Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by jsmoke, Nov 23, 2019.
^ Don't think I've ever agreed harder with @FoxEye
But that's not what would happen in reality. What would happen in reality is that we'd end up with more equality by dragging the top down.
Many state schools are poor. In areas where academic selection isn't practiced, selection is usually by house price instead. State schools are dominated by trade unions putting their members consistently ahead of the education of children.
Reality doesn't care about ideology, which is why actual decisionmaking has to put reality ahead of ideology.
I went to a private school so that my father could work overseas and my mother go with him, this was the main reason. I was there from 10 to 17 years old. Quite a proportion came from single parent or poorer families, on a bursary, probably 20%. There were some wealthy parents, you could tell from the cars they arrived in but there was quite a cross section.
One advantage many perceive is the freedom to set the curriculum and the hours. We seemed from memory to have lessons from 9am to 3pm with sport everyday until 5pm. There was homework every evening 1.5 to 2 hours. You were at school to learn and that is what happened. There was strict discipline.
A lot will have changed, my school is now coeducational and the food will have improved and corporal punishment dispensed with. The results will still be good however.
Lol, Tory decision making and policy making is close to 100% ideological. Austerity, Brexit, etc.
Hands up, btw, if anyone here believes the next Tory govt will significantly increase spending on schools, given we've had real-terms cuts for the last couple years, and currently spend less than we did in 2015.
We can afford HS2 (costs spiralling as we speak) but we can't afford books for schools. I'm sure we've all read the accounts of teachers doing the cleaning because they can't afford cleaning staff, etc. Not quite sure how @Dolph can blame the unions for that, but I'm all ears
I'm fairly sure the Tory attitude is that over-educating the masses is not worthwhile. How educated does a plumber need to be? And of course if your prospects of being elected hinge on being able to sell a crock of lies, having a high standard of universal education probably doesn't help you
I'm not a Tory supporter.
This policy will never be legal (abolishing private schools that is). No point wasting time discussing it.
So what? You said
So obviously you're living in a reality where the Tories aren't making any decisions!
I’m not necessarily against the principle, but it would entirely depend on how it was achieved in practice.
To be a success, it would require a complete overhaul of the education system, British culture and society as a whole.
Unfortunately I don’t see any of that ever happening so I agree with @muon to certain extent — the discussion is moot.
Your employer will pay you what they think you are worth, if you want to earn more, you need to put in the work, doing 8 hours a day won't cut it, its too competitive.
I do agree min wage could be raised slightly, but that isn't going to magic up some miracle cure. You need to fix the productivity essentially, and in a globalised world, thats very difficult when competing against China, America and India.
The tories make plenty of stupid decisions based on ideology. That doesn't negate supporting other stupid proposals based on ideology.
Considering the UK is one of the best places to live in the world, you're gonna have to come with a seriously good idea to change British culture & society.
That's not true in all reality.
Your employer pays you what they can get away with. Based on a number of factors, including how easy you are to replace.
Your worth in terms of the value of your contribution to the company could be many multiples of what they pay you.
The idea that a worker is "worth" less than the cost of keeping that worker alive is, well, a horrific acceptance that life is cheap, essentially.
Whilst some companies' very existence may depend on essentially min wage workers, arguably those companies are terrible and we shouldn't be holding them up as examples of success.
If your business model depends on paying your workers less than they need to stay alive, you are *not* a successful business. You are an abject failure, and you depend on the state to keep you (and your workforce) afloat.
So either you're a failure or you're an exploiter, really. We don't need to all copy China because China exists and has done quite well treating their people like ****. At least I hope not. If the future is copying China then I'm very glad I never had kids.
Also 8 hours a day not enough? Jeez, Louise. Your world is very bleak and hopeless. Your message amounts to "be a better slave and work yourself to death".
So another smoking weed policy from Labour, I mean seriously...
So do away with private schools and then everyone pays more in tax to absorb those pupils into more state funded schools.
The world isn't flat or fair, there's meant to be a two tier system, it rewards those that get off their rear ends. Their parents I mean who have worked to get into careers that pay well enough to afford to send their children to private schools if they so wish.
Freedom to choose should be preserved!
"Your employer pays you what they can get away with"
Well it is a negotiation, if you are being underpaid, go find another job where they appreciate you more, be difficult to replace.
Those terrible companies are still putting money in people's pockets, i would agree that some of these large companies that don't pay the tax that is required is a problem, but they are still creating jobs for people that would otherwise have none.
Why is my world bleak because i work more than 8 hours a day, perhaps i enjoy my job? That's a very silly thing to say, you talk about reality, but if you think you're really going to get ahead of other people by doing the bare minimum, perhaps its you that needs a reality check. We live in a competitive world.
The alternative is we do away with competition, but that wouldn't be very good now, would it? If that was our history, we'd still be living in mud huts and picking our arses.
Getting ahead? I talked about employers not even paying the wages needed to support existence. Whereby the state tops up their worker's wages just so they can eat.
Contrary to yourself, not everybody is focused on and driven by a desire to rise above others.
Some people just want a modest existence where an 8 hour a day job can sustain a comfortable, albeit not luxurious, existence. Why is that unreasonable? You seem to think that's unreasonable because China has a billion people willing to work for peanuts. Is that the measure we should judge ourselves by?
