We have pooled thoughts on the NHS, how about education?

The reason quite a few privately owned schools are no longer in business is because they have to do everything and be everything in the same way that any school does. Rightly so. It becomes pretty onerous for one person to run it single handedly although there are many who do and make a great job of it. The parents seem to think so too for their particular children's needs.

So you do know about Finland then.

Gosh I'm confused.

intereconomics.eu asks what is elitism in higher education . It’s the gap between elite universities and the standard ones. The Nordic countries have the smallest gap. I think the left wing here in its enthusiasm for equality in education has lost the plot. Critical thinking is a lost art.

Mollygo

DaisyAnne, Meow indeed. Your response is very old cattish, and you may possibly have expertise in cat behaviour that I don’t have, and won’t ask about in case it’s just a comparator.
If you didn’t really know about the Finnish education system, why not just say so?
Your last paragraph so exactly exemplifies what your belief seems to be, that I’ll repeat it for you.
^You seem to be under the impression that no one else can want the best possible for all children unless they want to do it your way^

There is a difference between knowing about something and being an expert Mollygo. You suggested you saw me as an expert - I didn't. Do we now have to be deliberately ignorant to please the undemocratic few on this forum?

As for your last paragraph, I don't have an opinion about the best form of education for this country. I look at Finland because it is seen as an exemplar by those in the education world. I am still working on my view of the steps that could be taken to improve state education in this country.

I do have an opinion on the undemocratic banning of people from spending their own money how they choose. We still haven't been told of one democratic country that does this, and no one has shown - other than by guesswork and personal, unfounded opinion - that such a move would make things better in state schools.

volver

So you do know about Finland then.

Gosh I'm confused.

No you are not. You are wriggling because you were wrong.

Yes I am. So wrong, just like always. This daft compulsion I have to see everybody get the same start in life.

I am bowing to a superior debater that I will never conquer.

If only I'd gone to private school, I'd have had the tools at my disposal to do so.

They did teach me sarcasm though.

ronib

intereconomics.eu asks what is elitism in higher education . It’s the gap between elite universities and the standard ones. The Nordic countries have the smallest gap. I think the left wing here in its enthusiasm for equality in education has lost the plot. Critical thinking is a lost art.

Interesting ronib and not surprising. They made huge changes in their education model starting about 55 years ago. Whether it would be a fit with our culture and larger population is one question often asked.

I can only agree about critical thinking. I know the universities have been trying to push it back further into the the schools but some older people missed that boat, sadly. It can be encouraged in families though. The children end up teaching the parents

If anyone is serious about this subject can I suggest something like a Dummies Guide to Sociology or a study guide to A level Sociology? This is suggested more in sorrow than sarcasm!

volver

Yes I am. So wrong, just like always. This daft compulsion I have to see everybody get the same start in life.

I am bowing to a superior debater that I will never conquer.

If only I'd gone to private school, I'd have had the tools at my disposal to do so.

They did teach me sarcasm though.

You don't have to "conquer" anyone. Perhaps that view is what is causing you problems. A debate is, at its best, an exchange of information.

No one commented on your "daft compulsion". You were wrong about Finland. Could you stop twisting others' posts?

It wouldn't matter which school you went to from a personality point of view; that doesn't fundamentally change. I went to something like 12 different schools, although I think my mother included kindergarten when she counted them. These included three different types of secondary schools. I am still the same person, although I may have learned some extra coping skills. Continuity comes high on my list of "good education". Interestingly, it does in Finland too.

volver

Yes I am. So wrong, just like always. This daft compulsion I have to see everybody get the same start in life.

I am bowing to a superior debater that I will never conquer.

If only I'd gone to private school, I'd have had the tools at my disposal to do so.

They did teach me sarcasm though.

I think you are mainlining on your left wing rhetoric.
So an equal start for every child.., including the children who care for their families? Those 16 year olds who juggle taking a 2 year old sister to daycare, then collect after school, then clean, wash and cook for their four younger siblings? That 16 year old who eventually went on to college and university despite family hostility?

