The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Clint Planet]

All you private school apologists are missing the point. It is not a matter of parental choice - it is a matter of equal ops for every child in a modern egalitarian society.

Look at it this way: A group of 100 children is going on a ferry trip across the channel on a chartered ferry. Luxury lifejackets are offered, exorbitantly priced, and a dozen or so of the wealthiest parents gladly buy one as a precaution. A couple of much less wealthy parents also scrape the cash together and buy a luxury lifejcket. Many choose not to, lots claiming that they are just too expensive. The children have little or no choice in the matter. The rest get of the children get free inflatable armbands. Sadly, the ferry goes down and many lives are lost. Some parents piously defend their right to buy a luxury lifejacket.

In the inquest, it is pointed out that for the combined cost of the luxury lifejackets and the budget inflatable armbands, perfectly servicable regular lifejackets could have been offered to all the children. The children's best interests, the inquiry finds, were not served. It rejects the claim that parents should have the right to buy a better lifejacket than some others can afford since this is not a matter of parental choice. Though the inquiry acknowledges that it is perfectly understandable that some parents, particularly those with a high RDI, would buy a luxury lifejacket, it rules that they should not be in a position to do so since this goes against collective responsibility to every child on the ferry. Some people complain loudly that the ruling will mean that the best lifejackets will now disappear which is unfair on the parents who can afford them. Others tell them to shut the f*** up and have some respect.

[Not a perfect analogy - I'm certainly doing state schools a disservice by comparing them to budget armbands, for a start - but the core message is there. It is the children's right to be treated fairly which far outweighs that of parental choice]

 

[Mrk]

All you private school apologists are missing the point. It is not a matter of parental choice - it is a matter of equal ops for every child in a modern egalitarian society.

I fundamentally disagree on the point of private schools, so I'm not going to bother arguing that point - but with regards to this statement, where do you stop? Do you stop parents being able to organise extra tuition for their children if they are falling behind in certain subjects? Do you stop parents providing technology and material that will give their children an advantage over their peers? Do you stop parents homeschooling their children?

Sounds more totalitarian than egalitarian.

 

[Seanjd]

I went to a private school whilst my dad was in college learning a trade and my mum was working as a teacher assistant on pretty much minimum wage. I achieved this through an assisted place due to high performance on the entrance exam and low household income meaning that my family didn't pay a bean. The annual cost normally was around £9000. Would I be who I am today with the same grades If I went to a state school? Possibly, but I wouldn't change a thing. I wanted to go to the school I went to even though all my close friends went to a local state school and not a bad one at that. The general opinion of private schools is way off the mark in my opinion.

That's great, but again, this isn't the norm. Lots of private schools are granted charity status by taking in a small percent of children from low income families. This is wrong in my opinion too.

 

[Milk]

I'd abolish private schools tomorrow if I could.

Where else are you going to learn how to molest young boys then?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

All you private school apologists are missing the point. It is not a matter of parental choice - it is a matter of equal ops for every child in a modern egalitarian society.

Look at it this way: A group of 100 children is going on a ferry trip across the channel on a chartered ferry. Luxury, lifejackets are offered, exorbitantly priced, and a dozen or so of the wealthiest parents gladly buy one as a precaution. A couple of much less wealthy parents also scrape the cash together and buy a luxury lifejcket. Many choose not to, lots claiming that they are just too expensive. The children have little or no choice in the matter. The rest get of the children get free inflatable armbands. Sadly, the ferry goes down and many lives are lost. Some parents piously defend their right to buy a luxury lifejacket.

In the inquest, it is pointed out that for the combined cost of the luxury lifejackets and the budget inflatable armbands, perfectly servicable regular lifejackets could have been offered to all the children. The children's best interests, the inquiry finds, were not served. It rejects the claim that parents should have the right to buy a better lifejacket than some others can afford since this is not a matter of parental choice. Though the inquiry acknowledges that it is perfectly understandable that some parents, particularly those with a high RDI, would buy a luxury lifejacket, it rules that they should not be in a position to do so since this goes against collective responsibility to every child on the ferry. Some people complain loudly that the ruling will mean that the best lifejackets will now disappear which is unfair on the parents who can afford them. Others tell them to shut the f*** up and have some respect.

[Not a perfect analogy - I'm certainly doing state schools a disservice by comparing them to budget armbands, for a start - but the core message is there. It is the children's right to be treated fairly which far outweighs that of parental choice]

I'm a bit confused here. On one hand you seem to say that state schools are just as good as private ones and people paying to go private are effectively wasting their money.

Yet in the above post you appear to be saying that state schools are rubbish and that the children of families unable to send them to private schools are therefore hugely disadvantaged.

I'm not sure which it is?

As an aside, we were talking previously about the virtue of LEAs. Sorry for not replying to you, the conversation had appeared to move on whilst I was asleep, but it may be pertinent again now.

What do the LEA offer to a school, and do they provide this same service to private schools as well as state ones?

 

[Clint Planet]

I'm a bit confused here. On one hand you seem to say that state schools are just as good as private ones and people paying to go private are effectively wasting their money.

Yet in the above post you appear to be saying that state schools are rubbish and that the children of families unable to send them to private schools are therefore hugely disadvantaged.

I'm not sure which it is?

I think it's generally accepted that private schooling provides an advantage in life ( due to class sizes, resourcing and "old school tie" more than quality of teaching). I'm surprised you're confused.

