LondonMix

I can't believe anything has sold out. I'm a big fan of the cinema and a founding member but when I passed by this morning it was still a building site. They'll need to pass out hard hats with your 3D glasses unless there is a miracle between now and Friday!

When I was in high school I also worked in a nursery as a summer job and have to say I?m very sorry to hear what happened to you. False allegations and dragging your child are way beyond anything I ever witnessed. However, preferential treatment is very common. Most of the workers (not intentionally!) had favorite children who were lavished disproportionately with attention and children who they found more difficult with whom they had less patience and would punish more quickly. I have to say, a large part of it was human nature and it takes a very professional worker to overcome these natural biases. If anyone ever suspects this is the case, just move your kid as I?ve witnessed it first hand and it?s not nice. Finding a nursery where the workers have a natural bond with your little one is essential.

Otta of course its going to depend on the state school and the private school you are comparing but in general they privately educated pupil would get lower A-level results if they were in the state sector. This is now so well established in research (that I linked to earlier but you can google it) that there are calls to take this into account for UK admissions (essentially accepting state educated pupils with lower scores in recognition of the fact that once at university they?ll outperform private pupils that have similar scores because they have more potential / ability). Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > We'll never know of course, but I wonder how those > high attainers from the private schools would have > fared in a decent state school.

I'm not talking about the Charter school but state schools in general fa the private sector. I've already linked to the quoted research and explained that the 57k is only a small portion of the economic advantage.

It's complicated. The links below discuss additional research that add some more light. In my view there are three advantages that private school education confers. 1. Two equally capable 18 year old students, one state educated and one privately educated will not get the same A-level exams. The private school student will get better exam results and have better university prospects and earning potential. As you say, when a state school pupil gets the same grades as a private school pupil the state school pupil actually then does better at university than the privately educated student, suggesting greater innate talent. 2. Private school pupils with the same exam results as state pupils earn more than state educated pupils. This element of it is the smaller figure in the Sutton trust report you mentioned I believe (I've read it but can't remember exactly). This is worrying because it has nothing to do with achievement but more subtle advantages that private education confers. 3. Most importantly, is the general achievement gap. As young toddlers (in the US) there is no real cognitive difference between rich babies, middle income babies and poor babies (see the Brookings Institute link). However, a cognitive development gap starts to open up even before schooling begins and by the age of 18 is significant. Rich people do not genetically have a materially higher proportion of the smartest children in the country. Yet, their children's cognitive ability both in and out of school is developed so that most people that can afford private education have children capable of doing well in an academically rigorous environment. Schooling plays a huge part in this and the rich know this very well. The reason why many now enroll their children in private school from reception is that if they start out in the school early when cognitive development differences are low (and hence its easier to get in), they know they'll be developed enough to stay on when things become more competitive-- I know several people who have explicitly done this. Therefore the true gap in earnings isn't to be measured against how top performers in private school compare to top performers in public school but rather the significant over representation of the privately educated in elite universities / the best exam results in the first place. Interestingly, the stress induced by poverty itself reduces cognition by up to 13 IQ points based on recent studies. How we combat these factors that keep the poor trapped in poverty and the rich secure in wealth is a very real issue that is not discussed politically. Its about ensuring that all children regardless of the parents income have the same cognitive development opportunities in school and for the lowest income pupils that they get additional help to support their development, particularly in early childhood. http://www.businessinsider.com/poverty-effect-on-intelligence-2013-8?IR=T http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/06/13-facts-higher-education http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29818363 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11243899/Private-school-pupils-get-better-degrees-even-if-theyre-less-clever.html emro Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It is wrong to say private education confers an > economic advantage on its pupils as the only > research I can find into this is from the Sutton > Trust, their report last July , Their report says > that for the first time they have calculated the > ?wage premium? experienced by those attending > independent schools and it states that when you > take into account social background and early > ability the amount someone whose gone to a private > school will earn extra in total is ?57,653 . > That probably equates to about 4 years fees in > many local private schools so actually on average > ?economically? the research suggests independent > education on average does not even pay back what > has been paid out in the first place. > > Plus there is a lot of talk about class sizes I > would be interested if anyone has any real > research on class sizes because the only research > I have seen ( Sutton trust report again) suggests > that educational outcome is dependent on quality > of teacher rather than class size and actually > countries that do well in international education > league tables ( not that should necessarily be how > we judge education) often have bigger class sizes > than UK > > I would suggest that the fact that state school > educated do better at Uni than private school > educated is because of a better quality of > teaching and that bigger class sizes have meant > they are more able at 18 to learn things > independently when they get to uni and aren?t > spoon fed anymore !

