Separate Schools?

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

In Brighton there was nearly a riot of middle class parents when they wanted to introduce a raffle for school places!

I think that would be a great idea cos then all schools would be improved cos none of the pushy middle class parents could allow their little Joshua or Jemmima to go to a crap school. Great idea.

Does anyone know if they actually implemented the raffle in Brighton?

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

middle class parents could allow their little Joshua or Jemmima

Surely you mean Freya and Max, Joshua is soooo early 90's.

[elipie]

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote:

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

> Does anyone know if they actually implemented the

> raffle in Brighton?

I think they did... http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/3668278.Brighton_school_lottery__vindicated_/

[david_carnell]

What that seems to suggest is that some parents will stoop to almost any level to send their child to the "choice" of school - be it mysteriously converting to a religion, moving out of the area or cutting back on the odd ski trip to pay tuition fees.

A riot in Brighton? What did they do - storm the delis? Set fire to the vegan cafes? Hurl molo-tofu cocktails?

[James]

>>I don't believe in choice. No one really wants a choice of schools because in an ideal world you wouldn't need one. All schools would be roughly equal and as long as the school was near to your home all would be well.

I totally agree - the government keeps selling us "choice" as the magical answer to everything, schools, hospitals, whatever. A decent school or a failing one - that isn't "choice"!

We all just want a decent local school. Is that too much to ask?

[????]

But James - I presume you want choice in most other areas in your life? What's so different about these?

[James]

What I'm saying is that a choice between a failing school and a decent one isn't really a choice. Who would choose the bad one? It's not like going into Starbucks and having your frappamochawhatever the hell it is.

[espelli]

The inbuilt inequality of the education system has been studied extensively around the world.

Diploma Disease.

The Upper and Middle Classes will always aspire to beat the system and give their children a leg up. Therefore the system never really changes and more education does not mean more equality.

[espelli]

In response to the discussion about Haberdashers' Aske's in New Cross, they have a very clear banding system now however that is relatively new and is only after siblings have been offered places, hence ensuring that the right sort of families continue to populate the school. Therefore the children getting the excellent results were from the times when the selection criteria was less transparent. It will also be interesting to see what will happen to the results in a few years after this http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/3C41808E-5A67-49E7-A471-CF49600FE36C/0/ClosureNotice.pdf

[indiepanda]

Another thing I'd add on segregating schools for faith reasons. Having been raised as a catholic but quit going to church as soon as the brain washing wore off and I felt like telling my mum what to do with religion (aged 16 in my case), I have real reservations about parents inflicting their choice of faith on their children and sending them to faith schools. (bit Dawkins I know)

I remember objecting to being made to study RE GCSE which the whole of our school had no choice about. I think the teachers told me "you chose to come to a catholic school" as if that was a good excuse for wasting my time on something totally useless. And of course it was my mum that chose, not me. I begged to be allowed to leave and go to the comp but she was worried my academic performance would suffer from being distracted by boys. Like any boy would have bothered distracting a swot with terrible national health glasses, unusually bad braces and a flat chest *rolls eyes*.

But seriously, I think faith schools just encourage people in different religions to separate themselves from the rest of society and that can't be a good thing. I can't claim my school actually preached intolerance against other faiths, and they did teach us about other faiths and not in a prejudicial way, but it's no the same as mixing with others. I don't think the school system should be about religion, people should be able to choose for themselves when they are old enough to form their own judgements. Not that I have much hope of that ever happening...

[taper]

The fact that the state funds schools which are allowed to select according to the faith of a child's parents is an obsenity beyond anything else in the state system. That the state allows religion into schools, other than in anthroplogical study, is only slightly less so. Brighton's private schools saw an explosion in demand when the lottery system was introduced.

[????]

On a related note...it is interseting that those that think the role of the state is to tell us plebs what to do, don't apply this to their own. If we put a list of all the Labour MPs past ane present who either directly sent their kids through Private Education or bent the system to not put their kids to their local state school we'd be hear until next year....

just recently, the awful (sorry James) Dianne Abbot - kids privately educated

Tony Blair - Kids wangled into some high performing state school miles (11 I think) from his local 'comp'

and....our potential PM, Milliband, bought up in Hampstead with his house full of lefties Benn, his grandad (famous marxist historian) etc and.....wait for this......gets into Oxford with shite A'levels on a scheme aimed at poor inner city kids..

They make me puke with their hypocracy

[citizenED]

But, ????'s, the simple truth is that we have "mixed economy" system in education and so that is the one that everyone uses, including Labour MP's. You can't complain about that. *Bob* will do it, you'd do it and so will I. But I will not like it. I'd prefer if the state guaranteed that all schools were similar and therefore I wouldn't have to worry about the school my kids went to - they'd go to a local one, as would everyone elses children.

[kristymac1]

'I think faith schools just encourage people in different religions to separate themselves from the rest of society and that can't be a good thing. I can't claim my school actually preached intolerance against other faiths, and they did teach us about other faiths and not in a prejudicial way, but it's no the same as mixing with others.'

Indiepanda - perhaps you went to a school with a similar ethos to mine - I have to say I was brought up in a small town in Northumberland where there was no 'choice' of schools (state anyway), I went to the primary school next to my house, the middle school a little further away and then the High School next door to the middle school.

