Author Topic: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.  (Read 8007 times)

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #25 on: January 29, 2011, 12:14:33 pm »
Regarding Jaded's point, spot on, but just imagine the difference that is made when every school has a critical mass of parents who are willing that school to succeed, rather than bunging them all into the same school. When every school has its fair share of captains of industry, academics, politicians, high court judges and trade union leaders, they expect results for their kids and there is then no barrier for the poorer kids in the same school to take advantage of the benefits.
Currently the Captains of Industry (if they can't afford private schools in this recession) send their kids to the best comp in the area, and all the other CsofI follow.

You can only join this club if you can afford a house in the right area.

Choice in schools helps cause this.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #26 on: January 29, 2011, 12:16:10 pm »
Wow, Governors have an important part to play, however I would look at developing a wider community-school link than that.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

border-rider

Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #27 on: January 29, 2011, 12:16:48 pm »
Which is a real problem; it's even more purely financially selective than the independent system - there you still have to pass entry exams however much wonga your parents might be able to wave.

Money buys you coaching, and access to a prep school geared to injecting its pupils into private schools.

Rig of Jarkness

  • An Englishman abroad
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #28 on: January 29, 2011, 12:17:54 pm »
It is a great tragedy that a Labour government didn't sweep away all this privilege and at a stroke remove all the fee-paying and entrance-exam schools. If they had, and comprehensives had become the norm, every school would have had a hard core of parents with the right parental attitude who would have carried the rest along. There would be no school in which there would have been an anti-educational hard core. There would be far fewer barriers to success amongst kids from less privileged backgrounds.

My own experience suggests quite the opposite.  I did my O levels at a non selective comprehensive and my A levels at a selective sixth form college.  The difference was huge - I went from being the much derided class swot in the comprehensive to one of the many keen to succeed in the sixth form.  Comprehensives may bring up the average but it's at the expense of the top end.
Aero but not dynamic

Pancho

  • لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2011, 12:18:05 pm »
WB, isn't this parentally driven schooling all a bit, well, Big Society for you?

Wowbagger

  • Dez's butler
    • Musings of a Gentleman Cyclist
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2011, 12:20:16 pm »
Wow, Governors have an important part to play, however I would look at developing a wider community-school link than that.

Agreed. Temple Sutton is a leading "Extended School" and it has very strong community links.

It takes a very special person to be able to run a school in this way and the Head is one of the leaders nationally. He gives lectures on the subject and, certainly in the last administration, he advised ministers.

He's going to be bloody hard to replace when he goes at the end of this academic year.
Oh, Bach without any doubt. Bach every time for me.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2011, 12:21:39 pm »
Do they have stuff about this on their website, and do you have the web address? Sounds good. Ta
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

Wowbagger

  • Dez's butler
    • Musings of a Gentleman Cyclist
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2011, 12:22:06 pm »
It is a great tragedy that a Labour government didn't sweep away all this privilege and at a stroke remove all the fee-paying and entrance-exam schools. If they had, and comprehensives had become the norm, every school would have had a hard core of parents with the right parental attitude who would have carried the rest along. There would be no school in which there would have been an anti-educational hard core. There would be far fewer barriers to success amongst kids from less privileged backgrounds.

My own experience suggests quite the opposite.  I did my O levels at a non selective comprehensive and my A levels at a selective sixth form college.  The difference was huge - I went from being the much derided class swot in the comprehensive to one of the many keen to succeed in the sixth form.  Comprehensives may bring up the average but it's at the expense of the top end.

Isn't that what I said in my earlier post? By definition, it can't have been comprehensive if there were any fee-paying or selective schools within a 30 mile radius.
Oh, Bach without any doubt. Bach every time for me.

border-rider

Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2011, 12:23:14 pm »
WB, isn't this parentally driven schooling all a bit, well, Big Society for you?

The better parts of the "Big Society" agenda consist of government arrogating to itself the kudos for people doing community things they've always done ;)

Pancho

  • لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2011, 12:24:09 pm »
It is a great tragedy that a Labour government didn't sweep away all this privilege and at a stroke remove all the fee-paying and entrance-exam schools. If they had, and comprehensives had become the norm, every school would have had a hard core of parents with the right parental attitude who would have carried the rest along. There would be no school in which there would have been an anti-educational hard core. There would be far fewer barriers to success amongst kids from less privileged backgrounds.

