Jump to content

Recommended Posts

edhistory Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> caz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's a state run Hariss primary school not a

> > private prep.

>

> For people who can afford to live in the catchment

> area.


As opposed to a primary school for children travelling large distances?

edhistory Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> caz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It's a state run Hariss primary school not a

> > private prep.

>

> For people who can afford to live in the catchment

> area.



I really don't understand this argument. I'm about as big an advocate of state education as you'll find, but I've never understand the antipathy shown towards those who can afford to live close to a good quality school. Some people make massive sacrifices to do it, I don't think that's a bad thing. It's not the same as paying for private education.

singalto Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why shouldn?t people who work hard to send their

> children to private schools be able to do so

> without being criticised?


I agree, in that it's a personal decision, not an easy one and certainly not one I would criticise. But not sure about the "work hard" bit... lots of people work hard - harder than I could even contemplate - and cannot dream of paying 15K a year in school fees. The private schools round here are great and any child would be lucky to get in, but sometimes it's good to acknowledge your privilege...

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> edhistory Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > caz Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > It's a state run Hariss primary school not a

> > > private prep.

> >

> > For people who can afford to live in the

> catchment

> > area.

>

>

> I really don't understand this argument. I'm about

> as big an advocate of state education as you'll

> find, but I've never understand the antipathy

> shown towards those who can afford to live close

> to a good quality school. Some people make massive

> sacrifices to do it, I don't think that's a bad

> thing. It's not the same as paying for private

> education.


This reminded me of when Harriet Harman who lived in Stradella Road sent little Harry to St Olave's in Orpington instead of paying for DC or Alleyn's (I expect she had a state funded chauffeur to take him there in 1994)- thereby depriving someone in Orpington of a grammar school place...especially since Labour got rid of grammars - thereby depriving all poor bright kids of a decent education.

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> singalto Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Why shouldn?t people who work hard to send

> their

> > children to private schools be able to do so

> > without being criticised?

>

> I agree, in that it's a personal decision, not an

> easy one and certainly not one I would criticise.

> But not sure about the "work hard" bit... lots of

> people work hard - harder than I could even

> contemplate - and cannot dream of paying 15K a

> year in school fees. The private schools round

> here are great and any child would be lucky to get

> in, but sometimes it's good to acknowledge your

> privilege...


I agree entirely with this but would add that it's good to also acknowledge your privilege if you are able to buy a house at an inflated price near to a good state school. In some ways I'm minded to be more understanding of those who send their children to private school for the reason highlighted by uncleglen.

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This reminded me of when Harriet Harman who lived

> in Stradella Road sent little Harry to St Olave's

> in Orpington instead of paying for DC or Alleyn's


Money isn't enough to get into those schools... entrance is tough. But yes, state funded schools should be for local children.



peterstorm1985 Wrote:

------------------------------------------------------

> would add that it's good to also acknowledge your privilege if you are

> able to buy a house at an inflated price near to a good state school.


Yes, indeed. (would that apply to the Harris? I have no idea..)

It's in no one's interests for kids to travel across London to go to school. Children should go to their local school, which should be representative of the local community imo. All schools should be good schools and in London, most are. The idea of people moving to be near a 'good school' is grossly exagerated.

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lots of people move to Sutton, etc especially for

> the grammar schools though, don't they.

>

> There's certainly no other good reason to move to

> Sutton.


Do people move to Sutton? I guess some must do. The whole grammar thing is another story altogether of course.

DuncanW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> uncleglen Wrote:

> ***...especially

> > since Labour got rid of grammars - thereby

> > depriving all poor bright kids of a decent

> > education.***

>

> The abolition of grammars does not deprive all

> poor kids of a decent education. Quite the

> opposite is true.

Well, I am speaking from my own experience- Grammar school kid made good from a very poor background in Newham. Then 25 years teaching in various south London comps...

This country, as a whole, has severely suffered from a lack of REAL academic education- the truth of which is borne out by the way we have plundered clever skilled people from very poor countries

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DuncanW Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > uncleglen Wrote:

> > ***...especially

> > > since Labour got rid of grammars - thereby

> > > depriving all poor bright kids of a decent

> > > education.***

> >

> > The abolition of grammars does not deprive all

> > poor kids of a decent education. Quite the

> > opposite is true.

> Well, I am speaking from my own experience-

> Grammar school kid made good from a very poor

> background in Newham. Then 25 years teaching in

> various south London comps...

> This country, as a whole, has severely suffered

> from a lack of REAL academic education- the truth

> of which is borne out by the way we have plundered

> clever skilled people from very poor countries


'done good' is a matter of opinion.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...