2 February 2010
11:3539415#1
I note that the present Government has been encouraging Universities to take into account student's social background when allocating places. i.e. allowing entry for those from a deprived background who have got lower A level results than others whose results, it is argued are due to private education etc.
According to today's newspaper (the Telegraph page 4) up to one third of our Olympic athletes will have come from public school backgrounds.
Surely we should be filling our Olympic teams with people from more modest background in spite of the fact that they can not, for example, run as fast as others whose training has been a result of privilege rather than raw talent?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
2 February 2010
14:1139423#2
The madness of the present Government may well result in that, Watch Battie Hattie, I am sure she will jump on this and condemn 'elitism' in sport soon.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
2 February 2010
14:2239427#3
Couldn't agree with you more, the sooner we get rid of public schools, the sooner we can stop this social engineering.
2 February 2010
17:5739451#4
EEEEEKKK!! Can't we simply, coherently and intelligently offer appropriate training, education and development to those who are appropriate to it?! Not those with the biggest wallets, most impressive parents or great aunt in the Fusiliers.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
2 February 2010
18:0939452#5
blimey bern, you will be giving us a lecture on communism next.
what would you suggest for your first 5 year plan?
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
3 February 2010
19:3739551#6
Surely it's about ability, not whether they have private education ?
If we're talking about only training people from Comprehensives, how do we know they are not good enough for olympic level ? Doesn't that mean we'll never have any more champions ?
All schools know who is a good athlete and would push them, surely ?
Roger
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
3 February 2010
21:3039561#7
You'd think so wouldn't you Roger.
But then you'd also think that all high paid employment would be based on ability not what type of school you went to, but it's not.
School's do know talent when they see it, however to push that talent requires time. Obviously in a class of 10, more attention can be spent on each student, as opposed to a class of 30. This time is also increased when extra curricular activities can run in the evening, perfectly suited to boarders.
Additionally State schools have to adhere to the National Curriculum and cutting a part of a prescriptive curriculum to provide extra encouragement is simply impossible, let alone financially or logistically securing extra staffing. OK so the extra staffing may cause a problem in a private school, but as for the National Curriculum Private schools can cut what they like because they don't have to follow it AT ALL!
Let's be clear about this, I'm not saying that Public schools aren't good, because they are, they can afford to be! But they just prove (on the whole) is that it is possible to provide excellent education given the freedom and resources. In a conversation the other day with a good friend who attended public school (and shares my view on this) we talked about our personal exam results, I almost laughed myself silly when she pointed out her average class size was 8, compared to my 28! My point is, much like Bern's, is that good education and opportunity should be available to all, not just those who can afford it.
Of course all this being said, huge numbers of athletes and academically gifted individuals do come from our state schools but perhaps given the same 'privileges' we might find more?
Just to be clear Roger (and sorry if you are already aware) but there is a recurring misconception that we have Comprehensives in Dover, we don't. Only 30% of secondary school age children in the whole of Kent (the biggest local education authority) go to comprehensives, compared to 90% nationally. Another antiquated quirk!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
3 February 2010
21:3739565#8
fear not about that anomaly dt, the party of blue barry are planning to knock grammar schools on the head once they inevitably gain the power that they crave.
3 February 2010
21:5339569#9
So what is being advocated here is a policy to take something away from someone, just because others aren't up to the standard required to join in.
I came from working class origins, wasn't allowed to stay on and get qualifications (family needed my wages to survive), yet through sheer bl00dy hard work and a bit of luck I managed to climb to the top of my profession. If nothing else, this proves if you want something badly enough you can get it, wherever your starting point is. But it has to be earned, not given because that's nice and fair. Bah!
Having striven for many years I fully appreciate what I have, and wouldn't want it any other way.
The problem with redistributionists and equal everything for everyoners is they seem to have no concept of what life is really like. The strong win through, the weak get pushed aside. That is how it is, deal with it.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
3 February 2010
22:1039571#10
Howard - you simply could not be more wrong on that. The Grammars will continue to be supported by the Conservatives the only change has been the dropping of Michael Howard's pledge to build more of them, 'one in every town'.
Personally I believe we should build more and every town deserves a Grammar, ot raher the children do. One change though and here DT will agree, the Grammars in Dover eat too deeply into the schhol population and many attaned who would not have come up to the grade in previous generations. I would amalgamate the boys and girls schools and have an intake of 75% of what the combined intake is now.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
3 February 2010
22:5539573#11
Of course I agree Barry (with the school population bit at least) and I think we can be pretty certain the amalamation will take place in the forseeable future. I think it will be interesting to see howthis pans out with the boy/girl intake and how this is addressed...although as a redistributionalist this concept might be a little complicated for me.
Wow Sid, are you a protestant? That ethic seems familiar. I'd quite like to be King of England, but I don't think however hard I work (or anyone other than those 'privileged') this will happen. In this country, those who where once strong have created quite a nice system where their blood line remain so, and occassionally the odd one will win through. I sincerely (and I really mean that) congratulate you for beating the system.
I don't want people to be equal, we simply aren't by nature. Some people are born intelligent, some good looking, some both and these things aid certain people in life, although it's sad we should be judged on the latter. All I think is everyone should be given a fair(er) playing field. And by this (back to the original thread) not give a poorer kid a place over a richer kid based on economic background, it works both ways.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
3 February 2010
23:3639583#12
Sounds to me like we ought to abolish comprehensives and just have private schools, that way every one will have special treatment and be thought more highly of !