My own experience suggests quite the opposite.  I did my O levels at a non selective comprehensive and my A levels at a selective sixth form college.  The difference was huge - I went from being the much derided class swot in the comprehensive to one of the many keen to succeed in the sixth form.  Comprehensives may bring up the average but it's at the expense of the top end.

My experience is of extremes as well. I went to both a sub-bog-standard rural comp and one of the best independent schools on the planet. This, possibly unfair, comparison does explain my choices when educating my own children.

Wowbagger

  • Dez's butler
    • Musings of a Gentleman Cyclist
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #35 on: January 29, 2011, 12:24:24 pm »
WB, isn't this parentally driven schooling all a bit, well, Big Society for you?

Big Society would work well if you break down the class barriers. Our schooling in this country is geared to reinforcing them.
Oh, Bach without any doubt. Bach every time for me.

Wowbagger

  • Dez's butler
    • Musings of a Gentleman Cyclist
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #36 on: January 29, 2011, 12:26:28 pm »
To Charterhall & Pancho: a comprehensive is only Comprehensive when there is no selection, either by wealth or entrance exam, giving privileged kids the opt out. Otherwise, it's just a mis-named secondary modern.
Oh, Bach without any doubt. Bach every time for me.

Panoramix

  • 50 61 6E 6F 72 61 6D 69 78
  • Suus cuique crepitus bene olet
    • Some routes
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #37 on: January 29, 2011, 12:31:04 pm »
You need to back this up because I have anecdotical evidence showing the opposite.

I know you place a lot of value on anecdotal evidence.

After all, you subscribe to an entire belief system based on a fantasy novel.  ;D

Anecdotal evidence is still better than assertions out of thin air!

As Wow explained above good state schools see the others as a benchmark to exceed. Although it is true that if they don't they may get into a downward spiral which will make parents flee, this is not a fatality.  Equally private school who don't perform eventually go bust. My anecdotal evidence is that if you look at a map of France showing academic results and another showing the percentage of private schools, there is a very strong correlation.

baccalauréat results:



Proportion of pupils going to private schools:



Being of a superior atheist breed that can demonstrate everything purely through Cartesian reasoning, I am sure that you will come back proving the contrary  ;)

And don't try to start saying that western France is privileged, this used to be the poorest part of France until the suburb phenomenon emerged!

Pancho

  • لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #38 on: January 29, 2011, 12:33:07 pm »
To Charterhall & Pancho: a comprehensive is only Comprehensive when there is no selection, either by wealth or entrance exam, giving privileged kids the opt out. Otherwise, it's just a mis-named secondary modern.

Which, of course, is true. But your nirvana is never going to happen; independent schools have thrived under all governments and are never going to be abolished. And, if they were, some people would just opt out altogether and home educate (maybe with tutors) or send sprogs abroad.

Given this reality, that's why grammars and assisted places were essential in creating access to the leadership cadre.

Rig of Jarkness

  • An Englishman abroad
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #39 on: January 29, 2011, 12:34:45 pm »
It is a great tragedy that a Labour government didn't sweep away all this privilege and at a stroke remove all the fee-paying and entrance-exam schools. If they had, and comprehensives had become the norm, every school would have had a hard core of parents with the right parental attitude who would have carried the rest along. There would be no school in which there would have been an anti-educational hard core. There would be far fewer barriers to success amongst kids from less privileged backgrounds.

My own experience suggests quite the opposite.  I did my O levels at a non selective comprehensive and my A levels at a selective sixth form college.  The difference was huge - I went from being the much derided class swot in the comprehensive to one of the many keen to succeed in the sixth form.  Comprehensives may bring up the average but it's at the expense of the top end.

