[psychomansam]

My Dad has always been keen to point out that he worked damn hard for it, and my education is the only form of inheritance I can expect.

Which is one good reason to abolish the current private-state split, for starters (I'm at least pre-pragmatically for 100% inheritance tax.) I'll come back to this.

Diversity in schools is a great thing. It's a huge advantage of (most?) universities and something we, as a country, should be proud of. Whatever you think of it, intercultural diversity and integration is inevitable, so there's no harm in doing it well. I remember innocently wondering, in primary school, who the ugly girl with the flat face was (I should perhaps add I'm still in touch and she's beautiful). She was the only non-white-British student in my school in Canterbury. Thankfully this isn't the experience of many children today.
Gove, lest it should need confirming, is an utter burk. With government-funded 'free' schools being started by and for religious and ethnic communities we can expect to see increasing societal apartheid, division and misunderstanding.

So diverse schools are great, but to me, and with the gove-caveat above, the greatest issue in schools is a lack of economic diversity. In this respect, we have one of the most socially divided school systems in the developed world. The effects are hugely damaging and divisive, working to reinforce class divides and creating an 'us and them' society. If all our schools had the same economic distribution, we'd be living in a very different society.
I don't blame anyone who kills someone in revenge for killing their family, but that's why we need laws to stop revenge-killings. I don't blame anyone who moves to a 'better' school area, but that's why we need top down solutions to prevent urban drift. School catchments need a huge overhaul in the state sector, and the state-private divide needs doing away with. You can guess which I'd want to abolish.

I'm not an expert, but I'm a state-school teacher and a student of political philosophy, and I've studied some sociology.

[Jaspersharpe]

Interesting JB. My main bias against sending the lad to a public school is based on my experience of the kids I met who went to the one where I grew up and several total wankers who I've met here in Sheffield who attended Birkdale (sp?). So a massive generalisation perhaps but there you go.

I suppose I'm anti the principle politically too but I'm honest enough to admit that it wouldn't stop me from going down that route if I thought it was the best thing for my son. I'll do whatever in that respect.

[Johnny Brown]

In this respect, we have one of the most socially divided school systems in the developed world.

I know very little about how this works, but the secondary on the road I grew up on (and at which my Dad is now a governor, ironically enough), is in a Cheshire dormitory town near Manchester. Despite the fact that there is a actually a fair cross-section of economic diversity in the town, nowadays a certain proportion of the kids get bused over to Manchester and some inner city kids get bused back to take their places. I'm guessing this isn't the norm then?

[psychomansam]

a certain proportion of the kids get bused over to Manchester and some inner city kids get bused back to take their places. I'm guessing this isn't the norm then?

No, it's not the norm, though it does happen. I'm not saying busing kids about is the best solution - it can cause problem as well as solve them, but we could still do with more of it.

You can do that, can have somewhat mixed sets in schools and can abolish private ed, which would all help a decent amount, but of course you're still polishing a turd - we have some of the worst inequality and social mobility in the developed world.

Actually, polishing shit is a fair description of a few parts of the job at the minute. Or should I say that society shits, asks teachers to clean it up and then blames us for the mess? Rant done - start of a new term, sorry.

[andy_e]

Most of us — about 93 per cent of the British population — who didn’t go to private school have an image of them that, if it was ever accurate, is now woefully out of date. We think of Flashman, bullying, toffs, snobs, a narrow focus on rugby, rowing and Latin, braying voices, the old-boy network. We think of exam factories charged with coaching the sons and daughters of the old rich, or coating the children of the aspirational new rich with a veneer of culture. I shared this view, broadly, until about a decade ago.

That's my experience of private schools from someone who went to one...

I went to 3 private schools over the years, and know lots of others who did. In my experience the above types represent a fairly tiny minority, albeit one who seem to have a knack of getting into power.

In my school year they were all stereotypical rugger/footer lads who moved on to cricket in the summer and shunned anyone who couldn't play/had no interest in sport/whose dad didn't have a BMW/whose parents weren't on a total of £250,000 a year or more/whose parents didn't buy them a car/latest electronics/clothes...

[johnx2]

full-fee scholarships are open to anyone

With my best attempt at a camp New York accent I'd call that statement oxymoronic....

(ie the scholar bit and the fee bit mean no they're not open to anyone, just those who can pass and pay. And passing tends to be easier with coaching.)

