The post you are reporting:
I like using the term 'Public Schools' because it shows how far we have moved on. It exposes that we still have a way to go, disparately holding onto tradition, because something is not wrong does not make it right. Public schools set fees at different rates and can therefore do not just offer education but admittance into a financially based networking group. It is no surprise people in prominent positions in this country are generally sourced from one of a handful of schools. Is it that rich people are more intelligent? Intelligence is initially a genetic thing, however in terms of taught intelligences and passing exams etc (the nurture part) rich kids get it better because they can afford more. How on earth does perpetuating this aid social mobility, unless of course you don't?
Self determination, the American dream, the protestant work ethic (call this same idea what you will) are all fairly good at keeping people working but actually fail to tell the truth. The amount of work you put in is not proportion to what you achieve. The best descriptor of what a person will achieve in their life, in this country is what their parents earn/do, they simply follow suit. This isn't a forecast from a group like the IFS, but an observable and well documented fact. By placing a focus on Public schools, things go backwards not forwards.
The Grammar schools in Dover don't have enough children passing the entry test to fill enough places to sustain a Grammar school. A reason why a second selection test is in place to fill their quota, a percentage of the secondary entry year that is going up as the roll falls. You can disagree with what Grammars achieve compared to comprehensives, but once again this isn't speculation but well documented fact. Remember we are only one of 3 or 4 counties that still have this system, I think the rest are the Home Counties...funny that!
Sue, I make no comment, at a personal level, about the people coming out of the Grammar system and actually state no preference (I say there is no benefit, not anything negative), I don't remember writing anywhere that these people are bad, or that Grammar schools should be scrapped. If you learnt to read Sue you would see that I said they are doing a good job (post #8). I also have lots of friends that went to public schools, many of which just confirm my ideas. I have no need to kick things as I'm a grown up Sue, but you just read what you want. Please don't patronise us with your 'reeling in' comments. You should see me on the Bus with my children...I'm amazing... and we live in a terraced house in Tower Hamlets, Trumps. You'll be pleased to know I'm taking them to kearsney abbey this morning.
Social mobility does decrease due to left wing ideas, you are absolute right. It goes without saying that the closer you move towards an egalitarian structure the narrower the scope of mobility there is. I'm all for competition, a society of self determination and people standing on their own two feet but this simply doesn't have much weight when you look at the structure this supposed competition takes place within. I'd agree with most of your ideas Barry if we lived in a country where they could take place, progressive Conservatism is just a contradiction in terms. We all detest this culture of worshipping the likes of the Beckhams, wanting to be a footballer, model or pop star; but why do you think this happens? It happens because this is about the only way of negating the system that keeps people in their place. But then what is wrong with the Beckhams or Jordan and Peter, they're successful and rich and as a result their children deserve a better education than my children. In fact because they have more money, they are probably better, more intelligent people than you or I anyway.
How rich someone is can be a good gauge of their success, but being rich doesn't make you successful and being successful doesn't always make you rich.