Isn't that what I said in my earlier post? By definition, it can't have been comprehensive if there were any fee-paying or selective schools within a 30 mile radius.
I'm not sure I'm following you.  Let me clarify, both institutions were drawing from the same population.  The Borough had adopted non selective education up to age 16 then if you wanted to stay on you either went to the quite highly selective sixth form college or the less selective technical college.  So if you followed the same set of potentially high achievers through the system most only got mediocre results in their O level but then a real step change upwards at A level, ie at the sixth form college.  The kids and parents were the same, the difference was the environment within the institution.
Aero but not dynamic

Wowbagger

  • Dez's butler
    • Musings of a Gentleman Cyclist
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #40 on: January 29, 2011, 12:36:19 pm »
To Charterhall & Pancho: a comprehensive is only Comprehensive when there is no selection, either by wealth or entrance exam, giving privileged kids the opt out. Otherwise, it's just a mis-named secondary modern.

Which, of course, is true. But your nirvana is never going to happen; independent schools have thrived under all governments and are never going to be abolished. And, if they were, some people would just opt out altogether and home educate (maybe with tutors) or send sprogs abroad.

Given this reality, that's why grammars and assisted places were essential in creating access to the leadership cadre.

That's why I greatly rue the fact that a Labour government never made it happen. Mostly, I understand that on the continent they have a far more egalitarian education system than we do here. Why? Because they are not so tied up with bloody class distinctions the whole time.
Oh, Bach without any doubt. Bach every time for me.

Wowbagger

  • Dez's butler
    • Musings of a Gentleman Cyclist
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #41 on: January 29, 2011, 12:38:55 pm »
It is a great tragedy that a Labour government didn't sweep away all this privilege and at a stroke remove all the fee-paying and entrance-exam schools. If they had, and comprehensives had become the norm, every school would have had a hard core of parents with the right parental attitude who would have carried the rest along. There would be no school in which there would have been an anti-educational hard core. There would be far fewer barriers to success amongst kids from less privileged backgrounds.

My own experience suggests quite the opposite.  I did my O levels at a non selective comprehensive and my A levels at a selective sixth form college.  The difference was huge - I went from being the much derided class swot in the comprehensive to one of the many keen to succeed in the sixth form.  Comprehensives may bring up the average but it's at the expense of the top end.

Isn't that what I said in my earlier post? By definition, it can't have been comprehensive if there were any fee-paying or selective schools within a 30 mile radius.
I'm not sure I'm following you.  Let me clarify, both institutions were drawing from the same population.  The Borough had adopted non selective education up to age 16 then if you wanted to stay on you either went to the quite highly selective sixth form college or the less selective technical college.  So if you followed the same set of potentially high achievers through the system most only got mediocre results in their O level but then a real step change upwards at A level, ie at the sixth form college.  The kids and parents were the same, the difference was the environment within the institution.

What borough are we talking about? Were there selective schools, either fee-paying or by entrance exam? If so, then by definition the school can't have been a comprehensive. It might call itself one, but that's not the same as being one.
Oh, Bach without any doubt. Bach every time for me.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #42 on: January 29, 2011, 12:47:15 pm »
WB, isn't this parentally driven schooling all a bit, well, Big Society for you?

The better parts of the "Big Society" agenda consist of government arrogating to itself the kudos for people doing community things they've always done ;)

Trouble with Big Society is that it seems to be "Provide the same Services for Free using volunteers" and lets governmentalise the Voluntary Sector.

I'd harboured a vague hope that it would have been much wider than this, as hinted in my school governance stuff earlier.
If you don't like your democracy, vote against it.

Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #43 on: January 29, 2011, 01:07:27 pm »
Elite education is the most cost effective way of delivering an educated elite.
The Grammar school system was based on German experience. In the late 19th Century, it was perceived that we were falling behind in technical education. What we got in response, was a watered-down German system, with the emphasis on Science tempered by aspects of the liberal education tradition. It was succeeded by an American model of universal education.
The emergent economies all have ruthlessly competitive educational systems inspired by the German model.
Panoramix's map upthread is intriguing. If you look at the Bac' results for Alsace Moselle, they are as high as Brittany, but the percentage of private schools is apparently low. There is a specific reason for this.
Quote
Perhaps the most striking of the legal differences between France and Alsace-Moselle is the absence in Alsace-Moselle of a separation of church and state, even though a constitutional right of freedom of religion is guaranteed by the French government. Alsace-Moselle is still governed by a pre-1905 law established by the Concordat of 1801 which provides for the public subsidy of the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Calvinist Church and the Jewish religion, as well as providing for public education in these faiths; although parents are allowed to refuse religious education for their children. The clergy for these religions are paid for by the state. Catholic bishops are named by the President of the French Republic following proposal by the Pope. The public University of Strasbourg has courses in theology and is famous for its teaching of Protestant theology.

