[Eh! Steve]

"If you set up a school and it becomes a good school, the great danger is that everyone wants to go there" - John Prescott 2006.

With attitudes like this, is it any wonder that the UK education is a shambolic mess, irrespective of the fact that the education secretary lets known sex offenders work in schools. This anti-independent stance central to the ideologies of most Labour politicians is nonsensical and totally counterproductive. If all schools were run independently competition would force prices down and standards would rise, as in order to attract pupils schools would have to be able to offer a high level of service to the students. As it is, it costs the government more to send a child to state school than many private schools charge in fees yet the quality of education that they offer in some of those schools is appalling. The Netherlands and Sweden both use sensible, voucher based systems whereby parents can use an education voucher to send a child to whatever school they wish, topping up the fees if necessary should that school charge more than the voucher is worth. If we implemented a similar system, it would be far less likely that 25% of children would be leaving primary school unable to read and write, a frighteningly large number.

Conclusion: Labour bad, private education good. Bring back the grammar schools if you like, I'm all for selection too, but even if you don't there's a lot that can be done within a comprehensive system.

[Droogie]

i agree that education should be privatised, although im not sure it would all go swimmingly as you described.

but did prescott really say that? what a retard.

[Echoes]

now, i won't go as far as saying prescott's not a retard, because he is. i think you've got to have a pretty twisted viewpoint to assume that as meaning '...hence we shouldn't make good schools' - after all, what he says is merely a statement of the obvious. You could just as well continue the statement with '... hence we must ensure that all schools are good so there isn't a rush on one'

i think a sense of context is important here. what he said before and after is ultimately what gives meaning to this, since simply stating the obvious reality of a situation, with no judgement call, is purely objective, which doesn't really allow you to comment on someone's attitude, now does it?

Quote

If we implemented a similar system, it would be far less likely that 25% of children would be leaving primary school unable to read and write, a frighteningly large number.

are you actually saying that currently 1 in 4 children entering secondary education are illiterate??? source for that (ridiculous) claim?

i'm not a huge leftie but i feel it is completely unacceptable for someone's future to be determined to a large extent by the family they are born in - it's just not fair that rich kids get a better education irrespective of their potential or ability. I would only accept the voucher scheme if the government also put in place skills-assessed and means-tested bursaries or imposed on these schools to set aside a large percentage of their budget for those scholarships. To have schools artificially boosting the career prospects of total dunces like Prince Harry just because he has a rich mummy is seriously fucked up.

[where_i'm_calling_from]

what's the point of a poor person working hard all their life to earn a good living and make sure their child doesn't have disadvantages they had by sending them to a (good) private school, if it means they're just discriminated against when they get to university?

basically the labour viewpoint is: send your child to one of our schools and receive an inferior education or we'll do our best to ensure you don't go to a good uni.

instead of this, maybe they should just work on improving their schools so people don't need to go to private schools.

and its not like poorer people can't go to private school...most of them have scholarship programmes to allow people with potential to get a decent education. a fair number of state school kids don't give a shit about their education anyway, but that doesn't stop the government trying to shove them into oxbridge.

[Forgone Conclusion]

Sure, prices would fall, and standards would (possibly) rise but the whole argument is obviouly relatively simplified since things never go that smoothly in the real world

Also, lower prices of private schools are still higher than no price for state schools, and it's unfair to force people to pay for stuff, which is what would happen if school attendance laws were still in place, and if these were removed, would people go to school?

Or, alternatively, would you work on a sliding scale, where the poorer families get subsidised education? Is THAT fair, since richer families don't get the choice to have a state provided education as they do now.

What does a poor family do if all the school in it's area are still too expensive for them even with a 'voucher'

Also, if everywhere's privateised, will that, as well as making the worse schools better, make the best schools worse? Could it just lead to a more mediocre society, where it's harder for people to be bale to excel?

tbh, i'm just spewing out potential arguments here as they come to mind. Personally, i'm all for privitisation, although i personally think there should still be heavy subsidization fromthe government, as well as removal of tuition fees at university

[Echoes]

Quote

what's the point of a poor person working hard all their life to earn a good living and make sure their child doesn't have disadvantages they had by sending them to a (good) private school, if it means they're just discriminated against when they get to university?

if his kid is a dunce he shouldn't be put in a position to take the place of a person more deserving of a demanding education just because his daddy can pay for it. No matter how sweet the dad's rags-to-riches story may be (and lets face it, that's the exception rather than the norm in the real world), the reason he wants his son to avoid the disadvantages he had is that he grew up in a NON MERITOCRATIC SYSTEM much like the one YOU ARE ADVOCATING, where being poor meant he couldnt get a decent education.

