Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

Options
19192949697137

Comments

  • BobQ
    BobQ Posts: 11,181 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Conrad wrote: »
    On the one hand I'm concerned the pointy elbowed middle classes will hogg the access, but on the other I do see social mobility is very poor now and pointy elbowed middle classes capture the best local schools by way of house price and private tutoring

    Any new system must ensure genuine access for all and not just be based on a test that middle class parents kids will pass by way of extra paid for test tutoring.
    ........................................................
    Lefty liberal middle class parents around me go to lengths to entrench privilege within their kids and oil the access routes into things seemingly closed to non posh people. Acting for example seems a closed shop for the posh in London these days. No matter how socialist luvvie their narrative may be, their actions are self serving and exclusive
    CLAPTON wrote: »
    Why won't ordinary children have scene the papers before?
    Is that because their socialist teachers spend too much time praising Corbyn and zero time teaching?
    Why do you have such a low opinion of primary schools?
    Primary schools are well funded and have fully trained teachers supported by teaching assistants (unknown years ago)
    So why are they failing in Labour areas?

    I think I agree with Conrad. As an ordinary working class lad, I went to a grammar school in the 1970s and it served me well. With the more disruptive pupils consigned to the secondary modern the more able children could focus on learning and the better faciities. But was it fair? No I think it was unfair. I later thought that all children deserve the same opportunity and resources, and that selection at a fixed age was so unfair and arbitrary. Comprehensives are much fairer, with all pupils being given a fair share of the resources. But I also believe that the selective education that grammars provide offers better opportunities for the selected children.So I favour a non-selective school but with abilty based streaming and regular opportunities to move between the ability streams.

    Conrad partly answers Clapton's question. Those children with parents with the financial ability to do so naturally take steps to help their offspring. Even under comprehensives this includes moving to the catchment areas of the better schools. But it also includes coaching for exams, including the 11+, and whatever else they can do. I do not criticise these actions but they happen, it is much the same as parents paying for private education.

    While my parents were never able to do such things I was fortunate to have a retired teacher as a neighbour who was willing to ensure I was well prepared for the 11+

    I would not go as far as saying that the better connected had seen the papers (although there are probably a few sharp practices) but people usually perform better if they are coached in what to expect and what sought of problems might trip them up. Many ordinary people at 11yo went into the exam not sure what they would face and not having much coaching. That makes the system unfair in my view.

    Primary schools are reasonably well funded I agree but that is what happens in a civilised world. All the time we believe that children need an equal opportunity to do the best they are capable of achieving, this happens. But there will always be politicians of the far left who want to destroy what works and create uniform mediocrity: but there will also be those on the far right who see little point in teaching less able kids to do mundane jobs.

    Selection at 11 works quite well for the far right. It offers potential for cost savings. After all it is ess than 150 years since compulsory basic education was adopted for most 5-10 year olds.
    Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.
  • BobQ
    BobQ Posts: 11,181 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    You are an unwitting tool of a neoliberal corporate imperialism that benefits the few and exploits the many.

    An unwitting tool, but a tool nonetheless.

    Well that is a mouthful. What does it mean?

    Ten years ago I would have said that the unwitting tools of the right are those on the left who are ordinary, working people yet thought it made sense to vote UKIP or Conservative. To be clear I think " ordinary, working people" includes all those who want work and who do work, including those who call themselves middle class. Today, with a Labour Party that has deserted its core voters for idealistic socialism that cares not whether it gets elected but whether its socialism is tainted with reality, I am not so sure.
    Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    It's because people don't tend to vote for the oppressor, Clapton.

    whilst is makes no real sesne

    you mean they don't vote labour then?
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    BobQ wrote: »
    I think I agree with Conrad. As an ordinary working class lad, I went to a grammar school in the 1970s and it served me well. With the more disruptive pupils consigned to the secondary modern the more able children could focus on learning and the better faciities. But was it fair? No I think it was unfair. I later thought that all children deserve the same opportunity and resources, and that selection at a fixed age was so unfair and arbitrary. Comprehensives are much fairer, with all pupils being given a fair share of the resources. But I also believe that the selective education that grammars provide offers better opportunities for the selected children.So I favour a non-selective school but with abilty based streaming and regular opportunities to move between the ability streams.

    Conrad partly answers Clapton's question. Those children with parents with the financial ability to do so naturally take steps to help their offspring. Even under comprehensives this includes moving to the catchment areas of the better schools. But it also includes coaching for exams, including the 11+, and whatever else they can do. I do not criticise these actions but they happen, it is much the same as parents paying for private education.

    While my parents were never able to do such things I was fortunate to have a retired teacher as a neighbour who was willing to ensure I was well prepared for the 11+

    I would not go as far as saying that the better connected had seen the papers (although there are probably a few sharp practices) but people usually perform better if they are coached in what to expect and what sought of problems might trip them up. Many ordinary people at 11yo went into the exam not sure what they would face and not having much coaching. That makes the system unfair in my view.

