How soon before the next step to privatising the state schools?

DaisyAnne

So it's okay that state schools are often underperforming M0nica. We don't have to worry about opportunities missed because they can come along and build your extension. Seriously?

Unemployment figures do not show those who have given up seeking work, the employed working but in poverty, nor does it show if the "employed" are part-time or full-time. I don't think you can extrapolate the numbers who are actually jobless.

Quite.

Not to mention, quite a few students from schools I've worked in have dropped in on me (online, not actually at my home!) and it's been a succession of McDonalds and other low paid, zero hours contracts, interspersed with unemployment.

I'm not whistling in the wind here. I've been a teacher in inner city schools and also the NE, where Thatcher decimated industry. I see this on a daily basis.

How is what we legally spend the business of government?

It used to be legal to spend your money on a slave.

It used to be legal to spend your money on bear baiting.

It used to be legal to spend your money betting on a dog fight.

Sometimes things that are legal in one generation are seen to be untenable and are not acceptable any more, and its generally the government which changes the rules. Some people think that those with the money to support it can choose educational advantages for their children, some think that's not acceptable.

Callistemon21

^So none of you are in the least bit concerned about discussing the death of state schools and half of you want communism^.

Yes, I am cocerned, but some on this thread think the only way to achieve this is by preventing freedom of choice.
It's illogical.

Anyway, education is devolved here so I'll leave you to it.

I do know a few are concerned Callistemon. It's the lack of logic that makes it so difficult to have a reasoned conversation. That and the inverted snobbery.

growstuff

DaisyAnne

growstuff

DaisyAnne

So none of you are in the least bit concerned about discussing the death of state schools and half of you want communism.

That's going to be great for the children.

What on earth are you on about?

You're the only one obsessed with communism.

I'm not. But people who think they can stop others spending their money on education for their children worry me as that is communism. There is no capitalist country that does that.

Good grief! It's not communism! I think you're being a tad paranoid.

PS. Germany and Finland have very few private schools. Do you think all Germans and Finns are communists?

No, they have not banned privately funded schools and they have poured vast amounts of state money into the state schools. That is not what is being suggested. What is being suggested is banning choice completely.

What I find wrong with private schools is that it enables parents with enough money to deliberately buy advantages for their children over those with whom in later life they will have to compete.

What is also wrong is Tory govts failure / lack of interest in appointing a half-way competent, half-way committed S of State for education. Someone willing to fight its corner rather than forever blaming teachers and never listening to them (apologies to the latest one, re whom we know little yet).

I'm curious, why would anyone want to tell us what we can spend our money on? How is what we legally spend the business of government?

If we accept that we may not pay for education for our GC what will we be told we may or may not purchase in future?

Change to taxes seems the answer to me.

So none of you are in the least bit concerned about discussing the death of state schools and half of you want communism.

Yes, I am cocerned, but some on this thread think the only way to achieve this is by preventing freedom of choice.
It's illogical.

Anyway, education is devolved here so I'll leave you to it.

growstuff

DaisyAnne

growstuff

DaisyAnne

So none of you are in the least bit concerned about discussing the death of state schools and half of you want communism.

That's going to be great for the children.

What on earth are you on about?

You're the only one obsessed with communism.

I'm not. But people who think they can stop others spending their money on education for their children worry me as that is communism. There is no capitalist country that does that.

Good grief! It's not communism! I think you're being a tad paranoid.

PS. Germany and Finland have very few private schools. Do you think all Germans and Finns are communists?

Not Finland again.

Shown to be myths perpetuated by gullible people on the internet.

Are you seriously suggesting that children from working class families should be shunted into doing manual jobs

What intellectual snobbery!
It really is.

shunted
Disgraceful attitudes on here.

My definition of success is doing something that makes you happy and proud of your achievement at the end of the day, whatever it maybe

Mollygo

So the government bans private schools-and anything else people see as unfair.

Private school parents might well welcome not having to pay school fees. They’d simply move their children to the ‘best’ or what would soon become ‘the best’ state schools. They wouldn’t suddenly move their children to schools in poorer areas would they?
What would happen to those schools?
What about the children who currently would go there, when their places are taken by these ex private school children?
Would they then go to ‘improve’ the next school down the list and the schools in poorer areas would still be poorer.
Where would the extra funding for schools come from if private school parents are already paying into the system through taxes as well as paying school fees?

This isn’t painting the most positive picture of private school parents - basically colonising the best schools for themselves ?. OTOH, it proves the point that they would improve the likelihood of state schools improving if the sharp-elbowed and/or well-connected had to use them.

I’m not sure what is covered by ‘anything else people see as unfair’. We are talking about schools.

So it's okay that state schools are often underperforming - define underperforming.

Every child should have the opportunity to pursue the education and career they choose. The brainiest can be manual labourers if they wish; and the least brainy can aspire to academia if they wish.

If part of the funding for schools was not going into the pockets of canny entrepreneurs who run academy trusts, then state education would improve.

But, as always with education, we need to define what constitutes success - is it just exam results? And we need to be clear what education is for.

Don't go there growstuff ?

