vimothy
yurp
I mean, what's the fucking point?
The point, as ever, is to return the incumbent leadership to power.
I mean, what's the fucking point?
My idea of the typical ex-poly student at the time was a not-so-bright middle class kid who felt entitled to go to uni no matter how shit their grades were and spent three years getting pissed and merely playing the role of someone in worthwhile higher education. All the while getting fleeced for thousands of pounds only to go on to work in a job paying less than if they'd three years of work experience instead.
Slightly exaggerated and unfair, really. Typical grammar school attitude.
The point, as ever, is to return the incumbent leadership to power.
The very best public schools and state schools are highly competitive - you would need to be 11+ standard or (far) above to get in. The top students at these schools have scholarships which may pay a large proportion or the entirety of their fees (in other words, you can be poor and a student at Eton).
Many of the ppl I knew at Oxford or Cambridge paid little or nothing for their elite secondary education: smarts got them into a top public or state grammar school, before then gaining them admittance into university. It is the not-so-talented children's parents who will pay through the nose to send them through the private system as, in their parents' eyes, they stand to lose the most by missing out. These students make up the majority of a public school's cohort, but not necessarily the majority of those that they send to the top universities.
It is no wonder that a minority of schools dominate when these schools act precisely as Oxbridge does but at a preliminary stage: exacting entry standards selecting a choice crop of pupils for an education that, being academically demanding, plays to their strengths. They also profit from a virtuous circle: their success attracts a widening pool of applicants, whose increasing talent brings ever more glory come A-Level time.
That said, prep schools offer far more support to children gunning for public school scholarships than state primaries do! (Though many schools use reasoning tests for entry, which are quite resistant to training).
Some good points, Andy, but the 'how would would you set things up' question that I posed is a bit of a strategic one, rather than a cop-out or diversion. This is because I think that envisaging a private-school-less system is possible, but only at first glance.
Abolish private and grammar schools and the advantages that financially or culturally-blessed families have would still express themselves. The diet that state schools provide would be supplemented by out-of-hours tuition by, yet again, the best tutors that money can buy. Or, even more drastically, parents would withdraw their children completely and home-school, either themselves or using tutors (private schools as they are could be seen as 'grouped home-tutoring arrangements'). Or, they would emigrate. Q. How would you prevent this?
Not every wealthy child or family is going to want to take on the extra effort of either engaging in extra tutition on top of normal school hours or opting out and learning how to teach themselves entirely. Similarly, I think the number of potential teachers who would be attracted into private tuition would be rather less than those attracted into fee-paying schools, given that tutoring involves a rather different skill set and, as I understand it, often less regular work.
If I were wealthy, had children of talent who were en route to an unsatisfactory school and were bereft of alternatives, I would send them to a top private school abroad, possibly following them. Many parents rightly see their children's years of schooling as of paramount importance and widen their net accordingly - this is why so many private school pupils here are received from abroad. Would you want to risk such an exodus of talent (and cash)?
Would you abolish private faith schools, eg. Muslim schools? Q. Don't communities have a right to establish schools that communicate their own beliefs?
After all, without the somewhat artificial organised schooling/babysitting system, children would be taught by their immediate community.
what people do in their own homes is up to them, but i'll be damned if i'm going to pay to teach kids fairy tales and bigotry.
It's a private school - you wouldn't be paying for any of it; the parents who send their children there would! And being 'private', it's an extension of another private sphere: the home.
Just throwing this out there...There might also be an issue with nurseries - they are fee-paying and arguably give an unfair advantage. Are they to be banned or state-subsidised across the board (at great expense)?
good point, but even private schools have to abide by the curriculum.
Would you abolish private faith schools, eg. Muslim schools? Q. Don't communities have a right to establish schools that communicate their own beliefs?
Yes, in the blink of an eye. That's just me being me, though.
But seriously, there's nothing to stop parents bringing their kids up to believe whatever nebulous hokum they like at home, so why must there be schools to ram it down their throats as well? If you've got religious kids who feel they have to take a couple of minutes out from each day to pray or whatever, or there's enough kids from a certain community to justify halal or kosher lunch options, then fair enough. Accommodating existing beliefs is one thing, but I don't think schools should be reinforcing and propagating them.
And presumably Muslims would feel aggrieved to find, once their teachings have been outlawed - private actions forbidden by being dragged into the public sphere - that they must swallow hokum that has been designed precisely to be nebulous: namely the short period of pseudo-religious observance that state schools are required to provide. The only difference being that the latter hokum has been sanctioned by the majority...
However I can't see where you got the idea I want to ban churches, mosques &c. - places of worship are places for, well, worship. Schools are there to educate, not indoctrinate.
I don't think that this is the case, as private schools have been discussing abandoning the NC recently (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article2872801.ece)...You seem to be arguing for at least a legally-enforced basic curriculum, I suppose.