A brother in law once told me that it's only people who can't afford it who complain about private education, as though that wasn't, kind of, the point?

(I guess we actually could afford it, but I'm squeamish about buying advantage for offspring - paying so mine get a head start on yours? Let's not pretend private education is anything else. It just doesn't seem classy. You want everyone to have chances and opportunities. But of course we've done this by paying twice for a house what we would've on the other side of the moor. So I'm compromised as you like without even starting on the tutors. I can claim part of the comprehensive ideal is all the local kids going to the same school and we get more of that than in most places, even thought for some parents this isn't good enough so off they go, and a few kids with v motivated and engaged parents get the bus in from elsewhere. All symptoms of the same malaise.)

[Pantontino]

JB I never guessed, and perhaps that partly proves your point that private education doesn't automatically make you  into a twat (although the current leaders of this country do show that it can).

However, the idea that private schools are populated by normal folk is bogus - it is still a 7% elite. There was a private school about a mile from my house in Blackpool and I never knew a single person who went there.

In my adult life I've ended up with a few friends who were privately educated, but there was definitely no crossover in my youth.

I believe private schools should be stopped - there is enough inequality in our society as it is, why add to it? I'd recommend people to read The Spirit Level (and the inevitable right wing back lash too).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

As for Frank Turner - I was very surprised to find out that he is in fact a right wing libertarian - perhaps not as vile as Guido Fawkes but still quite at odds with his Billy Bragg-esque punk/folk persona. My 11 year old daughter has just become a big fan and she was gutted when I told her last night.

Interesting fact: 20 years ago only about 2% of pop acts/bands were privately educated; that figure is now nearer 60%. Does that matter?

Joe Strummer came from a privileged background - and I happen to think he was perhaps the greatest front man/song writer/radical lyricist of his generation. Go figure...

[slackline]

I'd recommend people to read The Spirit Level (and the inevitable right wing back lash too).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

I read that a couple of years ago and have a number of criticisms about their approach to showing correlation (in simple terms they cherry picked their data and categorised continuous variables in a very specific manner then comparing extremes to each other).  I really annoyed me too the way they presented it all with simple scatter plots and only ever quoting r² for the correlation, no attempt to quantify the relationships beyond that.


The authors have a web-site at The Equality Trust where more can be read without purchasing the book.

Non-right wing back lash and a considered scientific critique of the book can be found in The Spirit Level Delusion which looks at the evidence to support this and suggests that there is confounding, ie. there is a third factor that is highly correlated with inequality that is the cause of the problems the authors of The Spirit Level are saying are caused by inequaility and most importantly claiming that correlation implies causation, see above linked cartoon.  A couple of articles on the WSJ and in a book review.

There are of course re-joinders to these objections and criticisms that can be found on Wilkinson & Pickett's site.

I'm skeptical and keep an open mind, but when the data isn't cherry-picked and more robust analyses are performed (there is rarely ever anything to be gained from categorising continuous variables, because statistical methods seek to explain the variation that exists, and categorising reduces the variation) the correlations are not as strong or disappear completely.

[johnx2]

Non-right wing back lash and a considered scientific critique of the book can be found in The Spirit Level Delusion

Non-right wing? The first names on page one are:

— Kristian Niemietz, Institute of Economic Affairs (right wing think tank)
— Ed West, The Telegraph
— James Delingpole, The Telegraph
— Philip Booth, City AM
— An Englishman's Castle
(also a three-worder from the Economist)

The a lot of garbled argument to say that inequality is not associated with worse health. Blimey! That's pretty much all Public Health epidemiology got it wrong...

[slackline]

Non-right wing? The first names on page one are:

— Kristian Niemietz, Institute of Economic Affairs (right wing think tank)
— Ed West, The Telegraph
— James Delingpole, The Telegraph
— Philip Booth, City AM
— An Englishman's Castle
(also a three-worder from the Economist)

The a lot of garbled argument to say that inequality is not associated with worse health. Blimey!

You've read comments and highlighted the names of people who have reviewed the book, they're not authors, just people who wrote positive reviews, so somewhat irrelevant and meaningless if you are trying to say that because they gave it a positive review the author hasn't done an objective critique.  If you want some non-positive reviews, then read take your pick from Amazon reviews. No doubt there won't be a glowing review of it in Socialist Worker, but they probably sing great praise of Wilkinson & Pickett's book.  People tend to enjoy reading things that reinforce their existing biases.

