirely to her and not to me. Maybe I'd be better paid now, (I don't come close to what you claim to earn). But anyway, I don't measure opportunities just in terms of income.
I think the Sutton Trust did a study about this not long ago and found that most of the top jobs in this country went to those privately educated, and it doesn't seem to be improving. It's the old boys' network still in action. We should have moved on from all that guff by now. Does anyone really believe that only 7% of the population are capable of doing these jobs?
No, but since they're the only ones that are going to get near them, the ability of others does not come into it. >:(
No its not.
It's a very old cliche that belongs to the last century.
I'd be interested to see evidence to support either argument.
If private education is not unfairly advantageous in terms of opportunities it offers at the time and afterwards (and I am not just talking about employment and income), then there seems little point in its existence. So why does it survive?
No, that is not true. The vast majority can't afford to send their children to fee paying schools.
i know but why should people be put down if they want to send their children to a fee paying school? ....i also said in the rest of my post how if people could afford to 'most' would send to a private school.....
i know but why should people be put down if they want to send their children to a fee paying school? ....i also said in the rest of my post how if people could afford to 'most' would send to a private school.....
Surely there is no point paying for schooling unless it is better than not doing. So if you can't afford to pay, and you are automatically getting a worse education, how is that fair on the majority?
If private education is not unfairly advantageous in terms of opportunities it offers at the time and afterwards (and I am not just talking about employment and income), then there seems little point in its existence. So why does it survive?
Having wealthy, well connected or powerful parents is an "unfair advantage" to start with. Abolishing private education wouldn't do anything about that.
Besides, I'm not even sure you could ban private education even if you wanted to. The wealthy would just hire private tutors or teach their own children themselves. From that it's just a small step to having like-minded parents get together so that their children can learn together. Are you going to ban home schooling?
Surely there is no point paying for schooling unless it is better than not doing. So if you can't afford to pay, and you are automatically getting a worse education, how is that fair on the majority?
I don't think it's even about being better educated. It's about those from private schools being selected for the best jobs, because of the schools they attended, even though someone from a state school might be better educated, more intelligent or better suited for the job. That needs to end.
[1]They aren't taking them, they're being elected to them by the public. That's how we get our MPs, remember?
[2]Is it right that a political party should be allowed to choose whoever they want to represent them in an election? Because I kinda think it is.
1. I am speaking of the whole of the British Establishment, not just parliament here.
Also you will see that, regarding MPs, certain parties have strong leanings towards selecting candidates for election who have been privately educated. Why do you think that is?
2. Yes - but the above question needs to be asked - and answered.
That's still fairer than dividing education by the wealth of the parents, as is currently the situation.
You seem to have issues with people sending their children to fee paying private schools, but not with middle class parents picking and choosing the best state schools for their children while the poorest make do.
I find your views hypocritical and odd.
I'm not with you. In the days of grammar/sec. modern divide the rich still sent their kids to fee paying schools. Up until relatively recent times (well, recent to me!) grammar school kids were regarded as second class citizens at Oxbridge by their privately educated peers.
Regarding your second para, are you saying only middle class kids attend "good" state schools?
Says the former grammar school pupil who now wants to prevent others from benefitting from the same opportunity he enjoyed. Keep pulling on that ladder, it'll come up eventually!
I want to prevent the great majority getting a worse education than they do now, like they used to under the old two-tier system.
Comments
As we have an establishment holds the keys nothing will change, no matter what people say, unless there is a revolution and I hardly see that happening. Our politicians are cut from the same cloth, no matter what party they represent.
As for me, I've no need to change anything. I'm in comfortable middle age and have enough for what I need.
Not really, i've never smoked in my life.
It is easy to deride state education, but I did OK out of it in the 1970s and so did my peers.
I went to a secondary modern, my wife went to a comprehensive.
I will remove the "also" so my original reply makes more sense.
You do realise just because your educated at certain places doesnt make you instantly a good or bad person.....you have good people that come from private schools as well as good at state schools and the same goes for bad......prejudice and class wars are the argument you go to when you have no meaningful arguments to give.....
No, it was divided on passing an exam at the age of 11.
1. Never liked the "I'm alright Jack" line.
2. Who is deriding it? I am all in favour of an inclusive system that benefits all, not just the few.
No, that is not true. The vast majority can't afford to send their children to fee paying schools.
That's still fairer than dividing education by the wealth of the parents, as is currently the situation.
You seem to have issues with people sending their children to fee paying private schools, but not with middle class parents picking and choosing the best state schools for their children while the poorest make do.
I find your views hypocritical and odd.
Yeah, you should never examine a child's ability should you. They're all winners, yay !!!!
;-) Sad truth.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=72123673&postcount=36
However the proportion has fallen with the changing of the Culture Secretary and Minister for Women...
So you're quite happy if someone's entire future is decided on one short and previously unseen process, are you?
What about assessing them on their school performance across prior years?
That's how we were streamed where I went.
I left school a similar length of time ago. My mother prevented me from even taking the Grammar School exam for reasons connected entirely to her and not to me. Maybe I'd be better paid now, (I don't come close to what you claim to earn). But anyway, I don't measure opportunities just in terms of income.
No, but since they're the only ones that are going to get near them, the ability of others does not come into it. >:(
No its not.
It's a very old cliche that belongs to the last century.
Is it right that a political party should be allowed to choose whoever they want to represent them in an election? Because I kinda think it is.
I'd be interested to see evidence to support either argument.
If private education is not unfairly advantageous in terms of opportunities it offers at the time and afterwards (and I am not just talking about employment and income), then there seems little point in its existence. So why does it survive?
i know but why should people be put down if they want to send their children to a fee paying school? ....i also said in the rest of my post how if people could afford to 'most' would send to a private school.....
Surely there is no point paying for schooling unless it is better than not doing. So if you can't afford to pay, and you are automatically getting a worse education, how is that fair on the majority?
Having wealthy, well connected or powerful parents is an "unfair advantage" to start with. Abolishing private education wouldn't do anything about that.
Besides, I'm not even sure you could ban private education even if you wanted to. The wealthy would just hire private tutors or teach their own children themselves. From that it's just a small step to having like-minded parents get together so that their children can learn together. Are you going to ban home schooling?
I don't think it's even about being better educated. It's about those from private schools being selected for the best jobs, because of the schools they attended, even though someone from a state school might be better educated, more intelligent or better suited for the job. That needs to end.
1. I am speaking of the whole of the British Establishment, not just parliament here.
Also you will see that, regarding MPs, certain parties have strong leanings towards selecting candidates for election who have been privately educated. Why do you think that is?
2. Yes - but the above question needs to be asked - and answered.
I'm not with you. In the days of grammar/sec. modern divide the rich still sent their kids to fee paying schools. Up until relatively recent times (well, recent to me!) grammar school kids were regarded as second class citizens at Oxbridge by their privately educated peers.
Regarding your second para, are you saying only middle class kids attend "good" state schools?
I want to prevent the great majority getting a worse education than they do now, like they used to under the old two-tier system.
You obviously don't.