General Great British Politics Thread!

[richardm]

I wouldn't just implement a flat tax of £6000 or whatever on people who send their kids to private schools, i'd focus it on corporate avoidance and the superrich, while some increases on the £100k-£500k/y brackets, and use this to improve education standards, so it would hit the super rich harder than the people you describe.

So really when you said "the money that would otherwise be paid in fees to private schools should be taken as taxes by the government" you didn't actually mean that?

I don't have a problem with hiking up taxes to help improve education standards, I just fail to see why banning private schools has anything to do with it - except that perhaps if politicians had no alternative but to send their children to St. Cakes instead of Harrow then perhaps they'd be keener to find better solutions.

 

[Darat]

...snip... Of course it would also be nice if every single school in the country were Eton clones (in terms of education quality), but does that seem like a particularly achievable goal to you in the short term? Because preventing private universities seems reasonably achievable to me.

The tory answer to that is it is because schools aren't free of government control that the market can't deliver on better schools for all. Of course that idea can only be held by ignoring the evidence we have that it doesn't.

 

[Darat]

Perhaps we should bring back grammar schools, eh?

Not gone away here, there is still a two class educational system (or that is what the folks around here seem to believe). Since I've been living here I have been astonished how the well-heeled and well educated manage to queer the so-called "on merit alone" system.

 

[richardm]

Nah, not separate schools. I was more meaning that at a-level, if you want to do something like german, or advanced maths, then you should already have to have a level of competence. I wasn't suggesting that better teachers would be assigned to better pupils, or that different schools would be established. I didn't make that clear at all though.

But seriously, why not?

I know it's a terribly Tory thing to bang on about grammar schools which isn't my thing at all and I'm finding it a bit worrying but I am increasingly wondering whether filtering out the more willing and able pupils earlier on and putting them in an environment where they can learn with less disruption might not be a bad idea. These days there is apparently little or no streaming done at all in most state schools, so everyone is lumped in together regardless of ability or attitude. It is, effectively, nobbling the education of many children, since the disinterested ones are bored and badly behaved, and ruin lessons every single day.

So why not do something about it instead of hoping that throwing more money at the problem will fix it? Direct action!

 

[Darat]

But seriously, why not?

I know it's a terribly Tory thing to bang on about grammar schools which isn't my thing at all and I'm finding it a bit worrying but I am increasingly wondering whether filtering out the more willing and able pupils earlier on and putting them in an environment where they can learn with less disruption might not be a bad idea. These days there is apparently no streaming done at all in most state schools, so everyone is lumped in together regardless of ability or attitude. It is, effectively, nobbling the education of many children, since the disinterested ones are bored and badly behaved, and ruin lessons every single day.

So why not do something about it instead of hoping that throwing more money at the problem will fix it? Direct action!

Apparently you can do this at age 3 - which indicates to me the focus shouldn't be on the schools but what happens in disadvantaged homes that results in this appalling statistic.

ETA: Link to the study notes the BBC report above is taken from: http://www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/news.asp?section=000100010003&item=409

 

[stokes234]

So really when you said "the money that would otherwise be paid in fees to private schools should be taken as taxes by the government" you didn't actually mean that?

Well, not directly - I was more meaning that that same amount of money that would be spent on private schools should be taken from the rich and used to improve state schools.

 

[stokes234]

But seriously, why not?

I know it's a terribly Tory thing to bang on about grammar schools which isn't my thing at all and I'm finding it a bit worrying but I am increasingly wondering whether filtering out the more willing and able pupils earlier on and putting them in an environment where they can learn with less disruption might not be a bad idea. These days there is apparently little or no streaming done at all in most state schools, so everyone is lumped in together regardless of ability or attitude. It is, effectively, nobbling the education of many children, since the disinterested ones are bored and badly behaved, and ruin lessons every single day.

So why not do something about it instead of hoping that throwing more money at the problem will fix it? Direct action!

At my comprehensive school, this was already done by putting the more capable students together in higher "sets" (set 1, 2 and 3, though i've heard the more PC schools give them names unrelated to ranking or ability). I'm fine with that (mostly), but if you separate kids out to different schools it becomes a hell of alot harder for them to switch if they start showing promise than if they just had to move class.

 

[richardm]

Apparently you can do this at age 3 - which indicates to me the focus shouldn't be on the schools but what happens in disadvantaged homes that results in this appalling statistic.

