johnny9fingers (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
johnny9fingers) wrote2007-01-08 02:08 pm
johnny9fingers) wrote2007-01-08 02:08 pm
(no subject)
I used to be very left wing.
Even in my most radical days, the one point of variance I had with my fellow travellers was education. In England (not Britain as a whole) state schools are now judged to be amongst the worst in the developed world. However the 'Public' Schools (read private and very exclusive) of England are reckoned on, in the same piece of analysis, as being the best in the world. This has been obvious to anyone since the 'dissolution' of the Grammar Schools.
Traditionally, the cleverest schools in England have included:
Winchester; Westminster; St Paul's (both boys and girls); North London Collegiate; Cheltenham Ladies College etc.
This set intersects with but does not map perfectly upon the 'best schools', a list of which would include schools that are not as academically orientated.
Grammar Schools, until their abolition, gave the best chance of social mobility that England had seen since Agincourt (This day shall gentle your condition). From the postwar period until the 70's the Oxford and Cambridge intake consisted of more Grammar School pupils than alumni of the great (or even minor) Public Schools. There are still a few Grammar Schools left, but they are, as folk point out, selective. Selection is regarded as a bad thing. Yet the few good state schools in England are oversubscribed to such an extent that house prices in the catchment areas for such schools have in some cases a 30% premium. This is in the English housing market, which is madness anyway. This means that parents who can afford to live in the catchment areas of good schools will claim those places, which is a selection by income. Grammar Schools selected by ability, which to me seems fairer.
However, there aren't a lot of Grammar Schools in London.
Given all this I can understand anyone of any political hue sending their children to a 'Public' School, should they be able to afford it.
The equivalent sort of secondary education to the one I had (with a recognisable curriculum) now costs £25,000 pounds a year. There have been numerous years when I haven't earned that in total. I despaired of ever educating potential children, which is probably the reason I didn't have any.
If I had a disabled child or an educationally challenged child, of course, if I could afford it, I would attempt to give them the best possible education in the circumstances.
Now I must admit something. I don't like Ruth Kelly. I don't like what she stands for. I don't like her links with Opus Dei. I don't like the fact that she has acquiesced to, abetted, and been an apologist for, the war in Iraq (which in my eyes makes her a war criminal of a kind).
But I do like the fact she's doing the best for her son, and as she seems to need defending on this (and possibly only this) I find myself, surprised maybe, but nevertheless coming to her defense.
Or am I just showing prejudices typical of my caste and culture.
Even in my most radical days, the one point of variance I had with my fellow travellers was education. In England (not Britain as a whole) state schools are now judged to be amongst the worst in the developed world. However the 'Public' Schools (read private and very exclusive) of England are reckoned on, in the same piece of analysis, as being the best in the world. This has been obvious to anyone since the 'dissolution' of the Grammar Schools.
Traditionally, the cleverest schools in England have included:
Winchester; Westminster; St Paul's (both boys and girls); North London Collegiate; Cheltenham Ladies College etc.
This set intersects with but does not map perfectly upon the 'best schools', a list of which would include schools that are not as academically orientated.
Grammar Schools, until their abolition, gave the best chance of social mobility that England had seen since Agincourt (This day shall gentle your condition). From the postwar period until the 70's the Oxford and Cambridge intake consisted of more Grammar School pupils than alumni of the great (or even minor) Public Schools. There are still a few Grammar Schools left, but they are, as folk point out, selective. Selection is regarded as a bad thing. Yet the few good state schools in England are oversubscribed to such an extent that house prices in the catchment areas for such schools have in some cases a 30% premium. This is in the English housing market, which is madness anyway. This means that parents who can afford to live in the catchment areas of good schools will claim those places, which is a selection by income. Grammar Schools selected by ability, which to me seems fairer.
However, there aren't a lot of Grammar Schools in London.
Given all this I can understand anyone of any political hue sending their children to a 'Public' School, should they be able to afford it.
The equivalent sort of secondary education to the one I had (with a recognisable curriculum) now costs £25,000 pounds a year. There have been numerous years when I haven't earned that in total. I despaired of ever educating potential children, which is probably the reason I didn't have any.
If I had a disabled child or an educationally challenged child, of course, if I could afford it, I would attempt to give them the best possible education in the circumstances.
Now I must admit something. I don't like Ruth Kelly. I don't like what she stands for. I don't like her links with Opus Dei. I don't like the fact that she has acquiesced to, abetted, and been an apologist for, the war in Iraq (which in my eyes makes her a war criminal of a kind).
But I do like the fact she's doing the best for her son, and as she seems to need defending on this (and possibly only this) I find myself, surprised maybe, but nevertheless coming to her defense.
Or am I just showing prejudices typical of my caste and culture.
no subject
However, other factors which must be taken into account are: the change in leisure habits - all we had was music, books, and TV. Kids get repetitive strain injuries from hours spent gaming, where I would have been getting eyestrain reading.
I also think the drug 'culture' has something to do with it. I'm not against people taking drugs, in fact I have been known to do so myself (music industry - 27 years therein - it's in the small print), but I think it can change cultures, especially when combined with a lunatic policy of prohibition. Effectively criminalising whole sections of the underclass means that law and order will always have a more difficult task - because they are the 'enemy'.
Divorce/separation is another factor - many young men don't have a proper relationship with their fathers - no role model if you like. They don't grow up emulating the behaviour of someone who has the care and love to want to set a good and proper example.
Taxes are another problem.
Objectively, from the point of veiw of the country, we should tax the very rich slightly more. The gulf between the very rich and the very poor is such that it is an invitation to trouble of either an individual or collective nature. Especially as the very rich no longer have the sense of being tied to the destiny of the country - the things taken for granted by my father - duty, honour, service, are no longer as important as the bank balance and the new nanny and the skiing trip.
The decline of education is another contributing factor, but there are so many.
A culture in decline m'dear but not terminal yet, thank god.
Thing is, when the climate change thing really hits I think the Brits are going to deal with it with phlegm and stoicism, and then they'll pull together. We're only really any good when we're right in the thick of it, before that we're a bit... (seeks acceptable euphemism) self effacing, and are more interested in fighting among ourselves or drinking ourselves stupid or sleeping with the neighbour's wife. Not that I'm criticising, mind you (two out of three ain't bad, and I'm rubbish at fighting).