Of course, that brings motivation into the equation, you will no doubt say (rehashing the same arguments you no doubt went over at school - this is such a tired topic for discussion...) - the father can't spend the money on what he wants to, so why should he work?

Quite simply, there's always a motivation. If he wants to help his son that badly, he can buy him some private tuition. It seems like a good compromise; it's not as meritocratic as I'd like, but overall we get a much more egalitarian system than what you suggest. Or, why not just have a mix, like you do today? Have 'richkid' academies like Eton for kids who can't read good but look oh-so-snazzy in the latest Diesel range of clothing.

[Gabriel Synthesis]

the latest range of diesel clothing is awesome

[where_i'm_calling_from]

since the coal mines closed lower class people don't have any use and just collect our wages in the dole queue and smash up phone boxes. i seriously propose mass-extermination. it would solve any impending over-population crises, and would mean that everyone alive could afford private education, leading to a higher standard of education, and an intellectual workforce, rather than the scum on the streets today. people like paddy wouldn't make it past the first round. lets face it, everyone wants to be middle class.

[Gabriel Synthesis]

but who would clean the streets?

[where_i'm_calling_from]

illegal immigrants. they work hard. and they're grateful just to be in this country. unlike the scum in newcastle.

This post has been edited by johnny sniper: 29 January 2006 - 10:57 PM

[Gabriel Synthesis]

so you prefer foreigners to poor people?

[Forgone Conclusion]

Extra tuition? What a rediculous idea. Kids hate school enough as it is, without spending more time at home studying, and that would be alot to get the level of state education up to level of private education. An idea like that is simply implausable

[where_i'm_calling_from]

you know alistair campbell sent his kid to the local comp, but just hired private tutors for his kid. kinda negated the political point of sending his kid there, and was an admission that state schools just aren't good enough.

[Eh! Steve]

The Aristocrat, on Jan 29 2006, 10:29 PM, said:

Quote

If we implemented a similar system, it would be far less likely that 25% of children would be leaving primary school unable to read and write, a frighteningly large number.

are you actually saying that currently 1 in 4 children entering secondary education are illiterate??? source for that (ridiculous) claim?

i'm not a huge leftie but i feel it is completely unacceptable for someone's future to be determined to a large extent by the family they are born in - it's just not fair that rich kids get a better education irrespective of their potential or ability. I would only accept the voucher scheme if the government also put in place skills-assessed and means-tested bursaries or imposed on these schools to set aside a large percentage of their budget for those scholarships. To have schools artificially boosting the career prospects of total dunces like Prince Harry just because he has a rich mummy is seriously fucked up.

Source for the illiteracy claim - the Economist (well known as a relatively impartial if not objective source) The whole point of the voucher system is that virtually all schools would become accessible to kids from poor backgrounds - if the government are paying that much anyway to send kids to a crappy school surely it makes sense for the government to pay to send kids to decent schools. Once parents start pulling kids out of crappy schools and sending them to good schools (for free, by using the voucher system) that will force crappy schools to improve or go out of business, hence improving the quality of education in this country. The whole point of the system is to improve access and get rid of the ridiculous system whereby rich idiots get better education than smart poor people. Anyways, you really think that Prince Harry's career prospects would have been harmed if he'd gone to a comp? Don't really understand what your scholarships/bursaries are trying to do - perhaps you'd like to elaborate?

Forgone Conclusion, on Jan 29 2006, 10:38 PM, said:

Sure, prices would fall, and standards would (possibly) rise but the whole argument is obviouly relatively simplified since things never go that smoothly in the real world

Also, lower prices of private schools are still higher than no price for state schools, and it's unfair to force people to pay for stuff, which is what would happen if school attendance laws were still in place, and if these were removed, would people go to school?

Or, alternatively, would you work on a sliding scale, where the poorer families get subsidised education? Is THAT fair, since richer families don't get the choice to have a state provided education as they do now.