All of my schools were CofE, but spent an inordinate amount of time teaching us about other religions and cultures (mainly from a historical context). We had religious assembly, prayers before lunch etc, but there was no religious dominace in any of the subject teachings.

Personally I have no objection to schools who abide by a particular religion (based on my own personal experience - I'm not religious by the way). Nor do I object to the concept of 'choice'. There are many reasons why I would want my daughter to go to one school over another, and I'm not talking SAT results, I believe in providing the highest teaching standards for all children, irrespective of postcode or economic standing. But it is possible for different schools to provide different teaching expertise, more appropriate to some children. What we need is access to the range of choices in each area.

[david_carnell]

Nor do I object to the concept of 'choice'. There are many reasons why I would want my daughter to go to one school over another, and I'm not talking SAT results, I believe in providing the highest teaching standards for all children, irrespective of postcode or economic standing. But it is possible for different schools to provide different teaching expertise, more appropriate to some children. What we need is access to the range of choices in each area.

Except that in the real world this isn't really feasible. I know what you're saying (at least I hope I do otherwise this'll sound awfully patronising) and it would be lovely if we had a selection of "specialist" schools that had expertise in perhaps sciences, arts, technology or sport. Sometimes, by the age of 11, it is clear what a child does well in (although not always) and a school could focus on these. There are two problems with this though, imo:

1) Specialist schools often neglect the "big picture" to concentrate on the narrow. I'd rather have a child educated as a generalist for as long as possible before specialising later on at degree level. Would changing from one specialty to another be easy - if for example Joe Bloggs lost interest in cricket and football at 15 and instead wanted top pursue drama?

2) In all but the most populous parts of major cities the infrastructure for this just doesn't exist. In most parts of the country the option to exercise choice in which senior school to attend is more down to geographic location than anything else. Without lots of schools within commuting distance (via public transport) the options for a wide range of specialist schools is very limited.

Ergo - comprehensive education would seem to be a better route.

[Brendan]

Essentially the British education system is fucked. It only takes an objective observer to notice this.

An introspective ?British? approach to a solution will only fuck it up even more. This is because it is poisoned by two main factors, firstly an historical social/class structure, firmly entrenched and built on a continuing foundation of privilege and exploitation and secondly, polarising, popular concepts of liberalism and conservatism, firmly entrenched and built on a continuing foundation of stupidity.

So I would advise scrapping the whole lot and looking beyond this island for a robust system that can be adopted. Finland or Denmark would be good places to start.

That is mine and the final word on the issue as 31 years experience of my own opinions has left me little reason to doubt them.

[James]

I think the government knows this so are using the "more choice" facade to placate floating voters - by the time they have been placated with more faith schools & rebranded academies clawing their way a few points up the league tables the only kids left totally failing will be those with parents who probably wouldn't vote anyway.

Call me cynical...

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

"It only takes an objective observer to notice this."

At least they teach us not to split infinitives!

[Brendan]

Taught I think is the word you are looking for.

Everybody knows that the split infinitive has been acceptable ever since Star Trek first graced our screens. Anyway I thought I declared the matter closed. So do not bother my genius with such outdated grammatical constructs or I will be forced to employ liberal use of my debating knobkierie.

[Keef]

Brendan we looked to mids shores already. Unfortunately however, those shores belonged to America!

[Brendan]

That'll learn ya.

[kristymac1]

Quote:

david_carnell

Except that in the real world this isn't really feasible. I know what you're saying (at least I hope I do otherwise this'll sound awfully patronising) and it would be lovely if we had a selection of "specialist" schools that had expertise in perhaps sciences, arts, technology or sport. Sometimes, by the age of 11, it is clear what a child does well in (although not always) and a school could focus on these.

I may not have expressed myself as clearly as intended (but didn't feel patronised either!), I wasn't particularly thinking of specialisms in terms of subject area, in fact I'm not entirely convinced about the subject academies. The national curriculum dictates that certain subjects are manadatory which I think is quite right (although I do have issue with the number of changes to the structure of the curriculum in recent years), I think 11 is too young for children to be put into a specialist box, it's a crucial development age and more often than not a childs interest and attainment in a particular subject at that age bares no revelence to their career/interest pursuit as a young adult (hence my dislike for the segregation of kids at 11 through the 11 plus). For that reason I want all subjects to be taught with the same skill, enthusiasm and rigour as the next.

I do feel however that there are different teaching styles which suit different children, I totally agree that this is perhaps not feasible across the board, but most of the other posts refer to an ideal situation and I would be as happy as larry to have the ideal educational situation for this and every other generation of kids thereafter.

[pk]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

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

> "It only takes an objective observer to notice

> this."

>

> At least they teach us not to split infinitives!

isn't the infinitive here 'to notice' (which isn't split)?

i wasn't taught grammar at school so i might be wrong

[Brendan]

I'm not sure but I have a Danish friend who I will ask about it tomorrow.

[indiepanda]

I think pk is right - isn't it the Star Trek example they usually quote to illustrate split infinitives "to boldly go"? - i.e. "to go" is the infinitive.