I've not actually read "The Spirit-Level Delusion" and have no idea what job the author does or their affiliations, but the evidence doesn't necessarily support the claims made in the original book which I have read.  As I wrote, there are issues with the way in which they cherry picked their data and then chose to analyse and present it (it really winds me up when people calculate correlation and then claim that it is evidence for causation, see above comments about confounding).  Some of these issues are highlighted in the WSJ article I also linked and which I have read and are perfectly valid, such as being unable to reproduce the findings which is why I said they were scientific rather than right-wing, because they are based on evidence from what I have read.

That's pretty much all Public Health epidemiology got it wrong...

Wilkinson, one of the co-authors of "The Spirit-Level" is a historian and sociologist, not a public health epidemiologist so he should be ok.

There may well be a relationship between inequality and some aspects of health, but the way in which it is presented in The Spirit Level, whilst on first glance may seem appealing didn't hold up to scrutiny when I put my work hat on.

Anyway, the validity of the arguments and counter-arguments is slightly tangential to this threads topic though, so I'll leave it at that.


EDIT : Although I would like to add that I personally would like to see inequality reduced regardless of whether it actually has any benefits for the health of a given nation.

[Pantontino]

EDIT : Although I would like to add that I personally would like to see inequality reduced regardless of whether it actually has any benefits for the health of a given nation.

Well, at least we've found some common ground then! 

[johnx2]

if you are trying to say that because they gave it a positive review the author hasn't done an objective critique.

Are you saying that a book subtitled "Fact Checking the Left's New Theory of Everything" from someone working for the IEA and a Spiked Online controversialist is likely to offer an objective critique?

One minute of google gives you the author's standpoint on climate change, tobacco control and state interventions on public health generally. Do you want to have a wild guess at his evidence-based take on each of these issues?

(Fwiw I'd be amazed if I actually disagreed with your analysis of Sprit Level, or anything else for that matter, and I am hardly going to agree with over-interpreting/misinterpreting data to substantiate ideological positions. Just that the supposed take-down you cited is ridiculously blatantly doing the same.)

[Johnny Brown]

However, the idea that private schools are populated by normal folk is bogus

I never suggested that did I? Although it does of course depend on your perception of normality I would contend 'normal' folk should mean a cross-section, not the specific demographic you happen to have grown up around.

I'm squeamish about buying advantage for offspring - paying so mine get a head start on yours? Let's not pretend private education is anything else. It just doesn't seem classy

I find this view that there is a some kind of competition going on completely bizarre. I've never met anyone who privately educated their kids to get one up on someone else. They do it because they want the best for <i>their </i>kid, irrespective of what anyone else is doing. In many cases they did this because their talented kid was bored/ ignored in the local state school. Now that might be tackled if we banned private education and went back to something the grammar school system, but that brought its own problems of life-changing selection didn't it?

I don't think the idea of banning private education really stands scrutiny personally. I've just had laser surgery on my eyes, its brilliant, it should be available to everyone. But it isn't, because its a luxury not a necessity. Should we ban it lest the rich get ahead with their bionic eyes?

[johnx2]

Education's a luxury for the rich?   

Parents don't want their kids to ccmpete and get ahead?

Are you sure?  I've a complex as ever take on all this but my two cents have about run out.

[crimp]

I do actually have some potentially interesting perspective to add to this discussion regarding state/private schools.

However, i am sworn off politics on here.

I will relate as neutrally as possible if anyone asks.

[joeisidle]

However, the idea that private schools are populated by normal folk is bogus

I never suggested that did I? Although it does of course depend on your perception of normality I would contend 'normal' folk should mean a cross-section, not the specific demographic you happen to have grown up around.

I'm squeamish about buying advantage for offspring - paying so mine get a head start on yours? Let's not pretend private education is anything else. It just doesn't seem classy

I find this view that there is a some kind of competition going on completely bizarre. I've never met anyone who privately educated their kids to get one up on someone else. They do it because they want the best for <i>their </i>kid, irrespective of what anyone else is doing. In many cases they did this because their talented kid was bored/ ignored in the local state school. Now that might be tackled if we banned private education and went back to something the grammar school system, but that brought its own problems of life-changing selection didn't it?

