Nick Clegg - do as I say, not as I do!
Discussion
ClaphamGT3 said:
LEAs will see education vouchers brought in over their cold, dead bones.
Naturally. Breaking their monopoly on state provision would force them to consider what their "customers" actually want from them, a most unacceptable state of affairs for a public sector body. The teaching unions would be apoplectic too, for similar reasons.ClaphamGT3 said:
That's a great post containing much with which to whole-heartedly agree. I still don't understand why, on the one hand you are so critical of the independent sector and, on the other, you hold it up as a role model for the maintained sector.
I'm not critical of the independent sector, in fact I applaud its teaching methods. In retrospect, although I went to a state school, I was lucky enough to go at a time when there was little to differentiate the quality of teaching between private and state sectors.The thing I've got a problem with is the fact you need to come from a rich family in order to receive that level of education. The state sector needs to look at the private sector, work out how and why it works, then apply those lessons to itself.
Point is, once those lessons were applied (I'm thinking in Gove's terms of freeing schools from local authority control so they can govern themselves), there wouldn't be any point in fee-paying schools other than a way for the upper middle classes to ghettoise their kids.
However, the other point as illustrated by my experience in schools related to the lack of relevance many school subjects have to the real world if you're not going to go down the route of traditional academia.
The state sector should copy the private sector, true, but private schools are pretty-much solely academic places. No-one really goes from them into apprenticeships. As a result, we've got into a situation where apprenticeships and hands-on, on-the-job training has become devalued, we have a million people under 25 unemployed, 50% with degrees, often in subjects that aren't much use, and an enormous welfare bill to cover it all.
So why not have some schools along the lines of private schools for academic kids, and other schools for the more hands-on kids, with both schools held in equal regard and their qualifications in equal status?
As a teacher, one of the first things you learn is the natural learning style of each child. These split along three lines - aural, visual, and kinaesthetic.
Aural and visual learners respond best to the traditional teaching style. They listen to teachers talking for longer, they'll sit down and write for extended periods of time, and they can be trusted to be left with a computer on the assumption that they'll use it to do their work.
Kinaesthetic learners learn by physically doing things, manipulating objects and so on. They learn in a totally different style, and not one that traditional teaching is good at recognising.
Ever wondered why the 'bad kids' at school, the ones who ended up in trouble all the time and got bad grades in things like English and languages were often rather good at sport and art? There's your reason.
There isn't enough focus on kinaesthetic learning at all. Those who learn by doing need to be taught according to their strengths, and introduced to subjects they should excel at rather than forced through ones they won't.
Problem is, the idea of segregating pupils based on skill areas doesn't go down too well with the all-inclusive, everyone-is-equally-good-at-everything, child-centred-learning ultra-left-wing teaching unions and local authorities who formulate school policy. Throw into the mix a New Labour government who took these values to the heart of the national curriculum and national educational policy and you ended up with a complete and utter disaster in which kids who should be learning a trade got taught the same subject areas as the kids who'd go on to university, but in a watered-down form that is patronising by its very nature, just so they can pass an exam that says the school is brilliant. Couple that with an underinvestment in apprenticeships and an overinvestment in universities, and what do we end up with? A million unemployed media studies graduates of no use to businesses whatsoever, and a ready market for thousands of Eastern European mechanics, builders, electricians and plumbers because we haven't got enough people of our own to do it ourselves.
Things seem to be moving slowly (VERY slowly) in the right direction, blocked at every turn by teaching unions aligned completely to Labour (they'd submit block-votes if they could), whose idea of an ideal school is a horrid all-shall-have-prizes nightmare where no child is ever put outside their comfort zone in case they find it too hard.
Also (and this is my personal viewpoint), IMO a MAJOR problem with the state sector is a very heavily feminised view of educational norms. The majority of teachers are women, men are afraid to enter the profession for fear of being branded a paedophile, and boys' interests (like my example with his motorbikes) are dismissed as childish and not helpful in terms of academic work.
I think I'd have paid a hell of a lot more attention in maths if we were looking at the geometry of trick shots in a game of pool, or calculating the air pressure on the wings of an airliner, or using trigonometry to navigate a battleship through a minefield, or using the mathematics of the stock market to see who could make a virtual £million, rather than totally abstract simultaneous equations, or stuff dressed up with a cast of politically-correct characters but still of no relevance to the outside world at all, that we actually got.
lockhart flawse said:
Well if you edit the part about the so-called upper-middle class "ghettoising" their kids I think you would ellicit 100% agreement to your post.