I am making several points (poorly it appears). 1. It is a fact that private schools provide an economic advantage to the pupils that attend. I think that the fact that the rich can buy this advantage for their children is a problem that limits social mobility. I believe the education system needs to be reformed to address this inequity. 2. Based on the above, I don?t think one has to be a snob to want to send ones children to private school. I also don?t think anything is wrong with social climbing and I applaud people who want their children to better than they did. 3. I think its hypocritical to condemn any parent for buying advantages for their children because everyone single person does. If you moved to a neighborhood because it has good schools, then you have bought an educational advantage for your child. If you enroll your children in enriching activities such as music lessons you have again bought a social and economic advantage for your child. These middle class expenditures have a huge impact on cognitive development and is a large part of the class advantages associated with academic achievement. Some people have more money and spend even more on their children (move even closer to a school/ send them to private school etc) but it?s a spectrum of totally normal human behavior. 4. The greater problem is the inequity in the quality of the education on offer between different state schools and between the public and private sectors. There are countries where private education provides no advantage academically and is therefore a very unpopular choice even among the wealthy. Equally, if all state schools were equal to each other, then parents wouldn't move to certain neighborhoods (or even streets) to be near a good one (again exercising economic power to buy education indirectly). These are the problems. If state education was as good as private and all state schools were as good as each other, there would be no issue at all regarding social equity. That is what parents should be fighting for rather than fighting each other. 5. My point about the economics of private education and state school funding was simply factual. I was making a factual statement correcting someone else?s mistake. No one pays for private medical insurance or private education altruistically. Nevertheless, it has a net positive impact on state resources. Any doctors or teachers in the private sector would still need training to work in the public sector if the private sector didn?t exist. In both cases, the impact is simply that you have people paying for a service they are entitled to for free from the state. 6. There have been studies that show that historically children in the private sector with the same A-level results as those in the state sector were more likely to attend an elite university. The study in part concluded this was to do with 'aspirations' or social climbing as others have called it. This isn't just a historical problem. My (much younger) brother in law recently met a friend of mine who is a pilot. Afterwards he said he couldn't believe he was a pilot because he seemed so normal (i.e. not posh). My pilot friend is actually very working class but was told he would have to lose his heavy cockney accent to become a pilot and he did. Its depressing on so many levels that certain professions in this country are simply not seen as being available for people from working class background. Working class people like my brother in law and posh people (like the person who told my friend he?d have to change his dialect) both have the same view of society. This is part of the problem that needs to change.

I think using the term social climber as an insult for any decision someone makes about their children's education is indicative of the issue I outlined above... I agree that private schools are a huge part of the social mobility issue in the UK which is why I have mixed feelings about them. You are incorrect in stating private schools contribute nothing to the education economy. The parents who send their children to private school have a right to use the state system and don't. If every privately educated child transferred to state education as is their right, schools would be massively strained both in terms of physical capacity and funding- remember those parents already pay taxes even though they use private education. I personally think the entire system needs reform and attitudes also need to change about 'social climbing' as you call it. Criticising parents who make decisions within an unfair system seems harsh and also missing the greater issue.

I have very mixed feelings about the private education sector in this country but it's attitudes like this that are at the root of the entrenched class system In the UK. Britain has one of the worst records on social mobility and I'm convinced it's this 'know your place' attitude that is in part the cause. Wanting your children to have more than you do in this country is seen as crass which is nuts and why this place still has a ruling elite that hasn't changed much in decades... landsberger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Personally, I think unless you are an incorrigable > snob or social climber, private schools are a > complete waste of money.

This isn't correct. State pupils with the same grades as privately educated pupils outperform them at uni. This suggests that the state pupils are brighter than private pupils with similar results. It's clear it's the private education that is allowing privately educated pupils to do well on A-levels which gives them access to better universities than their equally bright state peers like for like. There are many valid criticisms that one can levy against private education but failing to provide value add in educational terms isn't one of them. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/06/universities-urged-lower-entry-grades-comprehensive-school-pupils Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > brezzo > > I agree it is difficult to directly compare > private schools academic results data with state > schools results as the private schools do not > publish value added data. > > But I think you are wrong to say comparing the > data from the gifted and talented group at charter > to the whole year group for the independent > schools in this area is skewiff. If anything it is > more likely to be the other way round as the > independent schools are selecting a small group on > a mainly academic basis from an area comprising at > least the whole of South London if not further ( > See TImes report in Feb saying this year Dulwich > College took 17% of those who applied and kids are > travelling from up to 90 minutes away!) Plus of > course this is a self selecting group who apply > and are more likely than not to be academically > above average. > > The gifted and talented group is about 10% of the > year group at Charter , and of course the Charter > is selecting not by academic ability but by those > live nearest.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lordship Lane restaurant scene circa 2015: > > Indian/Italian and/or Pizza restaurants in > abundance. > > Anything else? Ermm not really. > > Louisa. That?s ridiculous?there are 3 Italians including this new one on ED. In addition to this there is ? Japanese, ? Turkish (Hisar) ? American (Flying Pig) ? Indian (several) ? Fish and Chips ? Gastro Pubs ? French (several?Le Chardon, Boulangeri Jade, ToastED ? Chinese ? Thai (two places) ? Spnaish Tapas at Pretty?s in the evenings (very good) ? We had a Greek place on Melbourne Grove and it shut down ? We had a Mexican place and it shut down