DaisyAnne

growstuff

DaisyAnne

So none of you are in the least bit concerned about discussing the death of state schools and half of you want communism.

That's going to be great for the children.

What on earth are you on about?

You're the only one obsessed with communism.

I'm not. But people who think they can stop others spending their money on education for their children worry me as that is communism. There is no capitalist country that does that.

Good grief! It's not communism! I think you're being a tad paranoid.

PS. Germany and Finland have very few private schools. Do you think all Germans and Finns are communists?

Callistemon21

^All the people who have done this work have been pleasant sensible lads, who I doubt would be university material, but they have good jobs, providing a good living^

They may well be earning far in excess of anyone with a degree in a stressful job eg teaching, nursing too.

Try finding a handyman, someone to do basic landscaping work and they are like gold dust and can therefore charge accordingly.

Are you seriously suggesting that children from working class families should be shunted into doing manual jobs and not be given the opportunity to study something more "academic" or creative, if that's what they want?

How many pupils from Eton do you think go on to be plumbers or carpenters? Why do you think their parents might be disappointed if that's what they did?

How many people from manual jobs have real power in this country? Or do you think that's not their role?

PS. Should females be encouraged to become plumbers and carpenters? Whenever this argument is mentioned, why is it always about stereotypical male jobs? What about the girls?

growstuff

DaisyAnne

So none of you are in the least bit concerned about discussing the death of state schools and half of you want communism.

That's going to be great for the children.

What on earth are you on about?

You're the only one obsessed with communism.

I'm not. But people who think they can stop others spending their money on education for their children worry me as that is communism. There is no capitalist country that does that.

So it's okay that state schools are often underperforming M0nica. We don't have to worry about opportunities missed because they can come along and build your extension. Seriously?

Unemployment figures do not show those who have given up seeking work, the employed working but in poverty, nor does it show if the "employed" are part-time or full-time. I don't think you can extrapolate the numbers who are actually jobless.

DaisyAnne

So none of you are in the least bit concerned about discussing the death of state schools and half of you want communism.

That's going to be great for the children.

What on earth are you on about?

You're the only one obsessed with communism.

So none of you are in the least bit concerned about discussing the death of state schools and half of you want communism.

That's going to be great for the children.

All the people who have done this work have been pleasant sensible lads, who I doubt would be university material, but they have good jobs, providing a good living

They may well be earning far in excess of anyone with a degree in a stressful job eg teaching, nursing too.

Try finding a handyman, someone to do basic landscaping work and they are like gold dust and can therefore charge accordingly.

Gagajo If he'd been working-class, he'd have been condemned to a life unemployed after an under funded state education.

Why? Over the last two years we have had an extension built, kitchen refitted and currently have some guys in the garden doing landscaping work and laying a patio. As do almost any school leavers in most parts of the country

All the people who have done this work have been pleasant sensible lads, who I doubt would be university material, but they have good jobs, providing a good living.

Unemployment is currently as low as it has been for some time. Of course there are unemployment black spots and industries which are reducing staff, not employing them, but most education leavers, regardless of level, get jobs, and stay employed.

And while the number of people living in poverty is too many and the variation in incomes is too wide. The fact remains that the majority of households in this country have an adequate income.

Government statistics show that 80% of households have an income in excess of £20,000, 60% have incomes in excess of £30,000, 40% in excess of £40,000. www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2021

It is the same with university education. When I went to university in the early 1960s, well less than 10% went to university. Now it is 50%. When that proportion of school leavers go to university, there are going to be a lot of mediocre students getting to university from all kinds of schools, because the whole basis of university education has changed. More school leavers now go to university than did O levels in 1960, when only 20% of children went to grammar schools and outside grammar schools, opportunitities for secondary modern and technical school children to take O levels were few and far between.

volver

Scotland doesn't have grammar schools - well one, I believe. There are no academies or especially selective schools or all the rest of it. We just have schools. They offer free education to all. And mostly they stream pupils based on ability, not on the sharpness of their parents' elbows or how much money they have.

Seems sensible to me.

We have private schools for those who think little Tarquin or little Arabella is a cut above the other children.

Just saying "Losing the argument" doesn't mean in fact I am losing the argument .

My point, which has been lost in no part due to me, is that there is a part of the UK where schools are not subject to all sorts of experiments and private enterprise. I know that the Scottish education system has its problems at the moment but making parents "fight" for a place they have been told that their children need is not one of those problems.

little Tarquin or little Arabella

Here we go again!
Stereotyping!

Losing the argument.

Tim nice but dim was an upper class Harry Enfield character. Upper class stereotype
I remember, Gagajo but posters have been castigated for using a certain a certain female name as a stereotype. I resolved not to use the name Kevin to describe teenagers (difficult when they behave like Harry Enfield's Kevin, so apt.)

Scotland doesn't have grammar schools - well one, I believe. There are no academies or especially selective schools or all the rest of it. We just have schools. They offer free education to all. And mostly they stream pupils based on ability, not on the sharpness of their parents' elbows or how much money they have.

Seems sensible to me.

We have private schools for those who think little Tarquin or little Arabella is a cut above the other children.