I don't think the idea of banning private education really stands scrutiny personally. I've just had laser surgery on my eyes, its brilliant, it should be available to everyone. But it isn't, because its a luxury not a necessity. Should we ban it lest the rich get ahead with their bionic eyes?

I wouldn't say that the motives of the parents sending their kids to private school is the main issue, and I also wouldn't argue that simply banning private education is a good idea. However, what worries me about endorsing the private school model is that it could lead to a lack of focus on the provision of education for children who only have access to state funded schools. Considering the funding cuts facing state schools in the UK at the moment and the mixed views on how much academy status will actually benefit schools in more deprived areas (not to mention the idelogies of the current government), I don't think this is an idle worry. Furthermore, I understand the bionic eye conundrum, but I'd say access to education is a more fundamental and universal worry than access to laser eye surgery.

[psychomansam]

I find this view that there is a some kind of competition going on completely bizarre.

I've been actually laughing out loud at this for while now. I don't really know where to start. I suppose I could start at evolutionary behavioral biology and end at game theory and neoliberal anarcho-capitalism, but I'm too bemused for the minute.

And I'd rather we all be half-blind and educated than thick and sighted. That's a fairly nonsensical answer to your implication that the best education should be reserved for the rich. Again, I don't trust myself to take your point seriously right now.

[Pantontino]

I was discussing something similar with my wife's dad recently: our conclusion was that there is a sliding scale of importance with regard to public/private provision. At one end of the spectrum is dentistry - in the middle is healthcare - and at the far end is education, this being considerably more important.

The idea that people are not seeking advantage over others (or that it is not a given) by buying private education I find very hard to believe. Maybe there is the odd case, as JB describes, but beyond that I have serious doubts.

Privately educated people are more likely to get the top jobs for a variety of reasons (not least which, old school connections). That is both wrong from a moral point of view but also a dangerous model for any country to run on. Why squander talent from the lower social echelons - that's just crazy.

If we don't get rid of private schools (and I'm sure the privileged elite in this country would turn to civil war before that was ever allowed), maybe we should re-introduce grammar schools?

Is Tony Parsons right?:

"As I was growing up there were five British Prime Ministers in a row that were educated by the state 1964 to 1997 and I don't think that could ever happen again. We will forever be ruled by unexceptional men who had exceptional education"

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/peter-kellow/why-britain-needs-grammar_b_2333269.html

[ducko]

I believe diversity was an old old wooden ship?

[psychomansam]

I disagree re: re-introduction of grammar schools. I actually would've agreed until I became a teacher at a comp.

Students within comps rarely fully realise (since they don't experience the perspective) the vastly different educational opportunities available to different sets.

Differentiation is hard. Teachers tend to teach somewhat to middle, and differentiation either way is often not as good as it would ideally be. That's not a criticism of teachers though - if you think it is, try and do better yourself. Thankfully, teachers aren't left entirely to their own devices and their are teaching-assistants within some classes to help the lower abilities and various other out-of-class support methods provided for the same.

So what about the other end of things? Well I taught a top-set (partially mixed) y8 lesson today which would have left the bottom set utterly clueless. I pushed them much further, and I work hard to give them opportunities to rise high. Differentiation upwards is certainly less well financed though. Our 'gifted and talented' co-ordinator is just a teacher who gains no extra time for the role ( the SENCO, or special ed needs coordinator, is a full-time job). It's hard to complain though. There's good philosophical/political arguments for prioritising those most in need of support, perhaps to reach a sufficient level, and it's difficult to justify spending much state money to give a hand up to those already more able.

So why wouldn't I re-introduce grammars? Because I think top sets are good enough at the job? Partly, and because in this format, those separated out aren't so separated. They're still able to befriend others across what is sadly often the class divide (parental motivation/expectations of the middle class etc) and partial mixing of sets, along with set adjustment, allows for more people to gain a place in the top set, even if they develop their intelligence a little later.

Beyond that though, I think there is still a good argument for doing more for the 'gifted and talented'. My suggestion would be to use parent-financing to fund opportunities for this group. If private schools were abolished, parents would still be able to use their money to buy their children (and, incidentally, children of poorer parents) a better education, presuming of course that their kids were bright enough to make the top couple of sets or the 'gifted and talented' register (yes, we all have one). The finance could be used to provide smaller classes or extra lessons, trips, competitions, opportunities etc. I believe a lot more could be done in most comps with not too much more money.

tuppence.