    Primary schools are reasonably well funded I agree but that is what happens in a civilised world. All the time we believe that children need an equal opportunity to do the best they are capable of achieving, this happens. But there will always be politicians of the far left who want to destroy what works and create uniform mediocrity: but there will also be those on the far right who see little point in teaching less able kids to do mundane jobs.

    Selection at 11 works quite well for the far right. It offers potential for cost savings. After all it is ess than 150 years since compulsory basic education was adopted for most 5-10 year olds.



    At primary school level children need parents that care: money isn't the issue
    they need parents who sing 'the wheels on the bus go round and round,
    'there were ten in bed etc
    that use the school library to read bed time stories and teach a love of reading

    none of this needs money
    just because a child has free school meals doesn't stop their parents reading them a story.

    cause and effect
    correlation isn't causation
  • BobQ
    BobQ Posts: 11,181 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    edited 15 September 2016 at 11:25PM
    Rubbish.

    I understand fully what it takes to actually achieve the social mobility you speak of.

    I've had plenty of opportunities to move to London and earn a wedge, and also lose most of that to the higher living costs or face a commute. Right now I work from home, I have a wage that cannot be bettered unless I move to London, and I have a lower cost of living because of that.

    Peoples personal choices. Their lack of personal responsibility and this constant dripping of legitimising the perception of victimisation from the left tells people that opportunity should be handed to them on a plate, by the state, and not through their own endeavour.

    I've been trying to tell this to my cousin recently. He's in a job he hates on a zero hours contract. No one is going to change that for him, no matter what Jeremy Corbyn or you might say. He's going to have to change that himself, save up his money, take some training, become a more attractive employee. Because the world in which we live is one where we sell our time and our skills to our employers. If you have no skills then you're more replaceable than those who do, the more skills you have the more you're a valuable commodity in the employment market. That's a personal choice people make. If they choose not to make it, how does that mean that social mobility doesn't work?



    I agree life is hard and some will always achieve more that others. Also that people should take responsibility for doing the very best with the educational opportunities they have. But surely we owe it to all young people to see that there is a level playing field on which to start?
    Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    BobQ wrote: »
    I agree life is hard and some will always achieve more that others. Also that people should take responsibility for doing the very best with the educational opportunities they have. But surely we owe it to all young people to see that there is a level playing field on which to start?

    what is a level playing field?

    one where eveyone has the same genetic inheritance?
    one where everyone has the same environmental experience (and I don't mean money, I mean talking, playing, reading etc)

    I've already said that I don't think grammar school are the answer but one needs realistic solutions and not meaningless slogans
  • BobQ
    BobQ Posts: 11,181 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    CLAPTON wrote: »
    At primary school level children need parents that care: money isn't the issue
    they need parents who sing 'the wheels on the bus go round and round,
    'there were ten in bed etc
    that use the school library to read bed time stories and teach a love of reading

    none of this needs money
    just because a child has free school meals doesn't stop their parents reading them a story.

    cause and effect
    correlation isn't causation

    I take your point that it is not always about money and parents can help their children even if they are relatively poor doing the things you suggest. But I think the point is that the children of better educated, more affluent parents mostly have an inbuilt advantage in a system based on elite grammar schools.
    Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    BobQ wrote: »
    I take your point that it is not always about money and parents can help their children even if they are relatively poor doing the things you suggest. But I think the point is that the children of better educated, more affluent parents mostly have an inbuilt advantage in a system based on elite grammar schools.

    childen who inherit their parents' genetic make up have an inbuild advantage (on average of course)
    what would you think we should do about?
  • BobQ
    BobQ Posts: 11,181 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    CLAPTON wrote: »
    what is a level playing field?

    one where eveyone has the same genetic inheritance?
    one where everyone has the same environmental experience (and I don't mean money, I mean talking, playing, reading etc)

    I've already said that I don't think grammar school are the answer but one needs realistic solutions and not meaningless slogans

    I have not used meaningless slogans.

    There are people better qualified to design the system than me. All I would argue is that if it is not a comprehensive school then whatever types of school exist they should have equal resourcing, the same quality of teachers, some means of transitioning between them and some common goals including outmores which lead to high standards of literacy, numeracy, language skills, ethics, and IT.

    By a level playing field I mean not creating types of school where some have better teachers, more resources, and better facilities, wgere transition between types of schools is possible. They should all seek to ensure that all children have the same opportunites.to make the best of abilities they have.
    Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.
  • BobQ
    BobQ Posts: 11,181 Forumite
    Ninth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    CLAPTON wrote: »
    childen who inherit their parents' genetic make up have an inbuild advantage (on average of course)
    what would you think we should do about?

    Please do not be silly
    Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177K Life & Family
  • 257.5K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.