What about the other European countries that aren't embracing the rat race to the bottom like we seem to be? Are we incapable of following their lead? Must we emulate China instead?
The UK is one best countries in the world to live in, your 8 hour long day creates a living environment which basically better than 90% of the worlds population. How are you not getting a comfortable existence? What exactly are the EU doing which is magical? I also agreed in an above post that min wage could come up a bit.
It's not that i have a desire to rise above other people, i'm just passionate about my job, which means i naturally rise above other people because i retain information far easier than someone who is disinterested.
Sorry but that's rubbish.
You talked about globalisation. Well globalisation means that our poor now share a fair bit in common with India's poor, China's poor, Africa's poor. And their middle class look a lot like our middle class.
There is real poverty in this country at the bottom. Even amongst people who work full-time. There are record numbers of people using food banks - otherwise they'd starve. Homelessness is on the increase. In-work poverty is on the increase.
People are working 12 hour days and going back to rented properties dripping with damp; walls covered in mould, electrical wiring exposed. A full third of the private rental market was deemed unsuitable for human habitation a little while back. It made the news; perhaps you remember it.
The reality is not everybody in the UK lives a charmed life compared to other countries. Globalisation is the big leveller. I'm sure you're aware of that.
Well that last bit is false, they're paying for more than just good results/the academic aspects in some cases. I mean why bother with the uber expensive schools for example - there are various state funded Grammar Schools, academies and less prestigious/cheaper private schools in various areas that provide arguably as good an education as you're going to get at private schools yet the real toffs seek out the older "public schools"... it certainly isn't required for a kid to go to boarding school to get a good education (that's more down to the lifestyle of the parents or some family tradition or something) or to go to the likes of Eton, Rugby, Marlborough etc..etc.. in many areas there are independent academies or grammar schools at least as good as if not better than the various independent schools.
I'm not sure that is true at all, technically teachers at private schools don't even need to be qualified. Some career types might be attracted by them but even then the academies etc.. are attractive for those types too.
I think the bigger factors are the selection element and the family background of the pupils - firstly (at both private schools and grammar schools) the disruptive idiots who learned nothing at junior school don't have any chance of making the cut. Various mediocre kids or slow kids aren't going to get in either.
Obviously in good state comprehensives and academies you don't necessarily have an academic selection test but the thing they'll tend to share with the grammar and private schools is simply that the families value education and have made efforts to find a good school for their kids. You'll no doubt get a few kids at some top non-selective schools who just happen to live locally or who wouldn't have been smart enough to pass an 11 plus style exam but meh, overall you'll probably still get a disproportionate number of kids from parents who are keen on education. I don't just mean middle class professional types but also say people from working class or immigrant background whose parents are keen for their kids to succeed. As long as you've got that critical mass then the school will probably do pretty well regardless and if they stream internally into classes of different abilities then you hopefully still have enough top performers to group them together and not hold them back/have them study at the pace of the mediocre or slow.
I don't think a gifted kid is going to be held back academically simply because he's gone to an inner city grammar school in say Birmingham rather than Eton... sure he doesn't get to play the wall game, do any "fagging", play soggy biscuit or be the target of a classics teacher with a penchant for pederasty but that's probably a good thing overall.
Class sizes of 60+ aren't normal. You don't have to have a class size of say 12, a larger class size in a good school can still work so long as you don't have the scumbag kids present. A gifted kid could certainly get held back if thrown into mediocre or failing comprehensive alongside kids to the machete wielding gang pictured in say NVP's recent GD thread.
Frankly some people are complete scum, it sucks for the kids they raise as they in turn have a big risk of turning into utter scumbags too, I don't see why the rest of society has to mix with them or let them drag down the education opportunities of other kids etc.. while extreme cases get expelled and sent to pupil referral units etc.. loads of teachers who teach in failing or mediocre schools have an ongoing battle simply trying to get the class to concentrate - you're inevitably going to get a bunch of kids with behavioural issues, various problems outside of school etc..etc..
If you scrapped say private schools and/or selective grammar schools (as some in Labour want to do) in say inner city areas of London, Birmingham and turned them into comprehensives that had to give priority simply based on post code then you'd completely change the character of those schools - you'd trash most of them and just bring them down to a mediocre level very quickly.
Top performing state schools would still exist though and kids from the same private school demographic would still be able to go to them, they'd just be in areas where house prices can keep out the chav population. Though you'd do a massive disservice to any working class or immigrant families who'd otherwise have attempted to send their kid to a private school on a scholarship or get into the local grammar school - they might be cut off from being able to move to a good school area and with no inner city options left they're screwed... I think some would still find a way with private tuition and the companies you can pay for revision sessions but those gifted kids from a poorer background would be let down.
Have you ever been to those countries and seen the people living in poverty? It's not comparable at all, again, your perception is not based in reality, i have a feeling you have never seen real poverty in those countries.
The UK doesn't have more poverty than the EU, i'm not sure why you think the EU is some incredible utopia.
I didn't see that report about a 1/3 of UK property being deemed not fit for purpose, but i don't believe it. 1/3? You realise that needs some serious evidence, that's quite an extraordinary claim, do you not question that stat at all?
You're surprised by this? I'm not. The majority of rental properties I've seen at the lower end of the scale are abysmal.
I guess you didn't see it then.
Separate names with a comma.