I note you're avoiding my central point though. Would you disagree with the hypothetical inquest's findings regarding the life jackets?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think it's generally accepted that private schooling provides an advantage in life ( due to class sizes, resourcing and "old school tie" more than quality of teaching). I'm surprised you're confused.

I note you're avoiding my central point though. Would you disagree with the hypothetical inquest's findings regarding the life jackets?

Maybe you could explain it to me? The state spent roughly £100bn last year on education, so to use your lifeboat analogy, that's £100bn to spend on lifejackets.

The folks who buy their own (luxury) lifejackets don't get a refund on the education part of their taxes, so they've essentially paid for a lifejacket without using one. In pure financial terms therefore it seems that's an advantage to the state system.

Now assuming the education budget stayed at £100bn, you have around 8 million pupils to divide that between, with the private cohort of 600,000 not imposing a financial cost. I know the education budget goes on more than just school children, but for the sake of illustration that would mean a drop in spending per pupil from £12,500 to £11,600 if private school children had to go into the state sector.

If you wanted to maintain the spending per pupil, it would require roughly £7.5bn extra being spent, which compares to the £11bn spent on private schooling.

Likewise unless the budget rises and more schools are built, you also see an increase in average school size from 328 pupils to 353, so you'd imagine class sizes would go up too, as the budget would struggle to stretch to hiring more teachers either.

Now sure, the state schools might get more motivated pupils/parents and all of that, but in pure financial terms, I'm not sure how a private school sector is really harming the state school sector?

 

[Clint Planet]

Maybe you could explain it to me?

Sorry, I thought I had.

If you wanted to maintain the spending per pupil, it would require roughly £7.5bn extra being spent...

Which equates to about about £130 per annum per capita off the top of my head. Or am I wrong? Seems affordable, if I'm not.

Now sure, the state schools might get more motivated pupils/parents and all of that, but in pure financial terms, I'm not sure how a private school sector is really harming the state school sector?

So the private sector is actually helping the poor kids! Ha ha ha ha!

Once again, this is not about the private sector harming the public sector (though, I'm sure in some ways it does) - this is about giving every child, as far as is reasonably possible, an equal chance in life.

 

[roydo]

@Clint Planet If the state system was as good as, or perceived as being as good as, the private schools, would you still want to abolish it?

edit. The private schools that is.

 

[Clint Planet]

I fundamentally disagree on the point of private schools, so I'm not going to bother arguing that point - but with regards to this statement, where do you stop? Do you stop parents being able to organise extra tuition for their children if they are falling behind in certain subjects? Do you stop parents providing technology and material that will give their children an advantage over their peers? Do you stop parents homeschooling their children?

No, of course not.

Sounds more totalitarian than egalitarian.

Does it? In a country where GCHQ logs every text message, every phone call, every purchase, every bank transaction, every comment you make on FB, every tweet, every website you visit - you think that sounds totalitarian? Okay, mate.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Sorry, I thought I had.



Which equates to about about £130 per annum per capita off the top of my head. Or am I wrong? Seems affordable, if I'm not.



So the private sector is actually helping the poor kids! Ha ha ha ha!

Once again, this is not about the private sector harming the public sector (though, I'm sure in some ways it does) - this is about giving every child, as far as is reasonably possible, an equal chance in life.

I'm still baffled. You seem to be suggesting that private schools are bad (hence why you want to scrap them), and would gladly tax the whole country £7.5bn or so a year to cope with the influx of new pupils. Bare in mind that this extra taxation is just to keep spending at its current level, so would probably not see any new teachers or capital projects to cope with the extra numbers.

So you'd effectively be making the state system harder for existing pupils (by raising class sizes), just so you can claim to be preventing others from spending money on their kids schooling. It would seem rational that those parents would simply divert the may thousands they'd save each year on private tutors and the like, thus maintaining their advantage. That is until the state bans private tutors and all the way down that slippery slope towards totalitarian equality.

Or something

As I've said previously, there are kids in this country from really poor backgrounds that do exceptionally at school. I reckon it's much better to focus attention on those children and what is it about them that enables them to thrive. Figure that out and try and replicate it.

Seems much more achievable imo.

 

[Clint Planet]

As I've said previously, there are kids in this country from really poor backgrounds that do exceptionally at school. I reckon it's much better to focus attention on those children and what is it about them that enables them to thrive. Figure that out and try and replicate it.

Seems much more achievable imo.

I despair. Truly, I despair.

That's like saying some of those plucky little blighters without the lifejackets managed to survive the ferry sinking. Best try to work out how they managed it. In the meantime, of course, a whole load of children have paid a penalty through no fault of their own, but what the hey.

 

[roydo]

I despair. Truly, I despair.

That's like saying some of those plucky little blighters without the lifejackets managed to survive to ferry sinking. Best try to work out how they managed it. In the meantime, of course, a whole load of children have paid a penalty through no fault of their own, but what the hey.

Just read that analogy mate, and see what you mean.

But if say, the arm bands given out were as good as the dead expensive life jackets that some parents bought anyrate, and no kids were drowned, would you still ban parents wasting money on the expensive ones?

 

[Tree13]

*Logs in. Sees @Clint Planet is once again spouting bobbins about the education system. Notices @Bruce Wayne proving Clint wrong with exactly the same argument that others have thrown at Clint (and Clint has failed to answer) before. Grins. Logs out*

 

[Brennan]

Abolishing private schools to try and improve the state sector is totalitarian.