OT: Scottish Independence/Referendum

[swaledale]

I'm not going to respond in detail to your other ramble in which, agreeing with Ram59, you end up arguing with yourself, BUT, yes my stereotyping of Scots was highly ironic, I have the highest respect for that proud race, partly because Mrs Faber is one.

I was being provocative on that and by the way I'm not looking for a spat just debating issues.

[Andy_Faber]

I get that completely Swale and I think 'home-schoolers' are generally a slightly bizarre over protective bunch. It is much easier to change schools than change your parents though and in my professional experience it is impossible to over value good parenting and equally difficult to over estimate the damage often done by neglectful or inadequate parents which in turn has little to do with relative wealth.

Common ground at last! And I agree wealth doesn't particularly equate to good parenting, I've seen a lot of fairly useless wealthy parents in the last two decades, BUT, that's where the resources of a well organised, well resourced school can fill more of the gap than a school looking over its shoulder at budget cuts and league tables all the time. Back to the 'room to breathe' thing

[swaledale]

I went to a state school and maybe I'm being a bit thick here, but you seem to be contradicting yourself swale. Your saying that you see no benefits in independent education and then in the final paragraph, day that if deprived kids were state sponsored, then they would benefit from the independent schools. Which is basically advocating the grammar school system.

No its not contradictory and its not advocating a grammar school system as that is based on selection, I'm basically saying that most of the kids that go to independent schools dont need to and would get a more realistic view of life if they were state educated, whilst the kids from deprived or at least dysfunctional families would benefit the most but they arent the ones that go SIMPLES!

[Andy_Faber]

Well for someone who does not want a spat, your veiled threat about not getting in a ruck I cant win was a strange post .Ah let me explain the contradiction, though if you read what I put you would find no contradiction, a kid from a deprived background would benefit from the discipline and learning atmosphere whereas a kid that has the support of a family that recognises the value of education does not need that.

It is a gamble, there is no way you can tell whether if you hadnt spent that money on schooling and had them state educated whether they would have been better or worse off. You may believe it to be the case that its money wisely spent, but then thats understandable.

You can't win because you and I both have entrenched positions on this.

Such as, it wasn't a gamble. Neither, if you consciously considered the alternative and had even the remotest chance of funding it, was your decision to trust in the state, and respect for your decision.

[Andy_Faber]

No its not contradictory and its not advocating a grammar school system as that is based on selection, I'm basically saying that most of the kids that go to independent schools dont need to and would get a more realistic view of life if they were state educated, whilst the kids from deprived or at least dysfunctional families would benefit the most but they arent the ones that go SIMPLES!

You hit on a subject that is close to my heart there Swale - a realistic view of WHAT life?

[ramAnag]

Common ground at last! And I agree wealth doesn't particularly equate to good parenting, I've seen a lot of fairly useless wealthy parents in the last two decades, BUT, that's where the resources of a well organised, well resourced school can fill more of the gap than a school looking over its shoulder at budget cuts and league tables all the time. Back to the 'room to breathe' thing

Wealth certainly doesn't 'equate to good parenting'. I've encountered some lousy well to do parents and some brilliantly supportive ones living in relative poverty. Being reasonably well off can help though, by making it easier to provide certain opportunities and 'rewards' for instance, however when a school, which will usually - by definition - be situated in a poorer area, becomes dominated by the children of parents whose own experiences of education are negative then it rapidly becomes an enormously difficult cycle to break. Unfortunately there are currently few opportunities for such children, or their teachers, to break out at a time when, in search of some magical and cost effective panacea, our first - and usually only - response seems to be to rename the place as an 'Academy' and change the uniform.

[Andy_Faber]

Wealth certainly doesn't 'equate to good parenting'. I've encountered some lousy well to do parents and some brilliantly supportive ones living in relative poverty. Being reasonably well off can help though, by making it easier to provide certain opportunities and 'rewards' for instance, however when a school, which will usually - by definition - be situated in a poorer area, becomes dominated by the children of parents whose own experiences of education are negative then it rapidly becomes an enormously difficult cycle to break. Unfortunately there are currently few opportunities for such children, or their teachers, to break out at a time when, in search of some magical and cost effective panacea, our first - and usually only - response seems to be to rename the place as an 'Academy' and change the uniform.

I agree so much with that I've forgotten what the original point was.
So, just to see if its me or Swale who's off kilter on whether, like for like, independent schooling is better, answer me this. The government are forcing independent schools to provide free/heavily discounted places for children from underpriveliged backgrounds (in order to preserve their charitable status). Why so, unless there is widely held belief that doing so will 'give the pupils a better chance'? I think this belief is fairly cross-party

[ramAnag]

I don't think there is any debate that well resourced schools free from social problems are likely to provide pupils with improved educational opportunities. In that respect of course children from 'underprivileged backgrounds' are likely to benefit from such a scheme but that, as I understood it, wasn't really the point Swale was making. Wasn't he simply saying - and I don't think he was challenging your decision - that there is little to choose between what is provided by good state schools and what the independent sector has to offer?
The problem, as I see it, is that schools from poorer areas are obviously in greater need but the challenges to staff are much greater and the condemnation from organisations such as Ofsted much more damning so how can we make such schools more attractive to young and committed teachers? There is also another equally relevant argument about the relative status attached to certain knowledge forms but now is not the time.

[Andy_Faber]

I don't think there is any debate that well resourced schools free from social problems are likely to provide pupils with improved educational opportunities. In that respect of course children from 'underprivileged backgrounds' are likely to benefit from such a scheme but that, as I understood it, wasn't really the point Swale was making. Wasn't he simply saying - and I don't think he was challenging your decision - that there is little to choose between what is provided by good state schools and what the independent sector has to offer?
The problem, as I see it, is that schools from poorer areas are obviously in greater need but the challenges to staff are much greater and the condemnation from organisations such as Ofsted much more damning so how can we make such schools more attractive to young and committed teachers? There is also another equally relevant argument about the relative status attached to certain knowledge forms but now is not the time.

agreeing with your observations on state schools

Not sure your assessment of me and Swale agreeing is right though, and I DO see there is plenty to choose between state and independent, taking away all the exceptions we know of/have heard about, and I'm still resisting resorting to anecdotes, so we'll just have to agree to differ.

[ramAnag]

Not sure I described you two as actually 'agreeing'...miracles take a little longer.
I meant I don't think he was challenging your right to send your kids to independent school on any sort of moral basis.
A little ironically, bringing our kids up on two teachers' salaries meant we had to concentrate our efforts and finances on buying a house in a decent area...the option of paying for additional school fees didn't arise. With that 'decent' area came an equally decent school and I don't think my own kids would have benefited further from attending an independent school. It seems Swale feels the same.
Beyond that my only moral problem is with a society that sees Parliament - or at least the current government - dominated by the product of elitist public schools making decisions on what goes on in our poorest schools. Put bluntly...those who went to the likes of Elton and Harrow haven't a clue what goes on or needs to be done in schools like Merrill, it simply isn't and has never been part of their reality.