Earl Aelfheah

Fair enough, but I suspect the social make up of those schools is very different to your average state school regardless of bursaries.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rahrah-- poor students are 4 times more likely to > be in an inadequate school than the top 20% of > wealthy children in the state system and they do > much worse in those schools that they otherwise > would and much worse than richer children do in > inadequate schools. > > If you don't think that's more than just 'not > perfect', we'll have to agree to disagree. > > I am also not accusing parents of 'gaming' the > system. Avoiding a bad school if you can afford > to is simple human nature. All I'm saying is its > that same human instinct that makes other parents > choose private education or grammar schools. > > That the state school system's admission policy > does not intentionally try to entrench privilege > is irrelevant as to whether it actually has a > negative impact on social mobility. > > Policies that keep the rich rich are just as bad > as policies that keep the poor poor. But you're not looking at the net effect of both systems. You're saying that poor schools are more likely to be found in poor areas. True. But the vast majority of schools are good and cater for kids from all kinds of backgrounds and many will be in poor areas also. So this means the system is imperfect. We should strive to make it better and fairer. But generally, at a high level it's a damn site more equitable than the private school system, which sets out to, and successfully does, reproduce privilege. To suggest that a comprehensive system is bad for social mobility when compared with the private school system, is laughable frankly. I can't quite work out if you're serious about this or just locked into your argument. Those from privileged backgrounds have lot's of advantages - that's the point of privilege. You'll never design a system which completely eliminates this advantage, but we can strive to do our best. To suggest that the intention is unimportant is wrong. To suggest the actual effect is no different is also wrong.

BTW, I certainly don't think "getting rid of private schools alone will fix social mobility issues in the UK" and would never suggest such a stupid thing. My main objection with private schools is the pretense (amply articulated in this thread) that they're actually quite socially inclusive and do a lot to help mobility. Oh, and their status as charities with associated tax breaks. I understand why people want to ensure their kids have an advantage over others and are willing to pay for it. It's perfectly natural. But I get a bit fed up with the disingenuous attempts to dress it up as something else.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But again, the larger point I was making was that > all state schools are not the same. Within the > cohort that does well there is going to be a large > overlap with access to high quality state schools. > Access to high quality state schools itself has > significant overlap with wealth so pretending like > the only problem with social mobility in this > country is private education is denying a huge > part of the problem faced by the poor. But again - one system is designed and sets out to reproduce privilege. It's not the only mechanism by which this happens of course - but it is set up for exclusivity. The other is just imperfect.

Eighty two per cent of primary schools are rated 'good' or 'outstanding'. There are many outstanding schools in socially and economically deprived areas. Their make up will be very different to a private school. Comprehensive schools do remarkable things and have a real impact on the life chances of hundreds of thousands of children. To say "the system is not perfect, some people game it, it's not 100% fair in all cases" is one thing - of course admissions policies will skew intake in some areas, in certain circumstances. But, the private system is completely different by many orders of magnitude. The system itself is set up to fundamentally reproduce privilege. That's the point of it. It's openly an proudly exclusive. To try and draw parallels doesn't appear serious to me.

There's some slight of hand going on here IMO. The comprehensive system caters for people from all backgrounds. There are some schools which under perform sure - and there are still inequalities of course... this will be true of any system. But public schools are in the business of exclusivity. In the case of public schools, we're not talking about a small number of people gaming the system for some advantage, the whole system is set up to provide the children of the wealthy a huge advantage - They're set up in order to be exclusive. Offering a limited number of bursaries may provide some cover (and earn some tax breaks), but to suggest that the system doesn't fundamentally reproduce privilege, or to draw parallels with free, state funded education is disingenuous.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > LondonMix did: > > > > > > And I believe it was to that rahrahrah was > > replying. > > LM made the point but didn't infer that that the > state system entrenches privilege "to the degree" > that public schools do > > Some entrenchment of privilege but not to the same > degree. Surely. "I think that the state school system does the same via distance based admissions. Using your financial resources to avoid bad schools entrenches privilege and reduces social mobility as much as private education does"

... in fact a number of excellent state schools are located in poor areas with extremely diverse intakes. Especially in London. To suggest that the state system entrenches privilege to the degree public schools do, is wide of the mark imo.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Using your financial resources to avoid bad schools > entrenches privilege and reduces social mobility > as much as private education does. This is simply not true. The social mix in a good comprehensive school will be immeasurably broader than in somewhere like Dulwich College.

I think this idea of people moving to be near the best schools is massively overplayed. You wouldn't move to an area you don't like just to be near an 'outstanding' school. You would probably do what you could to avoid sending your kid to one that was in special measures of course. Anyway, I go back to my fundamental point which is that it's misguided to think that places like Dulwich College serve the interests of the poorest. In fact, quite the opposite is true. They're there to serve the rich and to maintain privlledge (which also means ingraining disadvantage).

.... after all, how much would one really save moving to an expensive area, next to a great school, compared to private school fees? I agree it amounts to much the same thing, but doubt it's actually that common.

How many people actually buy to be in a school catchment? You hear this a lot, but I think in reality, most people live in an area they like and when they have kids, send them to the local school. I'm sure that's not universally the case, but would guess it's so, for around 90% of people. Fundamentally, I think that it's misguided to suggest that places like DC serve the interests of the poorest.

If you think Dulwich College helps the poor, I think your mistaken. Are there some bursaries on offer to help a small number of middle class parents - yes. The net effect of places like DC however is to entrench inequality and protect the interests of a small and affluent minority to the detriment of the poorest.

Apparently there's going to be retail space on the ground floor, 7 flats above (4 floors) and a two storey terrace of 5 houses at the rear of the site (adj. builders' yard). I can't find any associated documents online, no plans, no artists impressions, but on the face of things it sounds like massive over development. Mention of the library seems to have been dropped, but who knows? Would be interested if anyone can provide more info.

Yes the sock puppet review was a bit of a PR blunder, but hopefully everyone can be kind. It must be incredibly nerve racking opening a new restaurant. I really do wish them well - it sounds great on paper, looking forward to trying it.

Legally, they're probably fulfilling their duty. In spirit - no, there is no justification for Dulwich public schools being charities in my opinion.

Here we go. Yes, there are people who behave badly on the roads, whether they're cycling or driving. They probably behave badly when they're not engaged in the process of transporting themselves. You'll probably find they put their feet on the seats when on the train and play loud music on the bus. I had a car nearly take me out the other day as I crossed the road. she careered round a corner at speed, without a care. I see cyclists ignoring lights and regularly see cars breaking the speed limit as well as jumping lights. It's not helpful to make this into a 'bike versus car' thing. What would help is if we actually had traffic police back, rather then just putting speed bumps everywhere and thinking that solves anything.

I love Dylan, bit price for literature?!? I agree with bob

Laura, the sock puppetry doesn't tend to go down too well on this forum. You may want to think about removing the post before the inevitable avalanche of abuse starts.

I used to live close to Camberwell grove and was appalled at how network rail were allowed to completely negate their duty to fix the bridge. The same has happened on Windsor walk and will keep happening.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's something rather socialist about her > wanting to > control borders and markets. It's not socialist, it's authoritarian.

I'm surprised May hasn't exalted us to spread dripping on our toast, like back in the 50's.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > David Davies said he'd buy Australian Vegemite. > > Until a load of people pointed out the ? versus > Aus$ graph. Ha, ha.

Laissez-faire, free-market conservatism (or neo-liberalism) has always been at odds with traditional conservatism. May seems to be fo the latter camp

Tesco's all too often squeeze small suppliers to the point of bankruptcy. Unilever have the size / clout to resist this and i'm glad they're facing Tesco down. Shame others aren't in a position to do the same.