egafd.com

Thats true

A lot of schools now provide breakfast for kids before school who would otherwise go hungry.

When you see a private school with its own rifle range & swimming pool
but over the road a state school that can't fix essentials like heating/airconditioning in the middle on summer/winter because of budget cuts you know something is not right

"and has benefited massively from state education"

Yes, and in particular his grammar school education. But he and his privileged progressive luvie pals would shut that route down for working folk who don?t have the means to pay for a private education. I find that quite mean and despicable. Would Bennett have flowered into the play right he became if he had been obliged to go to a chavy comprehensive where English lessons were continually disrupted by the divs, mongs, and retards who are quite common in those educational environments?


?it is only to be expected he would want others to benefit equally well.?

Er, but he doesn?t. He (presumably) wants to shut down Grammar schools as well as private schools - the last cast iron opportunity for anyone in getting a decent chav-free education. Instead of nurturing academic ability and talent (the most valuable thing we have as a nation) shutting private schools would throw the capable brainy kids in amongst the mongs who would drag them all down their level and we would end up with hardly any qualified people at all and at a serious disadvantage to the Chinese ? who take education very seriously, and who are inherently smarter than us anyway! It?s madness.




Officer Dibble

Also the quality of teachers these days in the state sector are not not up to scratch as in the past being a teacher was a vocation and increasingly now being taught by people wanting a "career change" (I.E 30+ failures).

Why, in a society where money buys every other privilege, should education be exempt? The point is the state sector should be better. It's shit, at least to me, because it's comprehensive. One size does not fit all.

Every kid that's in a private school makes more money available to the state sector as they're not utilising their place. Sounds good to me. Also, the Highgate brigade bleat about private schools because they can afford to live in a postcode that ensures little Titus goes to a comp alongside other children of the well-heeled. The charitable status thing is unfair, but far less financially significant than other loopholes like non-dom tax residents.

I went to the school on my London estate until I was 13, and then won a scholarship to a private school thanks to one of my teachers suggesting it and helping me pass the entrance exam. (God bless you Mr Simmons!) It changed my life, gave me access to opportunities and taught me that excellence is not a sin. At my comp if you were good at any academic subject, it made you a target.

My kids now go to private schools because the national curriculum is a joke, in terms of its low standards. I want them to be in an environment where genuine achievement is praised and the school can teach beyond the governmental limitations imposed on state schools. It's a massive strain on the finances but worth every penny.

The reason the grammar school system was abolished, except for die-hard counties like Kent, was because it explicitly recognised that not all kids are academic, and those that are need to be stretched rather than held back by those that aren't. Equally, it recognised that vocational schooling for the less academic allowed them to them excel at what they were good at rather than forcing them to do subjects which they couldn't cope with, frequently leading to low self-esteem and misbehaviour.

In the Oprah culture we now live in, it's forbidden to say that some people are cleverer than others or better at certain things. That's why GCSEs have become so devalued: exams for the bovine to ensure that everyone passes. Kids have been betrayed by a system which gives them a false impression of their actual ability. That, married to the X Factor belief that a lack of talent should be no impediment to success, is why the majority of the current yoof generation is so delusional and unprepared to work for success.

Good post.

Regarding the Oprah culture where it's forbidden to point out that some folks are smarter than others. I never take any notice of that; I gleefully point it out all the time. Because it's that which trashes the idiotic socialist notion of 'equality'. There is no equality in nature and it's totally ludicrous to pretend there is. Some of us are simply BETTER at stuff. A few others are totally SUPERIOIR. What?s more our abilities are frequently inherent. The best thing to do is just be cool and accept it, instead of wasting time, energy, and resources embracing the Orwellian charade of political correctness. It needn?t mean we can't respect those of lesser abilities of that they don't have any other kind of value.




Officer Dibble

Great post by chatterji, I agree. I was in a similar boat, before going into secondary I was identified as a bit bright, and recommended for an entrence exam which I passed, and went to the school. I don't think, in my formative years, the experience developed me as a person (in fact, it made me quite anti-Establishment) but, in terms of academic success, it was all there.

I liked your wee faux-pas, Dibble. You were building up so well, only to fluff up the crux by a mis-spelling of SUPERIOR!! !wink!

However, yes, some people are naturally superior at things- sure. But how often hve we seen, for example in sport, the hard-grafting pro beat the naturally gifted wonderkid? Individual Human Potential is not defined by merely being better, or superior, or having tons of natural ability in a lot of areas of life IMO. Attitude, and 'acquired attributes' (as opposed to the inborn attributes you state which may give rise to the superior uber-talents) also temper what one naturally has and also enter the equation:

IHP = [inborn att's + acquired att's] x Attitude

This highlights that a superior talent with a lousy attitude will scratch with the turkeys, whereas the hard-working, but unspectacular grafter, with tons of heart and grit, can be an overwhelming success.

However, as you say, there is no equality: all of the above factors can be influenced by Nature, a respecter of no Laws. Even for the privately-educated, it's sod's law as to who you associate with, who's behaviours you admire and hence how you turn out as a young adult..... there's no equality in fulfilling our potential, but becoming a sound adult is down to the individual, really. We cannot influence what inborn attributes we have, be they good or bad, our acquired attributes can be a matter of personal choice and attitude is a random factor- making the fulfillment of human potential very complex, with no room for equality at all.

[quote]we as a society are not entirely sure what we want schools to do - education in a broad sense, exam factories, creches, social engineering, whatever.[/quote]

Agreed. I think the schools try and take too much on. Though the intentions are good, I do not like schools spending too much time on social engineering. social skills, expressing feeling etc. It's one of the reasons boys are falling behind, and I feel a persons social skills and personality should be developed by the child itself. Diversity is good, be it culture or political. An army of readers, writers and kids who can do long algebraic expressions I can live with; an army of kids who have the same personalities, feelings, beliefs and political views seems like hell on Earth.

I want people to stop telling kids what they should feel, just tell them what they should know. Most of the bad in the world is through ignorance; educating them better will be healthier than a bunch of kids who say the right words, but are as thick as pigshit.

Schools are forced to do the whole feelings thing (emotional literacy!) precisely because half the parents in this country are useless. You get hardly any support from them and so are forced to educate their darlings in so much beyond the content of the curriculum. As someone who has taught in both sectors, believe me, there is a lot ot be said for private schools- as Dibble put it, kids actually want to learn and don't mess it up for veryone else. And- for Wayne- I have 3 mates who all went to Cambridge and who are all teachers.

>Though
> the intentions are good, I do not like schools spending too
> much time on social engineering.

Assuming that they do, how else will we change values structures, aims and aspirations for the better?