I was told yesterday by the DfE that Harris will be withdrawing their application this week. They told me this as part of trying to convince me to drop my freedom of information request...

Thanks guys. That's an interesting program. Very exciting its being implemented.

I missed that. What is the partnership related to?

Why do you think Charter won simonthebeaver? I'm happy either way, just curious!

James, didn't Charter have a lot more signatures? That probably had more to do with that school's application success.

That's great news!

James as you ignored my suggestion, I decided to look for myself and unsurprisingly it proves that Southwark's pupil planning program is more than adequate. In 2009, Southwark had 4,873 births. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/may/25/birth-rate-statistics-england-wales Those children born in 2009 make up the 2014 reception roll. Southwark only had 3,474 reception pupils enrolled in 2014 despite nearly 4,900 births in 2009. More importantly, there were 3,770 places available (a surplus of almost 300 places). If there were only 5,089 births in Southward in 2013 (vs 4,873 in 2009), that would suggest that their shouldn't be much more need for reception places in 2018 than there was in 2014 and that the pipeline of new primary schools planned will more than address the rather modest demographic increase borough wide. The local projections of need are of course separate to borough wide birth statistics but your earlier statement suggesting that Southwark is missing 500 places for pupils seems wildly inaccurate and baseless.

The best way to compare is to look at birth rates in 2009 vs rolls in 2014 and birth rates this year. Any other comparison doesn't make sense.

3 weeks is wildly optimistic

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In many countries, school entry is conditional on > a child having completed a defined course of > vaccination. A sensible policy which IMHO should > be introduced in the UK. That's the policy in most but not in all of the US. Where it isn't policy there have been outbreaks. I'd suggest anyone weighing up this decision not only consider the risks to their own child but the greater risk to the community. Herd immunity is an important way we protect ourselves and the most vulnerable in our community (ie those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons) free from preventable disease.

I tend to agree with the other posters. For play, dragging would be fine. Even though I suspect he wasn?t harmed in anyway and there was no intention to harm, I?ve always felt that manhandling children when they are not doing what you want kind of sends the message it is okay to be physical with people when you are unhappy with what they are doing. The issue is really subtle for me as I don?t think there is any physical danger or threat, just poor behavioral norms.

We recently did something similar. It really depends on how much space you have and how you want to live. Like you our two front reception rooms can be open to one another (we have doors that can be closed between them but they are usually left wide open. The front room is the lounge and the middle room is the dining room. Like you, to get to the lounge, you have to enter the dining room which is open to the hallway. This layout doesn?t really allow for either of the reception rooms to become a play room and personally we like having a separate dining room for regular dinner (I don?t like eating surrounded by kitchen mess and we entertain regularly). We created a direct opening from the dining room to the kitchen. It?s connected via a pocket sliding door so that most of the time its left open so light can flow through and when I am cooking I can easily see and chat with our guests. The kitchen is more of a family room / breakfast kitchen. We have a large island with counter height seating with proper seat-backs so it is very comfortable and has room for 5 people. When people come over, despite the fact there is a sofa, almost everyone sits around the island. Having the extension include a family room was great for us as its right by the garden. So we have a lounge and dining room and a kitchen where you can eat breakfast combined with a family room. The description above might be hard to understand but if you want to come by and take a look PM me. Good luck!

It was okay but it looked like it was struggling for some time.

Also, didn't another poster say they contacted English Heritage and they said it didn't merit protection? While these are unique to Dulwich, they aren't unique in London and don't have any specific merit when compared to the numerous railway cottages that exist from what I understand. You are probably better off objecting specifically to what you dislike and using planning criteria for objections. I imagine the owner of the remaining cottage can object potentially to loss of amenity.

Thanks DaveR. Our contract is with the firm not the cleaner. We have received pms from lawyers and also spoke to the Advice Bureau. Its likely we'll have to take them to court but fortunately for us, we have email proof they initially were going to repair the worktop until they found out the cost. They tried to offer us half and then promptly quite and changed their story... Anyhow, its a matter of principal so small claims court it is.