Double standards in public life

Shirley Williams died last week. There have been many laudatory comments about her integrity in public life.

There was a time when she was actively promoting the benefits of comprehensive schools for everyone whilst at the same time sending her daughter to an independent school. Within the Labour Party at the time, Jim Callaghan and Harold Wilson (to name but two) did the same - a route subsequently followed by Tony Blair and Diane Abbott who sent their children to schools outside their home area.

To what extent do these personal choices affect the legacy or even our view of "leaders?" Thinking too about the comments from Philip Mountbatten described as "Uncle type banter" which some of us would classify them as racist/sexist.
«134

Comments

  • I have a modicum of sympathy for Diane Abbott, given the outcomes for black boys at state schools in London when her son was of school age, but at the same time I prefer people who believe what they say and have the courage of their convictions. Jeremy Corbyn famously fell out with his first wife over her desire that their son attend a selective school.
  • HeavenlyannieHeavenlyannie Shipmate
    edited April 13
    To what extent do these personal choices affect the legacy or even our view of "leaders?" Thinking too about the comments from Philip Mountbatten described as "Uncle type banter" which some of us would classify them as racist/sexist.
    I don't personally think this is necessarily a legacy/leadership issue, more a generational issue (which doesn't make it right, it is still racism). My working class (Lancashire mill worker) grandmother was born 5 years before the Duke and referred to black people as 'darkies' and carried a stick when she walked her dog at night in case one of them came near her. Her opinion and behaviour was definitely racist, yet common in her generation.
    Where leadership does come in is that he might have realised the changing cultural attitudes and measured his behaviour and opinion.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Arethosemyfeet: I have a modicum of sympathy for Diane Abbott, given the outcomes for black boys at state schools in London when her son was of school age, but at the same time I prefer people who believe what they say and have the courage of their convictions. Jeremy Corbyn famously fell out with his first wife over her desire that their son attend a selective school.

    IMO an individual should not disadvantage her children for the sake of her principles. I'd say it was the duty of parents to get what they consider to be the best education they can afford for their kids. Diane Abbott was absolutely right in my opinion to do what she did. If her constituency party didn't approve they had every right, maybe even socialist duty, to de-select her and her constituents to vote her out in a general election. One might add that a number of West Africans send their kids to school in their country of origin to avoid the low expectations of them in the UK. I make these remarks in the knowledge that Britain is a meritocracy in which there is no structural classism or racism. Incidentally, we also know that the quality of state education varies enormously and is not unrelated to residence, though there are notable exceptions.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Those people had choices.

    If they were working hard to give the same choices to everyone that would help. But who can blame them for trying to do what’s best for their own children?

    We also had choices. We believed comprehensive was best. At the time we were on excellent salaries and could very easily have gone private. Several of our friends did. We chose the comp five minutes down the road, in the worst catchment area in an already run-down town (Rochdale). The headteacher was top-notch, we were very relieved he chose not to be head hunted to a ‘better’ school.

    We were right. Our sons grew up being able to mix with anyone from any background. They both got good degrees and Masters degrees. One is an airline pilot (still, despite the pandemic). The other did a nursing degree (in German) and couldn’t be happier with his work. We are enormously proud of them both.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Boogie: We believed comprehensive was best.

    I think this is the nub of the issue, and I'm sure, Boogie, you meant "best for your children", which is why Diane Abbott got it right: she placed what she saw as in the interest of her child above the cost to her political credibility. If Corbyn did the opposite, he got it wrong, though, in fairness, his decision may reflect the crappy private schooling he experienced, himself!
  • I suppose it does partly depend what outcomes your measuring, being able to mix vs getting into Oxford for example. You are also in a difficult position if you believe state education should be good, back policies to make it good - but are aware it is not actually good yet.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    I suppose it does partly depend what outcomes your measuring, being able to mix vs getting into Oxford for example. You are also in a difficult position if you believe state education should be good, back policies to make it good - but are aware it is not actually good yet.

    Exactly the situation my Labour councillor father found himself in in 1979, resolution of which saw me taking the Bursary exam for a local public school...
  • I have a modicum of sympathy for Diane Abbott, given the outcomes for black boys at state schools in London when her son was of school age,
    "I believe that we should have good quality comprehensive education, but we don't have it at the moment" is an entirely consistent position to take. I'm not a fan of Diane Abbott at all, but I can't fault her for this choice.