Reading through last night's posts I came across these:
"The foundation of social class upon money must be a thing of the past."
"This daft compulsion I have to see everybody get the same start in life."
IME money does not define social class and I think most sociologists would agree with me and sadly although "everyone getting the same start in life" is a laudable aim you'd need to remove every child from his/her family and socialise them all identically, bit too "Brave New World" for my taste.
The cultural capital which a child absorbs and brings with them to school has been somewhat ignored on this thread,I think it's really influential, closing independent schools or removing charitable status of schools would not change that, in fact it might make it even more important. I lived in a major city with a few grammar schools, there were two state primaries that got nearly every year 6 into one of the grammars, both were small church schools sited in fashionable suburbs. One of my children went there when I divorced taking up a space when child left so I didn't have to jump through the normal hoops of regular church attendance, baptism etc. It was just like a prep school and parents openly said if they hadn't got their child into it they would have gone "private" and if their child failed to get a grammar school place at 11 again they'd look at the private sector. It was interesting to compare it with the small rural primary where I was COG which had a truly representative intake in terms of ability and class. I volunteered to help with reading over a number of years, I had individual children who were below their age standard and also gifted and talented, without exception the G&T kids came from middle class homes. I asked one child if they would continue reading over the long holiday and her reply was, "We've got more dogs in our house than books"

The child with more dogs than books was not a G&T child!

growstuff

Joseanne

volver

Serious question - why would this have to happen if charitable status was removed? They'd still be schools. Even if some of them went out of business, why would their assets have to go to other schools?

I'm not sure, who would actually own the school then?

The same people who have always owned them.

Wasn't it Joseanne who said earlier that when a charity is would up its assets can only be given to another charity, or a body or individual who will use them for charitable purposes?
(Actually, she didn't say quite all that, but I've been googling..)

This is advice and guidance for charities from a Scottish site, but they work under the same legislation as the rest of the UK:

www.oscr.org.uk/managing-a-charity/making-changes-and-reorganising/making-changes-to-your-charity/making-changes-to-your-charity/wind-up-or-dissolve-the-charity/

That would make it interesting if schools were to close because they no longer had charitable status. According to legislation they would have to distribute their assets to other charities. Which would put a stop to their activities...

I would suspect that a government which was intent on removing charitable status would work something into the legislation to allow the schools to retain part of their assets so that they could carry on functioning as a fee paying school, or, I'm thinking of land and buildings, to sell them to a non charity individual or institution (would Eton make a lovely hotel?) and distribute the money to other charities.

I'd close all the private schools, but that is a bit of an irrelevancy.
Education cannot and will not be "fixed" unless an entire support system is implemented. Post war working class children did not achieve success simply through the education system. They did it because there was support from the moment they were born (and yes I know some children still had a hard life). So we need proper provision and help for children from birth. The sort of provision that ensures they are properly and nutritionally fed and they and their parents are properly supported-so bring back Sure Start, and link it into a children's health system which will support them throughout their school career. Provide more social workers and adequate external support.
Then start to look at schools. Get rid of academies and stop the system which means problem children are excluded from one school and another smaller school takes them in. All this does is create sink schools. Have smaller secondary schools for children who will not thrive in a larger place. I have seen so many children who have been supported and nurtured since they were 4+ sent up to the local comp at 11 and excluded in their first year. Something their primary teacher had predicted. Because some children cant cope with the anonymity of large schools.
Education now works well for those children who are well supported out of school, but for those who aren't it is at best a lottery, at worst a complete failure.

ronib

volver

Yes I am. So wrong, just like always. This daft compulsion I have to see everybody get the same start in life.

I am bowing to a superior debater that I will never conquer.

If only I'd gone to private school, I'd have had the tools at my disposal to do so.

They did teach me sarcasm though.

I think you are mainlining on your left wing rhetoric.
So an equal start for every child.., including the children who care for their families? Those 16 year olds who juggle taking a 2 year old sister to daycare, then collect after school, then clean, wash and cook for their four younger siblings? That 16 year old who eventually went on to college and university despite family hostility?

Things have come to a pretty pass in this country if people can be ridiculed for wanting all children to have a good start in life, irrespective of how much money their parents have.

I'm perplexed that anyone can use the existence of young carers as an argument to support unjust schooling practices. If that is in fact what you are doing, its not entirely clear what you are getting at.

If expecting people to have an excellent start in life irrespective of how well of their parents are means that I am "mainlining on left wing rhetoric", then I'll take that description willingly. Its better than being a selfish right winger who thinks its every man for himself and devil take the hindmost.

I think the thing that I struggle with most, is that people think the only thing that we want to change is to get rid of the independent/fee paying/elitist schools. Its not a case of change that and leave everything else the same.

Do the supporters of unequal opportunities understand that?

Mollygo I guess it's a hope - Charitable status removed, taxes then paid (whichever estimate) would go to the state schools for their use.

If charitable status was removed, VAT, on tuition, is a part of the taxes that wouldn't be exempt - I'd hope that could move to state schools (along with other business taxes no longer avoided by charitable status).

