johnny9fingers | (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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Frankly, I'm a despicable elitist about schooling. Depressingly so, as a matter of fact. And the general trend in US schools to cater to the lowest common moron and football teams, yeah...irritates me. Makes me want to send kids to a private school when/if I have them. I was homeschooled, and it really brings home to me the fact that the public school system is kinda crappy here.

I think that's a fault with the Anglo-Saxon minimal taxation mentality. Good Schools cost money - admittedly not quite as much as weapon systems, but money nevertheless. Alas, College Football teams are (as I understand it) part of the binding force of American culture, I think they'll always win in funding battles with libraries, dammit. I can understand the dissatisfaction with such a system. Don't worry about feeling elitist on this point. Get a good well paid job and put your kids through the best school you can, even if it means you have to scrimp on your own pleasures. Alternatively, don't have kids and enjoy your loneliness. I don't mind paying taxes to educate kids as much as I object to paying taxes to develop weapons systems to target the kids that haven't been educated: which is why I started out a Marxist, I guess.

I'm very much against larger taxes. I have a strong belief that NGOs should take over much of the welfare work: the Red Cross, churches, trade associations, etc. The government, at least in my opinion, should be doing things directly related to the law and relations with other countries, and little more. However, the world is what it is, and the governmetn drives what goes on. I don't object to government needing more money to get more services- it's a basic economic truth.

Football itself is an extremely strong force in USA culture. I...am not a sports fan in many regards, so I don't exactly understand it. But football is a metric against which institutions are measured unless they are peerless. Only the best US schools academically are "let off" from the pressure of sports: Stanford, MIT, Caltech, and so forth. In many high schools, football is King and God, and the other sports are Prince and Angels.

I'm not going to bother sending my kids to a crappy school.

Regarding Weapons versus Education. Blah. War is a difficult subject, and will always exist, because of human nature. But, well, we can try to avoid it until is needed, yes? And then we try and assure ourselves that the "good side" is well-armed enough to win, yes? And now I must go to my job.

Wasn't thinking about war, I was thinking about the amount of research that goes into weaponry/gear used in civil disturbance, and police roles. I'm not certain, but I would imagine there's less crime in better educated communities. That's where I reckon the cost-benefit analysis would be best employed. If tax paying for good education reduces crime rates (so the savings are then on police, prisons, judicial process etc) and if the savings prove to be greater up to an optimum point...
I'd like to see the best value possible for my taxes, in conjunction with the point in the graph where there's minimal possible disturbance, if you see what I mean.
I'm sort of with you on taxes, it's just I'd like to factor in savings from other areas, if it can be done.

Thats a slant I hadn't heard before on the issue. However, moving down that path as a devil's advocate, I wonder: what's the average detection rate of white-collar crime in a white-collar community? Obviously a murder on the street is not going to be common there, but, perhaps, some slimy work on the stock market is more common?

re war research. It's a double-bladed sword. A lot of the $$ that comes from military work goes to fund graduate students in their study here. So without that money, they wouldn't even be able to go to school- unless we isntituded a replacement. And military research drives interesting innovation to deal with the chaotic nature of the situation.
The industrial/military complex drives both good and bad in the world.

I would imagine white collar crime requires a white collar police force, which would cost more. But hopefully (that awful word) a better educated society would be more productive and efficient. Swings and roundabouts, and even if my 'policy' was better, by the time the politicians and bureaucrats got hold of it, messed with it, and implemented it, it would be changed to the point of unrecognisability. My opinion is that for the time being, solutions have to be simple enough for simple people (like politicians) to understand. But I can hope (and wish for better).
The MI complex does employ lots of folk.
Redeploy to the space industry - sooner or later we've got to get off this ball of mud and out there.
If you'll excuse the split infinitive, I'd like to see our chaps 'going boldly', if you see what I mean (& wouldn't object to doing that myself).

Not a split infinitive, evidently my subconscious wouldn't let me write it properly. Boldly go. Bugger.