[Johnny Brown]

At one end of the spectrum is dentistry - in the middle is healthcare - and at the far end is education, this being considerably more important.

Hmm, I'm not sure about that. Teaching work at height I come across a fair spectrum of folk. Many cannot write, consider their school days worthless, yet have done pretty well for themselves. I don't see many folk who have managed to bluff through their own healthcare. A lot of them do have fucking shocking teeth mind...

I find this view that there is a some kind of competition going on completely bizarre.

I've been actually laughing out loud at this for while now. I don't really know where to start. I suppose I could start at evolutionary behavioral biology...

Fair enough. I'm sure at the evolutionary level it could be defined as 'competition', yes. I disagree that those making the choice 'are seeking advantage over others' as Si puts it. That may be a result, but its not the motivation. The kind of parents I met (mine for certain) would be only too happy if such a standard of education was available to all. Unfortunately it isn't. The implication that such parents are knowingly trampling over others to further their family is not a pleasant one, nor one I recognise bar from some political cartoon stereotype. We all have to operate in the status quo.

And I'd rather we all be half-blind and educated than thick and sighted. That's a fairly nonsensical answer to your implication that the best education should be reserved for the rich.

If that was implied it was not intended. I do not believe that. As above, I'd be only too happy if such a standard of education was available to all. What I haven't come across yet is a serious alternative proffered, other than this assertion that 'private schools are the problem'. My Dad went through the grammar school system and still feels stigmatised for failing his 11plus. Ironically I suspect it was that that gave him the drive to better himself, whereas I became a lazy-ass climbing bum...

[tomtom]

And higher education....

[Johnny Brown]

Bit of a cross-post there, you've already answered my question to some extent.

it's difficult to justify spending much state money to give a hand up to those already more able...
I think there is still a good argument for doing more for the 'gifted and talented'

I do think you'd need to. I'm out of my depth here really as I know fuck all about teaching really (bar that my wife is a learning mentor and I teach adults in a manner), and to be honest I'm not a huge advocate of private education, just thought I'd put my tuppence in as the only person here who wants to admit to receiving one.

So partly to play devil's advocate... there were some total geniuses at my school. Often borderline asperger's types who I doubt would have thrived in the state system, even streamed as you describe. Their parents were complete spodding geek weirdos, and they went on to be research scientists etc. I'm not saying that private has to be the solution, but I think there are some benefits from greater separation if you want the uk to continue to produce such geeks.

If private schools were abolished, parents would still be able to use their money to buy their children (and, incidentally, children of poorer parents) a better education, presuming of course that their kids were bright enough to make the top couple of sets or the 'gifted and talented' register (yes, we all have one). The finance could be used to provide smaller classes or extra lessons, trips, competitions, opportunities etc.

Sounds nice, but in reality I can't help thinking that this could only increase the postcode ghetto-isation of good state schools? The bottom one for me is kids will fall through the cracks and I'm not convince its fair to prevent their parents to do anything about it. Or would they all end up spending weekends doing extra maths with a private tutor and being bored witless/ beaten senseless at class?

[SA Chris]

I believe diversity was an old old wooden ship?

No, they are talking about the dance group from BGT.

[Pantontino]

I was discussing something similar with my wife's dad recently: our conclusion was that there is a sliding scale of importance with regard to public/private provision. At one end of the spectrum is dentistry - in the middle is healthcare - and at the far end is education, this being considerably more important.

Bur what about climbing guidebooks? It is surely appalling that mixed provision is tolerated ... the BMC and associated member clubs should clearly have a monopoly 

A bit apples and pairs but the point is that education is a hugely important factor in an individual's life opportunities. We already have huge inequalities in our society; pathways out of the ghetto barely exist at all. It is a myth that anybody can make it if they just work hard enough - that is a big fat lie which sits at the heart of modern capitalism.

As for guidebooks - I'm very pro small businesses (all my favourite companies are small), it's big business I have a problem with (monopolistic behaviour, ridiculous and ever growing financial rewards for executives seemingly regardless of performance, ever poorer standards of customer service, dull homogenous products, undemocratic lobbying influence on govt etc - I could go on but I'm sure you get the picture)