    Plus it depends on your kids. A particular school might be a "good school" but not a good match for the needs of one of your children. I haven't made the same schooling choices for my kids, because they're not the same people.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    Boogie: We believed comprehensive was best.

    I think this is the nub of the issue, and I'm sure, Boogie, you meant "best for your children", which is why Diane Abbott got it right: she placed what she saw as in the interest of her child above the cost to her political credibility. If Corbyn did the opposite, he got it wrong, though, in fairness, his decision may reflect the crappy private schooling he experienced, himself!
    Why are you sure Corbyn got it wrong? If the question is about best for the particular children then there's probably no right answer that's universally applicable. If the local state comprehensive is a good school, it's difficult to justify going private as being better. Instilling a sense of principal and a real life experience may justify using the local state comprehensive even if there's a better local private option. It's common that one of the reasons for poor performance in some schools is lack of engagement by parents (which can be an inability, for example because they're working very long hours to even get close to making ends meet), and that parents who have time and ability to support their children can both help their children get a good education in a nominally poor school and even lift the school as a whole so that other children get a better education. Can you balance all of those variables to decide what would be best for your children? It's not easy ... and a lot harder to do that for someone else to decide if they made they right choice themselves.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    Boogie: We believed comprehensive was best.

    I think this is the nub of the issue, and I'm sure, Boogie, you meant "best for your children", which is why Diane Abbott got it right: she placed what she saw as in the interest of her child above the cost to her political credibility. If Corbyn did the opposite, he got it wrong, though, in fairness, his decision may reflect the crappy private schooling he experienced, himself!
    Why are you sure Corbyn got it wrong? If the question is about best for the particular children then there's probably no right answer that's universally applicable. If the local state comprehensive is a good school, it's difficult to justify going private as being better. Instilling a sense of principal and a real life experience may justify using the local state comprehensive even if there's a better local private option. It's common that one of the reasons for poor performance in some schools is lack of engagement by parents (which can be an inability, for example because they're working very long hours to even get close to making ends meet), and that parents who have time and ability to support their children can both help their children get a good education in a nominally poor school and even lift the school as a whole so that other children get a better education. Can you balance all of those variables to decide what would be best for your children? It's not easy ... and a lot harder to do that for someone else to decide if they made they right choice themselves.

    This.

  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Alan Cresswell: Why are you sure Corbyn got it wrong.

    If I was so sure, why do you think I began my observation with "if"? The point I'm making is that if he prioritised his political maidenhood over the interests if his offspring, in contrast to Abbott, then he got his priorities wrong. By referring to his own education I suggest that might not have been the case. Sorry, if I wasn't clear.
  • What marked out the hypocrisy of some politicians was that, having themselves benefited from a grammar school education, they made sure their own childten went to Direct Grant schools while at the same time pushing through legislation to deny that chance to other bright children.

    By going the Direct Grant route they could (and did) allow the public to think their child(ren) only went to that school because they got a scholarship when, by-and-large, that was not the case. Looking at you, Douglas Jay (daughters), Jim Callaghan, Peter Shore, Harold Wilson, John Diamond, Richard Crossman, etc.

    Douglas Jay's sons went the full private route - the Dragon and Winchester.

    The argument that a politician is "forced" to make a choice of school different from those they support politically for the sake of their child doesn't hold water. If they admit that some schools are inadequate for their own offspring, how hypocritical to then insist that they're fine for other people's.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited April 13
    I have a modicum of sympathy for Diane Abbott, given the outcomes for black boys at state schools in London when her son was of school age,
    "I believe that we should have good quality comprehensive education, but we don't have it at the moment" is an entirely consistent position to take.

    I think to be truly consistent, a socialist should also add to that "So my government will now provide vouchers to all parents who want to send their kids to independent schools, until such time as we attain good quality comprehensive education."

    And if someone wants to reply "Well, that would seriously undermine the state school system", be aware that you are then essentially saying that you're willing to tolerate a few rich people undermining the system, but not the masses.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 13
    What marked out the hypocrisy of some politicians was that, having themselves benefited from a grammar school education, they made sure their own childten went to Direct Grant schools while at the same time pushing through legislation to deny that chance to other bright children.