Local law in Alsace-Moselle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coupled with an historic connection with German educational traditions, it turns Alsace-Moselle into something of a laboratory for much of what we are discussing.


Rig of Jarkness

  • An Englishman abroad
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #44 on: January 29, 2011, 01:17:45 pm »
What borough are we talking about? Were there selective schools, either fee-paying or by entrance exam? If so, then by definition the school can't have been a comprehensive. It might call itself one, but that's not the same as being one.

Solihull.  I couldn't tell you whether there were any fee paying schools in the area, I don't recall being aware of any.  But I would assume so, on the grounds that most areas have them don't they ?  (They certainly do in my current country of residence !).

I can see that my earlier statement requires adjustment to 'non selective schools may bring up the average but it's at the expense of the top end'.  Happy now ?
Aero but not dynamic

Pancho

  • لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #45 on: January 29, 2011, 01:24:41 pm »
To Charterhall & Pancho: a comprehensive is only Comprehensive when there is no selection, either by wealth or entrance exam, giving privileged kids the opt out. Otherwise, it's just a mis-named secondary modern.

Which, of course, is true. But your nirvana is never going to happen; independent schools have thrived under all governments and are never going to be abolished. And, if they were, some people would just opt out altogether and home educate (maybe with tutors) or send sprogs abroad.

Given this reality, that's why grammars and assisted places were essential in creating access to the leadership cadre.

That's why I greatly rue the fact that a Labour government never made it happen. Mostly, I understand that on the continent they have a far more egalitarian education system than we do here. Why? Because they are not so tied up with bloody class distinctions the whole time.

Really? I'm not an expert but (at least when I was at school), Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Netherlands (IIRC and off the top of my head) were selective or at had a grammar/secondary type streaming. Also, higher % of private pupils in many countries.

Give a few mins and I'll get wiki-ing.

Clandy

Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #46 on: January 29, 2011, 01:26:48 pm »

And don't try to start saying the western France is privileged, this used to be the poorest part of France until the suburb phenomenon emerged!

It could be because Western France is full of rich English families who send their kids to private schools.  :P

Cudzoziemiec

  • Solar powered, tea fuelled cycle-wol
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #47 on: January 29, 2011, 04:03:28 pm »
When people talk about the importance of parental attitude in creating a successful school, whether in state or private systems, I agree definitely, but cannot see how allowing a pool of such parents to drive each state school will break down class barriers. This attitude is surely a defining factor of the middle class (as opposed to the rich or any other income definition). You simply aren't going to get a critical mass of such parents in an area like Knowle West.
sideways bounding monkey lounging under fruit tree

Rig of Jarkness

  • An Englishman abroad
Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #48 on: January 29, 2011, 06:47:49 pm »
When people talk about the importance of parental attitude in creating a successful school, whether in state or private systems, I agree definitely, but cannot see how allowing a pool of such parents to drive each state school will break down class barriers. This attitude is surely a defining factor of the middle class (as opposed to the rich or any other income definition). You simply aren't going to get a critical mass of such parents in an area like Knowle West.
You would in the Knowle that I know  ;)
Aero but not dynamic

Rapples

Re: Posh and Posher: Why Public School Boys Rule Britain.
« Reply #49 on: January 31, 2011, 09:23:37 am »
One of the reasons my kids are so eternally grateful to the head teacher of their primary school was that he expected his pupils to excel, no matter what the opposition. When we took chess teams to National Championships, he actually told them that not only did he want them to "beat the posh kids" but that he wanted them to make them cry.

Do you think instilling that kind of prejudice at such a young age is a good thing?

After all it's the reason you seem to think our school system is such a mess  ???

That's why I greatly rue the fact that a Labour government never made it happen. Mostly, I understand that on the continent they have a far more egalitarian education system than we do here. Why? Because they are not so tied up with bloody class distinctions the whole time.