|
Post by Toreador on Nov 30, 2022 7:00:20 GMT
I read somewhere that private schools only educated 7% of the school population. That 7% is generally better educated than anything the state provides.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 30, 2022 7:46:04 GMT
I read somewhere that private schools only educated 7% of the school population. That 7% is generally better educated than anything the state provides. Its what you pay for.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 30, 2022 7:59:50 GMT
I read somewhere that private schools only educated 7% of the school population. That 7% is generally better educated than anything the state provides. It's a pretty low bar though...
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 30, 2022 8:20:21 GMT
That 7% is generally better educated than anything the state provides. It's a pretty low bar though... And I'm sure you would happily pay the same money for state schools to provide the same teaching. Oh no wait. You want to pay half the amount to state schools and expect the same results. Eating your cake and keeping your ha'penny
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 30, 2022 8:27:36 GMT
It's a pretty low bar though... And I'm sure you would happily pay the same money for state schools to provide the same teaching. Oh no wait.
You want to pay half the amount to state schools and expect the same results. Eating your cake and keeping your ha'penny We did - from 1945 through to the 1970's the State provided equivalent education opportunities. Which is why, from the early 1960's we had a succession of state educated PM's - Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major all came through the State sector. Then the reforms of the 1970's kicked in and from Blair onwards it was a succession of privately educated PM's.. Of course we finally did get some more PM's educated by the State - Theresa May and Liz Truss - not sure we will be trying that again in a hurry.
|
|
|
Post by Tinculin on Nov 30, 2022 8:39:52 GMT
I think there are far more appealing targets to get money from than targeting the education system.
Like people have pointed out, putting private schooled kids into public schools will only add more drain to the system which is already overwhelmed.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 30, 2022 8:44:29 GMT
And I'm sure you would happily pay the same money for state schools to provide the same teaching. Oh no wait.
You want to pay half the amount to state schools and expect the same results. Eating your cake and keeping your ha'penny We did - from 1945 through to the 1970's the State provided equivalent education opportunities. Which is why, from the early 1960's we had a succession of state educated PM's - Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major all came through the State sector. Then the reforms of the 1970's kicked in and from Blair onwards it was a succession of privately educated PM's.. Of course we finally did get some more PM's educated by the State - Theresa May and Liz Truss - not sure we will be trying that again in a hurry. Are you actually putting that forward as an argument, I mean really? SO MANY HOLES IN IT. Education levels in 1945 where you left school aged 14 Reforms in 1970, but it took until Blair in 1997 to have an effect. OMG. I can't begin to answer such crap.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Nov 30, 2022 8:46:03 GMT
I think there are far more appealing targets to get money from than targeting the education system. Like people have pointed out, putting private schooled kids into public schools will only add more drain to the system which is already overwhelmed. Agreed. Someone needs to bite the bullet and recognise that the money distribution has changed and the tax distribution has to follow it.
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 30, 2022 8:52:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Nov 30, 2022 10:27:48 GMT
I think there are far more appealing targets to gschoolsey from than targeting the education system. Like people have pointed out, putting private schooled kids into public schools will only add more drain to the system which is already overwhelmed. No one Is talking about putting anyone into private school kids into public school if the private schools put up the kids education because the govenment remove the free tax handouts. Andif the parents cant afford to send them to private school they can have them home educated .
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 30, 2022 11:26:31 GMT
We did - from 1945 through to the 1970's the State provided equivalent education opportunities. Which is why, from the early 1960's we had a succession of state educated PM's - Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major all came through the State sector. Then the reforms of the 1970's kicked in and from Blair onwards it was a succession of privately educated PM's.. Of course we finally did get some more PM's educated by the State - Theresa May and Liz Truss - not sure we will be trying that again in a hurry. Are you actually putting that forward as an argument, I mean really? SO MANY HOLES IN IT. Education levels in 1945 where you left school aged 14 Reforms in 1970, but it took until Blair in 1997 to have an effect. OMG. I can't begin to answer such crap. No you never do have an answer - just a single mantra - higher taxes..
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 30, 2022 11:58:23 GMT
I was denied the grammar school place I earned through sitting and passing my eleven plus not in the final year of junior school as most did but a whole year early.
Shirley Williams took up the task handed her by Anthony Crosland, and chose to aid and abet the - largely Marxist inspired - LEAs like Cardiff who quite literally bulldozed the grammar school to which I should have gone in the mud 60s and bussed us instead in September 1969 to a secondary modern high school at the end of a sink council estate four miles from my home to teach us the error of having a high IQ in a labour controlled world.
It didn’t quite work as they hoped, but only because the headmaster and headmistress of the sex segregated secondary modern to which I was bussed - at dads expense - had a policy of trying to stick one on the grammar schools by (secretly) streaming the pupils according to academic ability and thereby ensuring high numbers of the most able academic pupils got time to prepare for sixth form and university entrance unfettered by the less able.
Naturally when the LEA found out they were furious and converted the school to a mixed sex comprehensive, sacked both headmaster and headmistress and got in a new ‘progressive’ idiot who tried his best to wreck the progress we in the ‘A’ streams gad made in the three years it had been run that way, but it was then too late to totally destroy our career hopes.
As a result of the groundwork done in years 1-3 I went on to gain 13 ‘o’ levels and the ‘a’ levels I needed to enter the university course I had in mind free of charge although mum and dads joint income ensured I was not able to have any sort of student grant so I had to work my arse off in the holidays
However, we foiled the Marxist plot to screw us imtellectuals over although I do wonder how much better I might have done in the medical sciences had I been given the start other LEAs who did not have Das Capital inserted rectally en masse and still had grammar schools to send their brightest to, gave to those brightest stars in their primary schools.
Williams of course ensured anyone she cared about went to one of those fee paying private schools that are the main thrust of this thread. At least Corbyn believed his progeny should suffer the sink estate comprehensive … but was overruled and apparently divorced as a result….
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Nov 30, 2022 12:06:22 GMT
So he’s a Grammar school boy who benefited from the Grammar school system. No doubt he will look to increase the number of Grammar schools if he becomes PM.
|
|
|
Post by sword on Nov 30, 2022 12:28:25 GMT
Labour the enemy of aspiration - never changes.. So its ok for Westminster School to be treated as a charity when the School fees are 46 grand?do me a favour.
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 30, 2022 12:33:27 GMT
Starmer had the benefit of a Voluntary aided Grammar School Education, he was exempt from paying fees then went onto University They're not closing them, just cutting the perks. I did not say they were what it will mean that less well-off parents will not be able to keep their child if the fees go up in the Private school especially those pupils on Bursaries basically (free) who are bright enough to pass the entrance exam to get in and have to potential to do well and better themselves will have to leave. It matters not how rich the child's parents are if their child is not bright enough to pass the entrance exam, they will not be accepted, even if they do pass it and struggle as the work gets harder, they will be told to take their child out of the school better for their well being
|
|