Seriously though, if a state school along the lines of an old-style grammar offered the same type and level of education as a public school, then what would be the point of the fee-paying sector other than to separate the kids along the lines of family income?Bluebarge said:
Indeed. And when the Coalition came into govt and were briefed by civil servants with the kind of detailed financial info that parties in Opposition simply don't get, they discovered that we were on the edge of a financial cliff and that this promise was simply not affordable.
It's the same reason why the Conservatives, champions of strong defence and low taxes, are slashing the defence budget, keeping income tax where it is, and have raised VAT. Why is that not a similar betrayal?
I suspect that the Conservatives have far better, more experienced spin doctors and more influential supporters that are able to get the Clegg betrayal stories published and their own 'set aside'. Most people don't look beyond what they read in the papers.It's the same reason why the Conservatives, champions of strong defence and low taxes, are slashing the defence budget, keeping income tax where it is, and have raised VAT. Why is that not a similar betrayal?
Bluebarge said:
amirzed said:
But the thing is, he didn't win. The Lib Dems are the minority in a coalition government.
Or is that you think the Lib Dems should not have accepted to be in a coalition unless their pledge was honoured?
Indeed. And when the Coalition came into govt and were briefed by civil servants with the kind of detailed financial info that parties in Opposition simply don't get, they discovered that we were on the edge of a financial cliff and that this promise was simply not affordable.Or is that you think the Lib Dems should not have accepted to be in a coalition unless their pledge was honoured?
It's the same reason why the Conservatives, champions of strong defence and low taxes, are slashing the defence budget, keeping income tax where it is, and have raised VAT. Why is that not a similar betrayal?
He would probably have been held in much higher regard by more people as a result.
Other 'missed promise' or altered targets once in power are ten-a-penny but 'publicity seeking pledge w
es' are still rare. Thankfully.lockhart flawse said:
Well if you edit the part about the so-called upper-middle class "ghettoising" their kids I think you would ellicit 100% agreement to your post.
Agreed. I've never earned more than £50k in a year, but so far we've put three children through prep school and one through secondary private, with another lining up for it. My wife drops youngest off in her 8 yo Jazz and I drive a 10 yo Volvo to work (or the 9 yo MR2). We have an interest only mortgage so we'll have to move as and when to pay off the capital. We have one holiday per year, perhaps another weekend away another time if I can fit it in with a business trip. And my wife does not do paid work - she seems to be busy enough looking after our children.When socialising with other parents we have never failed to meet other people in very similar positions, as well as some who can afford it no problemo. Much like wider society in fact, except that it is very rare to meet anyone who does not take their children's education to heart.
Twincam you speak much which is sensible but it is leavened by the sniping at 'privilege' as manifested by bank balance.
Twincam16 said:
lockhart flawse said:
Well if you edit the part about the so-called upper-middle class "ghettoising" their kids I think you would ellicit 100% agreement to your post.
Seriously though, if a state school along the lines of an old-style grammar offered the same type and level of education as a public school, then what would be the point of the fee-paying sector other than to separate the kids along the lines of family income?Same reason why I wouldn't ever buy a new build with a Council element - there's a risk that one bad apple will badly affect my son.
The Don of Croy said:
lockhart flawse said:
Well if you edit the part about the so-called upper-middle class "ghettoising" their kids I think you would ellicit 100% agreement to your post.
Agreed. I've never earned more than £50k in a year, but so far we've put three children through prep school and one through secondary private, with another lining up for it. My wife drops youngest off in her 8 yo Jazz and I drive a 10 yo Volvo to work (or the 9 yo MR2). We have an interest only mortgage so we'll have to move as and when to pay off the capital. We have one holiday per year, perhaps another weekend away another time if I can fit it in with a business trip. And my wife does not do paid work - she seems to be busy enough looking after our children.When socialising with other parents we have never failed to meet other people in very similar positions, as well as some who can afford it no problemo. Much like wider society in fact, except that it is very rare to meet anyone who does not take their children's education to heart.
Twincam you speak much which is sensible but it is leavened by the sniping at 'privilege' as manifested by bank balance.
How would you manage to do the same on half that? Y'know, like normal people.
I'm not 'sniping', I just think that the PH view of what constitutes 'average' and the actual reality is dramatically different.