What does a poor family do if all the school in it's area are still too expensive for them even with a 'voucher'

Also, if everywhere's privateised, will that, as well as making the worse schools better, make the best schools worse? Could it just lead to a more mediocre society, where it's harder for people to be bale to excel?

tbh, i'm just spewing out potential arguments here as they come to mind. Personally, i'm all for privitisation, although i personally think there should still be heavy subsidization fromthe government, as well as removal of tuition fees at university

OK, i'm going to go through this again, slowly, as you clearly haven't understood yet. I was advocating a VOUCHER system, whereby parents get a voucher equal to the cost of a state education to put towards school fees. They would get one per child, and so most people would still not have to pay any money towards education. Yes, you would still have schools that charge more than the voucher value (although as I already pointed out, the fees at a considerable number of private schools e.g. HABS are actually pretty similar or even less than the government pays for state education) but these would have better access to poorer people because they would only have to pay the difference between the voucher value and the full fee, rather than the whole of the fee. Most schools won't charge more than the voucher value because there simply won't be demand for fee paying schools (because people are used to getting free education), but standards will still improve because parents will have more choice and so failing schools will not be able to carry on in existance. It can't make the best schools worse because they will effectively remain the same as the best schools now - selective and fee paying, so only the most able can go there. Schools still won't be able to charge outrageous amounts of money though as with the increased parental choice and the improvement in quality that will be seen, if they charge too much the other schools will just undercut them and steal their business.

[Gabriel Synthesis]

did everyone in this debate go to an independant school?

also i found this quite funny

Quote

Asked to explain why he had chosen to send his own son to Eton, he said he had decided that state school standards were not high enough.

"If there had been a state school in London which gave me the kind of confidence I had in my own grammar school, I would have made another choice," he said.

to which the reply was "Michael Howard said he had no confidence in the education his son could get in London at the time. This is a dreadful slur on the number and variety of good schools in London,"

no shit einstein, it was meant to be a slur

[Echoes]

Quote

Source for the illiteracy claim - the Economist

if it is, fair do's. I can't find the article though, do you reckon you could give me some sort of date for it so I can dig it out? It seems like a completely implausible statistic, perhaps they've got some sort of a rider on it?

Quote

that will force crappy schools to improve

it will force them to make more money. that means it will force overworked teachers to work harder or face the sack, it will force class sizes to rise, it will force schools to force kids to take mickey-mouse subjects to improve pass rate statistics, it will force dodgy accounting practices and corporate greed, and so on. Schools aren't footloose enough or able to spontaneously spring up in a community, or able to reform fast enough to avoid bankruptcy. Schools will close down in areas where they are most needed, much faster than they can spring up. What's to stop schools closing down in an area where the only money they make is from voucher-paying parents, and instead relocating to try and take a slice of the London pie, where the vast majority of parents will be prepared to pay extra - only to find too many people fighting over the pie, and shut down there as well. It will force complete and total focus on doing whatever it can to improve the results for exams which everyone here was saying in another trhead that are so unrepresentative of intelligence or even education that you just have to memorise a syllabus the night before an exam, even if it means forgetting it all the next day. Kids'll be doing past papers til the cows come home, instead of doing debates, writing for the school newspaper, engaging in extracurricular activities and sports, etc.

Even if the market was uniform and fair and people behaved perfectly logically then your system wouldn't be fair on people not able to pay extra. But in the real world it would be even worse; let's face it, all you're suggesting is a way for rich people to get richer, not a way for cleverer kids to get a better education.

[Adamski]

The Aristocrat, on Jan 29 2006, 10:29 PM, said:

dunces like Prince Harry just because he has a rich mummy

I think that would be HAD a rich mummy.

[Gabriel Synthesis]

adamski, on Jan 30 2006, 12:49 AM, said:

The Aristocrat, on Jan 29 2006, 10:29 PM, said:

dunces like Prince Harry just because he has a rich mummy

I think that would be HAD a rich mummy.

ouch

[paddys wink]

labour suck shit,they have not a clue or a care for the needs of the country,blair and his band of ramshackle
puppet politicians should do something that they are good at like..........erm......erm...someone help

[Droogie]

drinking tea