Friday, February 24, 2006

Apartheid schooling

Will Tony Blair's destruction of the "two-tier" education system in England simply increase the price differential for parents seeking to move into an area with good schools?

The two-tier system should be encouraged so that more parents no longer have to move house to secure good schooling for their children. Defending the jobs of Labour supporters in Local Education Authorities across the country should not be the primary concern of Labour MPs.

7 comments:

Lone Primate said...

I think the question this begs is why does the British educational system suffer policies that lead to schools in some districts being identifiably and demonstrably "better" than schools in other districts in the first place...?

Snafu said...

Because the left-wing morons that determine educational policy have failed to admit that their experiment in social equality, comprehensive schools, has been a failure that has ruined the educational chances of a generation and they will not admit it.

Lone Primate said...

Spectacular rhetoric. Typically, it isn't actually backed up by evidence, and is merely presented as an ipse dixit. There's nothing to examine, measure, equate, compare, or quantify in an effort to dispute the charge. Okay. So in what measurable aspects is Britain demonstrably worse off now than it was in, say, 1965, when the place was largely known for bad teeth and hotels with no hot running water? You know, the glory days? Britain in 2006 is worse than THAT, is it? Do tell.

Your reply also doesn't address the basic question. How does it benefit Britain in particular, Europe more broadly, or the West in general when only the children of the well-to-do-in-the-first-place are afforded the education necessary to excel, and the rest of the population is expected to scrape by on the dregs and the attitude is "cor blimey that's bloody typical innit" if they don't make it to the House of Lords on spit, polish, and stiffupperlippery? A modern educational system ought to equip the children of the nation equally, and allow meritorious positions to reward talent, intelligence, insight, and interest, rather than inheritance. A modern society is only possible on the broadest, best education for the population generally. The prescription you've laid out for Britain would see it a land of lords and coal diggers again within a couple of generations, while more republican and equitable systems will be able to support high tech industries. Which Britain will you build, wanting to be proud of the place? The one where people are poor and education is a privilege of money, or one where there is a vast middle class with a stake in the future of the nation and Europe?

Snafu said...

Lone Primate, social mobility has been declining in the UK ever since grammar schools have been phased out across most of the UK.

The terrible irony is that Labour have remove the opportunity for children from the poorest backgrounds of breaking free and has condemned many of them to a life of relative poverty. Labour has created an educational system, through political dogma, nothing else, that means that children from wealthier backgrounds have a far better chance in life as they are no longer competing for the best jobs with little Jonny from the local grammar school!

I don't want Britain to return to the "glory days" of the 1960s, maybe football yes, with a world cup fast approaching;)

Lone Primate said...

Lone Primate, social mobility has been declining in the UK ever since grammar schools have been phased out across most of the UK.

This is yet another ipse dixit. Prove it. With inbound investment over the last 30 years since the UK and Ireland joined the EU, the standard of living in both countries has risen, as have the attendent drop in emigration and rise in immigration. If you have figures to the contrary, I'd love to see them. All the money in the world would be useless if there were not educated people in the UK to make hay of in that sunshine -- and, in fact, would never have been tendered in the first place. Ask Rwanda.

The terrible irony is that Labour have remove the opportunity for children from the poorest backgrounds of breaking free and has condemned many of them to a life of relative poverty. Labour has created an educational system, through political dogma, nothing else, that means that children from wealthier backgrounds have a far better chance in life as they are no longer competing for the best jobs with little Jonny from the local grammar school!

And your idea, then, rather than to improve the system, is to FURTHER cripple the public system -- the only one the poor can afford in the first place -- in the hopes that the poor will smarten up and send their kids to schools they could never afford... I can't believe the absurdity of that position escapes you. I can only conclude, again, you're out to build a cold, nasty little country that's a great place for a comfortable few. I don't believe the things you're espousing serve the best interests of your people.

Snafu said...

Lone Primate, you seem to be confusing two things! I am not saying that there are no educated people in the UK! The decline in social mobility merely suggests that a child's chances of academic success are no more closely correlated with their parents' education than they used to be. I think this is bad and has been caused by the destruction of Grammar schools across the UK.

I want as many children as possible to benefit from the education I received, anything else would smack of the hypocrisy of a Labour Prime Minister and Education Secretary (both privately educated) denying other children the education only their parents could afford!

That you recognise the current system is crippled is commendable. Why is it crippled? Too many grammar schools or not enough?

PS Apologies for not replying sooner but I wanted time to get a proper response for you:)

Lone Primate said...

The decline in social mobility merely suggests

WHAT decline in social mobility? Again, you're just tossing this off like it's as obvious as gravity. Back it up! Define your terms; what do you even MEAN when you're saying "social mobility"? Then come back with the comparitive numbers that demonstrate it's in decline relative to some other point in recent history that better typifies what you consider preferable, and then correlate them to academic performance. Till then, you're just humming into a kazoo.

That you recognise the current system is crippled is commendable. Why is it crippled?

I didn't say there was a problem with it in the first place; that's your assertion -- again, ungrounded in anything but pub talk. You've offered nothing to demonstrate there's even a problem before launching off into remedies. Now if there's disparity, as you suggest, I don't see how widening it solves it. Maybe you'd care to expand on that.