Roger
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
3 February 2010
23:5739586#13
What we need to do is provide the best education we can afford as a society, this should be tailored to fit the abilities and potentials of the students, with relevant courses, class sizes etc. Of course at the same time we should not preclude people from choosing to spend their money on private education, we should however look to preclude that choice by making the state sector as good as, if not better than, the private sector.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
4 February 2010
08:3939591#14
Hurrah for Ross!!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
4 February 2010
08:4139593#15
I couldn't disagree more with the redistributionalist idea; it's a very dangerous area and would reduce the necessary striving that people (like Sid said above) need to do for personal achievement. There'd be no satisfaction of doing well.
You can't dumb down people, they'd all become morons (a lot are already) so we need to keep the competitive spirit alive and if that means keepuing/promoting grammar schools, then that's great.
Aren't grammar schools based on educational ability - the 11 plus ? So what's wrong with that then ? because they tend to have smaller classes ?
Roger
4 February 2010
08:5439599#16
I support Grammar schools directly because they are targetted. We SHOULD direct appropriate education and training and not expect everyone to be the same. I see Grammars as focussing on the academic, not better or worse, just different. If we valued all parts of our society we wouldn't be having this conversation. Parity of respect and parity of opportunity.
4 February 2010
11:1639604#17
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
4 February 2010
11:4639607#18
I was about to launch into a tirade against DT1 for the socialist let's-get-rid-of-public-schools-just because-they-exist dogma that was touted around by the Labour Party of Harold Wilson, Jim Callaghan and Michael Foot in the 70s and 80s, but then I reread his posts and found them to be reasoned, well argued and not reeking of jealousy, so my apologies for thinking such thoughts initially.
I went to public school.
I make no apologies for it.
I went to Christ's Hospital School in Horsham, founded in the City of London in 1553 by King Edward VI, the boy king (son of Henry VIII) who died just six days after signing the documents. Christ's Hospital was founded by Royal Charter for the orphans and sons of the poor who couldn't otherwise afford an education, and this remains the case today, although in modern times the harsh realities of economics now means that the entrance qualifications mean that 50% of boys who enter the school are now fee-paying. I understand that the fees are in the region of £3500 per term and thus are for sons and daughters of the wealthy.
The other 50% comprises sons and daughters of those who cannot afford private education, but who would still like their children to receive the benefits that come with going to such a school. The intake at Christ's Hospital is in the order of 120 per year, which means that roughly 60 are the children of orphans and single parents, serving Armed Forces personnel of rank Warrant Officer or below (or the equivalent rank in the Royal Navy), families of special needs from County and Borough District Councils in England and Wales and from direct grant bodies from organisations and charities who are approached by people in need. There is an entrance board which reviews each applicant individually to assess the true need of the family and child in order to maintain 450 years of ensuring that it is those who really deserve who receive one of the finest educations in the world.
It is a privileged education which all the schoolchildren who attend Christ's Hospital are taught very strongly; each pupil who leaves is given a Bible with the inscription "I charge you never to forget the great benefits you have received in this house......." as the last thing they do before leaving. Christ's Hospital is still to this day a charity, and children of fee-paying parents are never removed from the school if the parents fall on times of difficulty.
The famous "Dambusters" raid of 16th & 17th May 1943 saw 56 RAF crew lose their lives over Holland and Germany; the scientist who invented the bouncing bomb, Dr Barnes Wallis, happened to be a former pupil of Christ's Hospital, and so distressed was he by the loss of life to RAF personnel caused as a result of his invention that he established a trust for the sons of RAF personnel to be educated at Christ's Hospital, using all the money he was paid for his invention. Thus 3 children of RAF background are admitted into Christ's Hospital every autumn, and in 1971, I happened to be one of those 3. My father had contracted tuberculosis whilst serving in Egypt with the RAF in the 40s and 50s and this affected his ability to work properly. He was assigned to a desk job on reduced hours, Mum couldn't work with 2 small kids, so we were deemed as eligible to apply for admission into Christ's Hospital.
My best friend at school (Neil) was the son of a single parent whose father had been killed by a hit and run driver in Crawley when Neil was less than 1 year old.
I can honestly say that I loved being at the school - it is very much a privileged existence and I was abundantly aware that the facilities open to me were not shared by kids of my age back on the RAF bases that were my home. We were taught that, despite the second-to-none facilities, despite the tuition that was of the highest standards and despite the fact that we alienated by local kids (thugs) who thought we were all upper-class morons who looked down on everybody else, we were inordinately lucky to be there. The message got through.
The reason for telling you all this is to illustrate that it's really difficult to tar all public schools with the same brush. Christ's Hospital School is one of many such schools with Charity status all around the country - there are a succession of King Edward Schools in existence ('Bluecoat' Schools) all of which were founded on similar lines and with much the some doctrine and tenets as Christ's Hospital. I ask you all to consider whether ridding the country of public schools is really a good thing. I accept that not all schools are like the one I went to - many are a place for the wealthy and privileged to send their kids to, but do you really think that if they were abolished tomorrow the rich would allow Harriet and Olly to attend the state school down the road? Of course not, they'd just send them to private schools abroad. One must also bear in mind that the public schools of Great Britain are among the finest in the world, to the extent where the children of Kings, Queens, Presidents and the upper levels of society around the globe send their children to be educated over here. That represents a significant income to this country as well as providing jobs for teachers, instructors, cleaners, drivers, medical staff and many more. This debate is so much more than merely looking at what public schools offer with green eyed jealousy; the practicalities have to be borne in mind as well - and I ask you to think that not all who come out of public school are hooray Henries.
Thanks for reading this lengthy and probably boring post.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
4 February 2010
12:0739612#19
Actually Andy that was very interesting and you made points that many on the left conveniently ignore.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
4 February 2010
13:1539617#20
trust you to bring left/right politics into it barry.
i thought it was a very interesting piece written from a personal point of view, i never knew that about barnes wallis.
inventors and scientists usually do not worry too much about the consequences of their creations.