I'm sure that home-life makes a big difference, yep. I think age 3 is too young to be filtering though, the poor little bleeders haven't been exposed to anyone other than their parents at that point. I think though that by the time you reach 11 your academic ability (and not how much you know) is going to be more evident.

As it is, I'm not convinced that the move to comprehensive schools has improved social mobility, which was supposed to be one of the aims - secondary moderns weren't as good as grammar schools, so shoving them all together would make things fairer and drag the overall quality of the schools upwards. Instead, if you're born poor you're more likely to remain poor than your parents were; social mobility is at its lowest point for decades.

In ye olden days a clever kid from a poor background could escape by getting a place at the local grammar school; that opportunity is no longer available, and I'm starting to think that it's less fair now than it was then.

(I went to a comprehensive, myself).

 

[richardm]

if you separate kids out to different schools it becomes a hell of alot harder for them to switch if they start showing promise than if they just had to move class.

Alternatively, if you keep kids in a terrible school it becomes a hell of a lot harder for them to improve and live up to their promise than if they'd simply been moved to a better school.

Which is worse?

I honestly would prefer it if all schools were terrific quality, but I don't see how to get there with the current system. Mind you as it is the current system is subtly shifting ground, what with the "Specialist Schools" idea, where they specialise in the arts, engineering or whatever. Not entirely sure how that works out in terms of catchment areas (and it's probably a different subject anyway... actually this is all probably a different subject to the thread's original intention)

 

[stokes234]

Alternatively, if you keep kids in a terrible school it becomes a hell of a lot harder for them to improve and live up to their promise than if they'd simply been moved to a better school.

Which is worse?

Well, from a purely theoretical view, Scenario A focuses on a select few kids and gives them the best possible education, but the kids who initially seem less able have a much smaller chance of proving themselves. Scenario B tries to focus on everyone and gives kids more opportunities to improve, but doesn't end up giving as high quality education to the best kids. I would argue that A results in a much higher stratification of society - more kids end up lumped into "doing well" or "doing badly", with less of a spectrum, while B ends up with a better spread and more kids clustered towards the middle.

The plus side of A is that if you look at the american example, you see that it gives you a big advantage in technological advances, hence Google, Facebook, Microsoft etc all being invented by students from the top tier of american education. However, you have to weigh this off against the social problems that arguably stem from americas inequality, such as crime, teen pregnancy, religion, poor mental health, etc etc. More equal european countries such as sweden, denmark, norway, austria, belgium, holland etc have lower instances of social problems such as the ones listed above, but arguably also result in less technological advancement. Germany has a weird system whereby they do segregate people off into different schools, but the less able kids focus on professions such as plumbing, construction, carpentry etc and don't neccessarily do worse financially out of the system.

As a country we have to decide which model to follow - focus on everyone and hope the equality itself benefits us enough to justify it, or focus on an elite few and hope their intelligence ends up benefitting everyone more than the equality would have. Both are a gamble, and neither deal with our reliance on the banking industry in the short term, but I personally favour adopting a more european approach than an american one - focusing not neccessarily on doing what they do, but on achieving through equality what they appear to achieve, with perhaps a larger emphasis on professions for the less academically capable kids in our society.

Here endeth the rant.

 

[The Don]

My two pennorth worth w.r.t. Comprehensive vs. Grammar schools

Long before I went to secondary school, there were three schools in the town where I grew up for kids 11+:

- A boys only private school
- The local grammar school
- The local secondary modern school

A tiny proportion of kids went to the private school, less than 30% went to grammar school, the rest went to the secondary modern.

Grammar school kids did 'O' and 'A' levels and a proportion went to university. A disproportionate amount of time and money was spent on these pupils.

Secondary Modern kids did CSEs and left school at 16. Unless something remarkable happened to them later in life, they did not go to university.

Your future was cast in stone at the age of 11. That's not too good if you're a late bloomer.

When the Grammar and Secondary Modern school were merged kids who would have previously gone to the Secondary Modern got a chance to do 'O' levels, 'A' levels and some went on to university. Classes were streamed by ability and I think there was a tendency to spend more time with the better pupils. The ones who lost out were probably the very best and the kids who would have just scraped into Grammar school. They had fewer resources than in Grammar school days.

The big winners were the kids who would have been condemned at the age of 11 to a lack of educational opportunity.

And of course by not segregating everyone into the "bright" and "stupid", everyone got to mix with a broader spectrum.

 

[richardm]

with perhaps a larger emphasis on professions for the less academically capable kids in our society.