    By going the Direct Grant route they could (and did) allow the public to think their child(ren) only went to that school because they got a scholarship when, by-and-large, that was not the case. Looking at you, Douglas Jay (daughters), Jim Callaghan, Peter Shore, Harold Wilson, John Diamond, Richard Crossman, etc.

    Douglas Jay's sons went the full private route - the Dragon and Winchester.

    The argument that a politician is "forced" to make a choice of school different from those they support politically for the sake of their child doesn't hold water. If they admit that some schools are inadequate for their own offspring, how hypocritical to then insist that they're fine for other people's.

    They didn't. What they said was (and it's still true) that while a private option exists, there is insufficient motivation amongst the powerful to ensure that all schools are adequate.

    Abolition of the private education sector is what is needed to force the PTB to make all schools adequate, not pretending that they already are.

    My father and I had to fight this misconception of left wing thinking and the associated (not to mention generally smug) accusations of hypocrisy for years.



  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Presumably some people think that advocates for a single-payer health system in the US shouldn't take out health insurance.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Presumably some people think that advocates for a single-payer health system in the US shouldn't take out health insurance.

    The difference is that you can still get an excellent education in the state sector, including at comprehensive schools, in the UK. I did. Too often the impression with private education is of buying an unfair advantage through social connections and prestige rather than achievement. Buying health insurance in the US is just doing what almost everyone does.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    What they said was (and it's still true) that while a private option exists, there is insufficient motivation amongst the powerful to ensure that all schools are adequate.

    Hard to make that argument if you're one of the powerful (e.g. a cabinet minister). If you believe in forcing people to improve the public system by removing alternatives, but aren't prepared to force yourself to improve the public system by denying yourself the use of alternatives for your own family, then you're still not living by your own principles.
  • What marked out the hypocrisy of some politicians was that, having themselves benefited from a grammar school education

    In addition to what @KarlLB said above; I don't think any particular hypocrisy should revolve around the decisions that someone's parents made for them.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Presumably some people think that advocates for a single-payer health system in the US shouldn't take out health insurance.

    Well, the US currently has public health-insurance for senior citizens, which they are free to use or not use.

    However, any politician who chooses to go the private route is essentially saying "The insurance I can get privately is better than what we're providing to our citizens through the public system."

    Which is maybe okay, if the politician in question is doing everything in his power to make the public system as good as what he gets privately, but being thwarted by entrenched interests?

    OR...

    Maybe if he's a conservative who thinks public insurance need only be a last-ditch safety net, with no real obligation to keep up with the private sector(like eg. council flats aren't obligated to be as nice as a posh country home).

    I gather Ms. Abbott would regard herself as being in the first group, ie. doing everything she can to improve the system, with no success? If so, fair enough, but I have to wonder...

    She was part of a government that was in power for 13 years. Was that not enough time to bring British schools up to snuff? Or did they in fact bring it up to snuff, and then the Tories undid all their good work after Brown got tossed?
  • GarethMoonGarethMoon Shipmate
    There is a world of difference between advocating for state schools to become the norm in the fullness of time and in the meantime sending your own kids to fee paying/selective schools vs actively attempting to close fee paying/selective schools, critizing sections of society for sending their children to those schools and then turning around and doing the same for your children.

    I may not like Rees-Mogg but I did apricate the hypocrisy he exposed on Question Time when the host sneered at him for going to Eton, and RM pointed out that he was there at the same time as the host's son.
  • stetson wrote: »
    I have a modicum of sympathy for Diane Abbott, given the outcomes for black boys at state schools in London when her son was of school age,
    "I believe that we should have good quality comprehensive education, but we don't have it at the moment" is an entirely consistent position to take.

    I think to be truly consistent, a socialist should also add to that "So my government will now provide vouchers to all parents who want to send their kids to independent schools, until such time as we attain good quality comprehensive education."

    And if someone wants to reply "Well, that would seriously undermine the state school system", be aware that you are then essentially saying that you're willing to tolerate a few rich people undermining the system, but not the masses.

    Or you nationalise the private schools.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Presumably some people think that advocates for a single-payer health system in the US shouldn't take out health insurance.

    The difference is that you can still get an excellent education in the state sector, including at comprehensive schools, in the UK. I did.

    Yeah, I do have to wonder. How bad ARE the British state schools, that even the people who run them don't want their kids to attend?

    I grew up in Canada, in a province that allows people to send their kids to private, fee-collecting schools. But even at my middle-brow public school, there were one or two kids who were the offspring of cabinet ministers, and I knew of a few more at other schools.

    And I'd say Canada's school systems(each province runs its own) don't have HALF the glorious reputation that British schools do.

  • stetson wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Presumably some people think that advocates for a single-payer health system in the US shouldn't take out health insurance.

    Well, the US currently has public health-insurance for senior citizens, which they are free to use or not use.

    However, any politician who chooses to go the private route is essentially saying "The insurance I can get privately is better than what we're providing to our citizens through the public system."

    Which is maybe okay, if the politician in question is doing everything in his power to make the public system as good as what he gets privately, but being thwarted by entrenched interests?

    OR...

    Maybe if he's a conservative who thinks public insurance need only be a last-ditch safety net, with no real obligation to keep up with the private sector(like eg. council flats aren't obligated to be as nice as a posh country home).

    I gather Ms. Abbott would regard herself as being in the first group, ie. doing everything she can to improve the system, with no success? If so, fair enough, but I have to wonder...

    She was part of a government that was in power for 13 years. Was that not enough time to bring British schools up to snuff? Or did they in fact bring it up to snuff, and then the Tories undid all their good work after Brown got tossed?

    She was part of the party in government. To say that she herself was part of the government would be a stretch. Usually the government is deemed to consist of the ministers, junior ministers, parliamentary private secretaries and so forth.

    In any case the London Challenge did improve attainment significantly in the capital (mostly by increasing funding, unsurprisingly), but that programme only began the year Abbott's son started secondary school.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Actively campaigning for the abolition of fee-paying schools is an essential part of ensuring the state system is adequate. It never will be while some people don't have to use it.

    Same goes for health care.
  • stetson wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Presumably some people think that advocates for a single-payer health system in the US shouldn't take out health insurance.

    The difference is that you can still get an excellent education in the state sector, including at comprehensive schools, in the UK. I did.

    Yeah, I do have to wonder. How bad ARE the British state schools, that even the people who run them don't want their kids to attend?

    It's very much a post-code (zip code) lottery as to whether the schools near you are good, bad or indifferent. Wealthier parents can afford to plan years in advance and buy houses near local schools that are good (which then gain from a cohort effect of a greater than average number of such parents in the local area), poorer parents are down to the limited choice around where they live.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    I suppose it does partly depend what outcomes your measuring, being able to mix vs getting into Oxford for example. You are also in a difficult position if you believe state education should be good, back policies to make it good - but are aware it is not actually good yet.

    Exactly the situation my Labour councillor father found himself in in 1979, resolution of which saw me taking the Bursary exam for a local public school...

    Love the doublethink here!
  • The vast majority of British state schools are not bad, many are very good. In most of the UK it would be difficult to justify choosing a fee-paying school over the local state schools on general educational attainment only, with the differences being marginal.

    There are some inner city areas where the state schools struggle - the big problems being that the undesirable neighbourhoods mean that all but the most dedicated of best teachers opt for more pleasant areas to live in (and, thus schools in better areas often get the pick of teachers) and that the catchment is impoverished (parents much less able to support the education of their children, children with more issues that need to be addressed along with teaching them etc). Investment in these schools isn't necessarily the problem (quite often throwing more money at failing schools is the easy option for politicians), the real issues are often elsewhere - locally high unemployment rates with what jobs there are low paid with little advancement opportunities, low quality housing and community amenities etc.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I suppose it does partly depend what outcomes your measuring, being able to mix vs getting into Oxford for example. You are also in a difficult position if you believe state education should be good, back policies to make it good - but are aware it is not actually good yet.

    Exactly the situation my Labour councillor father found himself in in 1979, resolution of which saw me taking the Bursary exam for a local public school...

    Love the doublethink here!

    He did what he thought was best. Smug accusations of hypocrisy really don't help matters.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    GarethMoon wrote: »
    There is a world of difference between advocating for state schools to become the norm in the fullness of time and in the meantime sending your own kids to fee paying/selective schools vs actively attempting to close fee paying/selective schools, critizing sections of society for sending their children to those schools and then turning around and doing the same for your children.
    Criticising sections of society for sending their children to private schools while sending your children to private schools is hypocritical. Criticising them for sending them to private schools when there are perfectly good state schools in their area, while sending your children to private schools when the local state school is problematic is not quite so hypocritical.
    Sending your child to a private school while attempting to close fee paying schools isn't really hypocritical unless you're making plans to keep the private school to which you send your own child open.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Presumably some people think that advocates for a single-payer health system in the US shouldn't take out health insurance.

    The difference is that you can still get an excellent education in the state sector, including at comprehensive schools, in the UK. I did. Too often the impression with private education is of buying an unfair advantage through social connections and prestige rather than achievement.

    Spot on. Private schools are no better - except where cronyist, elitist, connections, perceived prestige etc etc are concerned.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Can't speak to the UK system, but I do want to point out the Obama's also sent their daughters to private school when Barrak was in office. I agree it is partly because of the desire to give children the best, but in Obama's case, it was also about security for his daughters. It is much easier to vet the families who are sending their children to a private school than to trust the safety of the public school system.
  • stetson wrote: »
    I think to be truly consistent, a socialist should also add to that "So my government will now provide vouchers to all parents who want to send their kids to independent schools, until such time as we attain good quality comprehensive education."

    You know full well that that's not possible - the independent school system does not have the capacity to absorb a large increase in numbers. And if you did suddenly declare open season on vouchers and asked the independent sector to double or triple in size overnight, do you expect that whatever qualities it had would be maintained? I don't.

    And I'll repeat again my claim that children are not all the same. A particular school may well be a "good school" and have excellent results for many children, but be a poor fit for a particular child. That's OK.

    One of my kids doesn't like burgers*. This isn't a value judgement about whether burgers are good food, or whether burgers should exist, or whether people who don't like burgers are food-elitists, or a statement that other people shouldn't eat burgers. Different things can work out well for different people, and that's OK.


    *amusingly enough, the one that just got a job at a local burger restaurant.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    I suppose it does partly depend what outcomes your measuring, being able to mix vs getting into Oxford for example. You are also in a difficult position if you believe state education should be good, back policies to make it good - but are aware it is not actually good yet.

    Exactly the situation my Labour councillor father found himself in in 1979, resolution of which saw me taking the Bursary exam for a local public school...

    Love the doublethink here!

    He did what he thought was best. Smug accusations of hypocrisy really don't help matters.

    I'm sure he was doing what he thought best and I don't condemn him for that. I do think that we can self justify an exception in my case, rather too easily.

    It doesn't square with mainstream labour beliefs either then or now and, like Shirley Williams and others, he was in a fortunate position to be able to do it. Lots of other parent who wanted the best for their children weren't in that place and had no one to fight their corner.
  • What marked out the hypocrisy of some politicians was that, having themselves benefited from a grammar school education

    In addition to what @KarlLB said above; I don't think any particular hypocrisy should revolve around the decisions that someone's parents made for them.

    Well that neatly pulls the rug from under all those, including some on the Ship, who lambast Camerin, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, etc, for the fact that their parents sent them to Eton.

    And while some state schools are good that doesn't apply to all. Until it does, there can be no good argument against people sendung their offspring to a better school.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited April 13
    Spot on. Private schools are no better - except where cronyist, elitist, connections, perceived prestige etc etc are concerned.

    I went to a private boarding school after a state primary because my father was posted abroad.

    The biggest difference in terms of opportunity for attainment was the very small size of most classes and the supervised classroom based homework (prep). That and many children knew their parents were paying alot for the school and felt a pressure to achieve.

    Resources were good but not spectacular compared to a large state school.

    The down sides were the massive attachment issues, the social conservatism, not living in a family, the impact of living in a total institution, opportunities for sexual abuse etc
  • Well that neatly pulls the rug from under all those, including some on the Ship, who lambast Camerin, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, etc, for the fact that their parents sent them to Eton.

    The usual point is not so much that having attended Eton is blameworthy, as that having attended Eton means that your experiences are rather different from what might be called the norm. And that having a government that is full of people who had this rather unusual experience is not such a terribly good thing.

    Having white people who care about the rights of BAME people in government is a good thing; having actual BAME people is a much better thing (otherwise it's hard not to fall into the trap of paternalism). The same thing applies to the Eton-educated. If most of your government was educated at a leading public school, it can't have the same range of experience, or the same internalized knowledge, that a government that contains people drawn from the whole country has.

  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Can't speak to the UK system, but I do want to point out the Obama's also sent their daughters to private school when Barrak was in office. I agree it is partly because of the desire to give children the best, but in Obama's case, it was also about security for his daughters. It is much easier to vet the families who are sending their children to a private school than to trust the safety of the public school system.

    As I understand it in the US it's not just vetting students but dealing with the fact that schools are public property so it's harder to restrict the press from getting access.
  • Well that neatly pulls the rug from under all those, including some on the Ship, who lambast Camerin, Johnson, Rees-Mogg, etc, for the fact that their parents sent them to Eton.

    The usual point is not so much that having attended Eton is blameworthy, as that having attended Eton means that your experiences are rather different from what might be called the norm. And that having a government that is full of people who had this rather unusual experience is not such a terribly good thing.

    Having white people who care about the rights of BAME people in government is a good thing; having actual BAME people is a much better thing (otherwise it's hard not to fall into the trap of paternalism). The same thing applies to the Eton-educated. If most of your government was educated at a leading public school, it can't have the same range of experience, or the same internalized knowledge, that a government that contains people drawn from the whole country has.

    Also Eton is a boarding school, with all the emotional damage that implies.
  • And I'll repeat again my claim that children are not all the same. A particular school may well be a "good school" and have excellent results for many children, but be a poor fit for a particular child. That's OK.
    What would a private school provide for a particular child that couldn't be provided by a state funded school?
  • And I'll repeat again my claim that children are not all the same. A particular school may well be a "good school" and have excellent results for many children, but be a poor fit for a particular child. That's OK.
    What would a private school provide for a particular child that couldn't be provided by a state funded school?

    There are a handful of private schools that provide unusual opportunities, Millfield for sport, the Cathedral schools for choral singing, Islamic and Jewish religious schools so students can learn enough Classical Arabic or Ancient Hebrew to serve their community in a religious capacity (an FE college I worked for provided secular courses for students at one such school, the senior students would work on Islamic theology and Arabic all day and then spend 3 hours in the evening studying A-levels).

    Of course the state sector can be set up to offer such opportunities, like the traditional music centre in Plockton where many students board so that they can study the regular curriculum while getting a top class musical experience.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    The usual point is not so much that having attended Eton is blameworthy, as that having attended Eton means that your experiences are rather different from what might be called the norm. And that having a government that is full of people who had this rather unusual experience is not such a terribly good thing.

    There are similar discussions about the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court. With the exception of Amy Coney Barrett (Notre Dame), all of the current Justices got their law degrees from Yale (Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh) or Harvard (Breyer, Roberts, Kagan, Gorsuch). Prior to Barrett the last Supreme Court Justice that didn't come from either Harvard or Yale was Sandra Day O'Connor (Stanford), who was nominated in 1981.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    It is the effects of the Eton education that lead one to form conclusions about the its quality. Possibly, of course, those who really benefitted are out in the world doing good and we are suffering from the people who did not do particularly well there.
  • GarethMoonGarethMoon Shipmate
    edited April 13
    What would a private school provide for a particular child that couldn't be provided by a state funded school?

    An acquaintance of mine went to one in Norfolk. It was especially good if you wanted to become a pilot in the RAF as they had their own helicopter. They'd take you up and then switch the engine off. The pupil then had to restart it before it hit the ground. Presumably the pilot would take over before it actually crashed though?

    Apparently it's one of the tests you do at Officer selection, so it gives their pupils a leg up on the competition. I imagine the health and safety sign off at a state school would be a nightmare to obtain, not to mention the cost?

  • GarethMoonGarethMoon Shipmate
    Penny S wrote: »
    It is the effects of the Eton education that lead one to form conclusions about the its quality. Possibly, of course, those who really benefitted are out in the world doing good and we are suffering from the people who did not do particularly well there.

    Any shipmates want to admit to going to Eton or having close male relatives who are old Etonians; fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers or cousins?
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate

    There seems to be an underlying suggestion by a number of shipmates that the best state schools offer just as good an education as the better public schools. If that is the case then there are a lot of parents wasting money on Eton and Winchester et. al.. There is also the danger that a politician might argue that if state schools are performing as well as the public schools their case for better funding is diminished. My guess is that pupils at public schools are significantly advantaged through the greater resources they enjoy across a variety of activities which the state system will never be able to employ. The fact is that only with great difficulty would the state be able to invest the per capita spending undertaken by the top public schools, and were they to be abolished the state schools would be unable to continue the quality of education they afford. The argument for public school abolition is less about improving state education than removing an institution that helps to underpin structural inequality in British society.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited April 13
    GarethMoon wrote: »
    What would a private school provide for a particular child that couldn't be provided by a state funded school?

    An acquaintance of mine went to one in Norfolk. It was especially good if you wanted to become a pilot in the RAF as they had their own helicopter. They'd take you up and then switch the engine off. The pupil then had to restart it before it hit the ground. Presumably the pilot would take over before it actually crashed though?

    Apparently it's one of the tests you do at Officer selection, so it gives their pupils a leg up on the competition. I imagine the health and safety sign off at a state school would be a nightmare to obtain, not to mention the cost?

    Ha. My husband went through a test just like this but with an airplane during training for the Vietnam War. Apparently the training instructor spoke to him rather rudely as the test began. Anyone who knows Mr Lamb will not be shocked to learn that as a result, he stubbornly refused to lift a finger to restart the plane and just sat there, arms crossed, until the instructor swore and restarted it himself.

    Mr Lamb has mellowed slightly over the years. Slightly.
  • And I'll repeat again my claim that children are not all the same. A particular school may well be a "good school" and have excellent results for many children, but be a poor fit for a particular child. That's OK.
    What would a private school provide for a particular child that couldn't be provided by a state funded school?

    Smaller class sizes.
  • GarethMoon wrote: »
    What would a private school provide for a particular child that couldn't be provided by a state funded school?

    An acquaintance of mine went to one in Norfolk. It was especially good if you wanted to become a pilot in the RAF as they had their own helicopter. They'd take you up and then switch the engine off. The pupil then had to restart it before it hit the ground. Presumably the pilot would take over before it actually crashed though?

    Apparently it's one of the tests you do at Officer selection, so it gives their pupils a leg up on the competition. I imagine the health and safety sign off at a state school would be a nightmare to obtain, not to mention the cost?
    But, presumably the decision "I want to be a helicopter pilot" (assuming that training also covers people who want such a career in the civil sector as well) is going to be made quite late in the school system - they're presumably not training people to fly from the age of 11. If so, we're talking about providing a few people a highly specialised course alongside the standard selection of maths, science, English, history etc. in sixth form or equivalent. I know my state comprehensive school teamed up with other local schools to provide specialised courses in the last few years - I remember someone pending an afternoon a week at the local college for some technical subject (I didn't know him that well, and can't recall what he actually did) where they had appropriate kit, while doing the rest of his A levels in the school. A local airfield could have a helicopter, and lessons for anyone who wants to pursue a career flying helicopters could be provided for all the local schools.

    I suspect that classical Arabic or Biblical Hebrew are also likely to be subjects that won't be followed to any great extent until 16+ education, add in classical Greek and the like. Approaches to teaching these through sharing of resources between state schools could be developed, without needing to have private funded schools that provide these options among more regular subjects. Or, they could be provided within FE college environments rather than schools, with options for part time formats opening these up to people who are in employment and pursuing these subjects in a self-supporting role (much as many Christians will do part time and distance learning courses at Bible colleges, or doing courses to be accredited preachers).

    I'll concede that choir schools are so dedicated to developing those specific musical skills that take a lot of time every day that they may be one of those small number of exceptions to providing something state schools probably can't - though, maybe a hybrid scheme of a choir school running the musical lessons with those long hours but attending a mainstream school for all other subjects. Some sports could be in the same category, although most top sports people didn't come through highly specialised schools but put their training into time outside regular schools.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited April 13
    When it comes to Eton and the like, the parents are not I think paying for an education- rather the right connections with the right people.

    When I was a child a local squire mentioned his “neighbours”. His neighbours were Other People Like Them and his nearest? Nearly thirty miles away.

    In both cases? Not local riff raff.

    It all stinks
  • Marvin the MartianMarvin the Martian Admin Emeritus
    And I'll repeat again my claim that children are not all the same. A particular school may well be a "good school" and have excellent results for many children, but be a poor fit for a particular child. That's OK.
    What would a private school provide for a particular child that couldn't be provided by a state funded school?

    As well as the smaller class sizes already mentioned, I’d add an expectation of success and a drive to get the best possible result for every pupil. Too many state schools are content to let the brighter pupils coast to a handful of Bs because they have to put all their efforts into helping the dimmer ones get one or two Es.
Sign In or Register to comment.