The fee-based schools would, of course, raise tuition, to cover the VAT paid on tuition. No closing of schools need happen.

I don't view fee-based religious schools as elitist, nor as schools that need abolishing for abstract reasons.

volver

I think the thing that I struggle with most, is that people think the only thing that we want to change is to get rid of the independent/fee paying/elitist schools. Its not a case of change that and leave everything else the same.

Do the supporters of unequal opportunities understand that?

Velvet Are you supporting the Platonic approach of removing children at birth from their parents? How is your equal start going to compensate for differences in genetic makeup?

Child carers are very disadvantaged and their education does suffer and so what policies would you encourage to support them?

Child mental health in the Uk is allegedly in crisis and this impacts again on individual life outcomes. This may not be due to discrepancies in parental income.

Ah volver it's in the genes. It isn't the system at all!
That's what's wrong with us left-wing nutters we don't appreciate genetics. Hang on though wasn't there a society that applied genetics?

As for child -carers a civilised society would ensure they had proper support and that caring didn't disadvantage them.

But the Tories promised to tackle mental health in children. They promised a mental health specialist in every school. Don't tell me it didn't happen

Glorianny

Ah volver it's in the genes. It isn't the system at all!
That's what's wrong with us left-wing nutters we don't appreciate genetics. Hang on though wasn't there a society that applied genetics?

As for child -carers a civilised society would ensure they had proper support and that caring didn't disadvantage them.

But the Tories promised to tackle mental health in children. They promised a mental health specialist in every school. Don't tell me it didn't happen

Deliberate distortion doesn’t help… we don’t have a civilised society obviously!

How anyone can suggest that genetic differences don’t exist is in denial.

Do individual schools not control how mental health is incorporated in the delivery of its services?

DaisyAnne

growstuff

Joseanne

Actually the thickos and dimwits are very much the ones who fare well in private education. Teaching staff are very quick to intervene and support children who struggle. A bright child will do well whatever type of school they attend, even if they were to sit in the garden shed for their lessons.

What kind of country condones buying advantage for its thickos and dimwits? Some of these thickos and dimwits take university places which could be used more productively by brighter students and some of them go on to be our leaders and owners of wealth. What kind of country doesn't want its brightest and best in charge?

Could you stop calling children "thickos and dimwits"? I certainly wouldn't send a child to a school you were in charge of. I just hope you are not a teacher.

What kind of country condones buying advantage for its thickos and dimwits?

I keep asking but no one has ever given an example. Which democratic country or countries ban fee-paying education? You want us to do something that, as far as anyone can tell me, doesn't happen in any other democratic country.

Ahem! Excuse me! I wasn't the one who called private school pupils "thickos and dimwits".

Sorry are you saying that if we doesnt have an answer to the issues of child carers that we cant comment on the private school/public school debate? That would render any intervention impossible, should we not have pupil premium because it doesnt tackle the issues of children with dyslexia. I am really unclear as to what you mean.

Gosh of course genes matter- that explains how working class people in the '60s managed to achieve success in so many areas doesn't it? And why someone with a private education, a position of power but not very good exam results got into Cambridge. It was their genes.

One of the huge and largely ignored factor in child development in this country is adequate nutrition. Some US states have taken action about this and recognise inadequate nutrition as a baby can cause poor brain development.

So now we are blaming schools for the lack of mental health support for children.
As one teacher said "Stick a broom up my a* and I'll be the cleaner as well"

DaisyAnne

growstuff

Joseanne

Actually the thickos and dimwits are very much the ones who fare well in private education. Teaching staff are very quick to intervene and support children who struggle. A bright child will do well whatever type of school they attend, even if they were to sit in the garden shed for their lessons.

What kind of country condones buying advantage for its thickos and dimwits? Some of these thickos and dimwits take university places which could be used more productively by brighter students and some of them go on to be our leaders and owners of wealth. What kind of country doesn't want its brightest and best in charge?

Could you stop calling children "thickos and dimwits"? I certainly wouldn't send a child to a school you were in charge of. I just hope you are not a teacher.

What kind of country condones buying advantage for its thickos and dimwits?

I keep asking but no one has ever given an example. Which democratic country or countries ban fee-paying education? You want us to do something that, as far as anyone can tell me, doesn't happen in any other democratic country.

No, I haven't advocated banning fee-paying schools. I support abolishing a state tax subsidy to schools attended by children of people who are already better off.

Velvet Are you supporting the Platonic approach of removing children at birth from their parents?

No.

And stop calling me Velvet.