RSoovy4 said:
Twincam16 said:
lockhart flawse said:
Well if you edit the part about the so-called upper-middle class "ghettoising" their kids I think you would ellicit 100% agreement to your post.
Seriously though, if a state school along the lines of an old-style grammar offered the same type and level of education as a public school, then what would be the point of the fee-paying sector other than to separate the kids along the lines of family income?Same reason why I wouldn't ever buy a new build with a Council element - there's a risk that one bad apple will badly affect my son.
Your ill-considered, sweeping statement condemns 93% of the population and reinforces the notion that snobbery forms a great deal of the decision-making regarding sending kids to fee-paying schools.
Twincam16 said:
And the fact that you see £50k a year as somehow humble and average shows how skewed your view of normality is.
How would you manage to do the same on half that? Y'know, like normal people.
I'm not 'sniping', I just think that the PH view of what constitutes 'average' and the actual reality is dramatically different.
It doesn't have to be one earner on £50k, it could be two on £25k each, or £30k/£20k etc. It is affordable for many families if they are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices, and the fact that parents care enough to make those sacrifices is a better indicator of their child's chances of success than the actual income declared by said parents.How would you manage to do the same on half that? Y'know, like normal people.
I'm not 'sniping', I just think that the PH view of what constitutes 'average' and the actual reality is dramatically different.
Twincam16 said:
And the fact that you see £50k a year as somehow humble and average shows how skewed your view of normality is.
How would you manage to do the same on half that? Y'know, like normal people.
I'm not 'sniping', I just think that the PH view of what constitutes 'average' and the actual reality is dramatically different.
Well, as I'm pushing 50 yo with 32 years in employment I think my current income is distinctly average.How would you manage to do the same on half that? Y'know, like normal people.
I'm not 'sniping', I just think that the PH view of what constitutes 'average' and the actual reality is dramatically different.
Having tasted redundancy three times already I have also 'got by' on a hell of a lot less than average wage when required, without losing the house/car/wife/family or their education.
It can be done, but you have to get your hands dirty (in my case mixing plaster on a building site for 5 months).
The Don of Croy said:
Twincam16 said:
And the fact that you see £50k a year as somehow humble and average shows how skewed your view of normality is.
How would you manage to do the same on half that? Y'know, like normal people.
I'm not 'sniping', I just think that the PH view of what constitutes 'average' and the actual reality is dramatically different.
Well, as I'm pushing 50 yo with 32 years in employment I think my current income is distinctly average.How would you manage to do the same on half that? Y'know, like normal people.
I'm not 'sniping', I just think that the PH view of what constitutes 'average' and the actual reality is dramatically different.
Having tasted redundancy three times already I have also 'got by' on a hell of a lot less than average wage when required, without losing the house/car/wife/family or their education.
It can be done, but you have to get your hands dirty (in my case mixing plaster on a building site for 5 months).
RYH64E said:
Twincam16 said:
And the fact that you see £50k a year as somehow humble and average shows how skewed your view of normality is.
How would you manage to do the same on half that? Y'know, like normal people.
I'm not 'sniping', I just think that the PH view of what constitutes 'average' and the actual reality is dramatically different.
It doesn't have to be one earner on £50k, it could be two on £25k each, or £30k/£20k etc. It is affordable for many families if they are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices, and the fact that parents care enough to make those sacrifices is a better indicator of their child's chances of success than the actual income declared by said parents.How would you manage to do the same on half that? Y'know, like normal people.
I'm not 'sniping', I just think that the PH view of what constitutes 'average' and the actual reality is dramatically different.
t about me, clearly. 
The Don of Croy said:
Twincam16 said:
But are you genuinely of the opinion that no parents with kids in state education care about them?
Well as I have put son #1 through state education (secondary) the answer would be an emphatic no. Not sure where I made that assertion originally, TBH?Twincam16 said:
Right. So I must have got where I have in life despite my parents not giving a st about me, clearly.
You know that there are no absolutes, just percentages. Some kids will thrive under any circumstances, most need a bit of help. Some kids will do well at the local state school, many won't. Most kids will do well at the local private school, some won't. t about me, clearly. The point that I was trying to make was parent's involvement in their child's education is key to their chances of success, and on the whole, parents who send their kids to private school tend to more committed than most. Which isn't to say that there are exceptions, because there obviously are.
In my opinion, one of the key reasons why state schools underperform is due to the parents and the home environment of the children.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff