Earl Aelfheah

I've not heard of Vauxhall Village. What the hell is that? Is it on the bus announcements or something?

Deputy Grand Overlord?

I think people have very different impulses around education and to assume that people make choices using the same frame of reference or give the same weight to different factors is mistaken.

It's like saying that air pollution causes early deaths (true), so cigarettes and breathing air are both bad for health. On some level this is true and you could signpost lots of reasearch about air quality and health impacts, but that wouldn't make the implied equivalence any less inappropriate.

I want to be clear that I'm not criticising those who send their kids to a private school. I think it can be quite honorable. I just don't like the doublespeak around social mobility.

Continually drawing parallels between the state and the private sector by saying "there are examples of inequality and injustice in both, so effectively they're the same", is misleading. The idea that until the state sector ensures 100% parity, is without flaws in terms of social accessibility, then you may as well support a considerably less inclusive system and it's all the same, is self deception. If your concern is social justice and a level playing field, then you shouldn't promote the private system. This may not be your primary concern (it may providing your child with a competitive advantage), which is more than fair enough, but you can't have it both ways. I just wish the phoney rhetoric around inclusivity would be dropped. If you send your kid to private school it is not because you want to see a level playing field. I just do not buy it.

I think people who send their kids to private school should stop trying to justify it in terms of diversity, inclusivity, social mobility etc. It comes across as post-rationalising, as though you're trying to justify a decision you feel guilt over (I'm not suggesting you should feel guilt, just that it comes across like that). Have the courage of your convictions. If you want to pay in order to give your kids an advantage, a competitive edge, just say it and move on. But you can't have it both ways. You can't send your child to an exclusive schools and then try to claim that actually it's no different than a state school and that you're somehow in favour of a level playing field.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think its equally wrong to assume all kids > in independent schools are elitist toffs who don't > know how to interact with 'ordinary' people. Sure, I totally agree. I didn't mean to suggest that.

Hmmm. I think people kid themselves about the 'diversity' of these schools and about how 'socially aware' their pupils can possibly be when separated from the general population in order to be educated in an elite school. But there we go.

LondonMix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Definitely-- the middle is missing! > > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Fair enough, but I suspect the social make up > of > > those schools is very different to your average > > state school regardless of bursaries. I don't know this for sure (so could be wrong), but would guess that many of those on bursaries are probably quite middle class. I would also imagine that there are a lot of middle class parents who scrimp and save to send their kids to private schools, as well as the more affluent. My guess would be that generally, it's the the poorest who are underrepresented, rather than the middle. But again, I could be wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if many at those schools, under-estimate where the 'middle' lies.

I would say that a tiny number of kids from very affluent (relatively) backgrounds are in fee paying schools, while the majority of the population are largely in decent state schools. A minority (though still far too many) are in inadequate state schools and of those a disproportionate number are from poor backgrounds. But yes, we're not a million miles apart.

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.