I would certainly like to see more of this; the death of the Apprenticeship was a tragic thing.

 

[richardm]

Unless something remarkable happened to them later in life, they did not go to university ... Your future was cast in stone at the age of 11. That's not too good if you're a late bloomer.

True. I suppose the next argument would be "for how many people did this matter". And I wonder if anyone's done any studies on academic ability at age 11 vs. say, age 40. Are there really that many late bloomers that it's worth losing the potential benefits of carefully coaching the brightest kids just so that they can mix with less able kids (especially since they'll be happily mixing with them for the first 7 years of their school life and only separated from them for the final 4 or 5, when the intensity of learning should be at its height).

And how about those potentially bright kids whose future at university is lost because their classes are constant disrupted by kids who have no interest in being there?

Edit: And see also my comment earlier about social mobility - kids mix with a broader spectrum perhaps, and for many of them it's the only chance they'll get because they're not going to be going anywhere.

 

[stokes234]

I agree that more research is needed. Perhaps a wide-scale job for the EU.

And how about those potentially bright kids whose future at university is lost because their classes are constant disrupted by kids who have no interest in being there?

I don't accept that the only solution to this is separate schools. Kids with no interest can't disrupt your class if they aren't in your class because they got put into a lower set.

 

[richardm]

I don't accept that the only solution to this is separate schools.

I don't think it's the only solution, but I think it might be a useful one all the same.

Kids with no interest can't disrupt your class if they aren't in your class because they got put into a lower set.

How about if you're poor and live in a catchment area that offers only a terrible school as the only option? There is no escape to a better set, because all the kids are as badly behaved as the next set.

As I say, in ye olden days you could flee to Grammar School; that option is not available. You could pay your way and buy a house in a catchment area for a better school, but you're poor so that's right out. Now your only hope is to get a scholarship to a private school and good luck with that.

 

[stokes234]

How about if you're poor and live in a catchment area that offers only a terrible school as the only option? There is no escape to a better set, because all the kids are as badly behaved as the next set.

As I say, in ye olden days you could flee to Grammar School; that option is not available. You could pay your way and buy a house in a catchment area for a better school, but you're poor so that's right out. Now your only hope is to get a scholarship to a private school and good luck with that.

If there is enough money in circulation to fund the construction of grammar schools in poor catchment areas, why isn't there enough to fund the construction of an extra state school so at least one of them has enough kids to merit a higher set with kids that are interested in learning?

 

[Seismosaurus]

No, there's a difference. Allowing rich people to buy consumer goods doesn't hugely affect their chances in life.

But "allowing" them to buy health care, or healthy food, or a personal trainer, etc. does.

Allowing the children of rich people to be bought a superior education gives them a serious boost. I'm opposed to private schools as well, in case that wasn't obvious.

Okay.

Because preventing private universities seems reasonably achievable to me.

Seems rather immoral to me. Like I say, to acknowledge that we can't bring everyone up to the top level is fair enough. To say that we should therefore hobble the rich to bring them down to our level... no. Fraid not, old chap.

 

[stokes234]

But "allowing" them to buy health care, or healthy food, or a personal trainer, etc. does.

Yeah, and I would like these dealt with too, over time. Through methods such as higher inheritance taxes that ensure you have to actually earn yourself a better life rather than having it handed to you. However, actually banning healthy food would be a hell of a stretch in any society, morally or practically, whereas in my eyes banning private schools for the benefit of all is both achievable and acceptable.

Seems rather immoral to me. Like I say, to acknowledge that we can't bring everyone up to the top level is fair enough. To say that we should therefore hobble the rich to bring them down to our level... no. Fraid not, old chap.

I'd say it's immoral to inflict social problems on society such as higher crime and worse mental health just so that an elite few can thrive. YMMV.

 

[richardm]

If there is enough money in circulation to fund the construction of grammar schools in poor catchment areas, why isn't there enough to fund the construction of an extra state school so at least one of them has enough kids to merit a higher set with kids that are interested in learning?

What's the difference?

 

[richardm]

I'd say it's immoral to inflict social problems on society such as higher crime and worse mental health just so that an elite few can thrive. YMMV.

What are crime and mental health figures like now compared to say, 1960?

Edit: this PDF, a research paper from the House of Commons Library, gives the answer to the first part of that at least - crime rates are considerably worse now. So it seems that lumping everyone together in one school hasn't helped that at least (but in reality these are all complicated issues caused by multiple factors anyway, aren't they).