America

[Stom]

No one from a normal comprehensive (including Brown who was on a different programme) has made it to PM, despite the fact that children from those schools are now of an age where you would expect them to be making an impression.

Its not about class bias, it's all about education.

Is that last sentence supposed to be sarcastic?

Partially. We used to take bright children and put them into grammar schools where they would be expected to succeed. Now we keep them in with the less academic and expect far less.

with a good education, plus the expectation and role models, plus the opportunities in the extra-curricular sense, a child from a poor background can do very well.

As I pointed out...

At the school I was at, they took kids from poor backgrounds. Of those kids, I know one of them has gone on to run a store and be a well thought of graffiti artist, so he's done something. The rest...are working menial jobs, just like they would have if they'd gone to a standard school.

So did that "better education" benefit them? Or did their social status count for much more?

[Sandydragon]

Is that last sentence supposed to be sarcastic?

Partially. We used to take bright children and put them into grammar schools where they would be expected to succeed. Now we keep them in with the less academic and expect far less.

with a good education, plus the expectation and role models, plus the opportunities in the extra-curricular sense, a child from a poor background can do very well.

As I pointed out...

At the school I was at, they took kids from poor backgrounds. Of those kids, I know one of them has gone on to run a store and be a well thought of graffiti artist, so he's done something. The rest...are working menial jobs, just like they would have if they'd gone to a standard school.

So did that "better education" benefit them? Or did their social status count for much more?

I see, so your personal experience outweighs any other evidence?

The fact is that grammar school children dominated public officers for many years. That hasnt been replicated by comprehensive school children. Maybe your school was just making a token effort and expected those children to achieve nothing. Maybe they struggled with peer pressure outside of school? Poor children don't need handouts, they need decent schools that not only enforce good discipline to allow them to learn but also provide them with the opportunities that Grammars used to and public schools do today.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Or taken through the lens of the World Wars being great levellers, from the end of the Second World War, over the last 75 years:

Winston Churchill, Harrow School, Private School, 3.5 years
Clement Attlee, Haileybury College, Private School, 6 years
Anthony Eden, Eton College, Private School, 2 years
Harold Macmillan, Eton College, Private School, 6 years
Alec Douglas-Home, Eton College, Private School, 1 year
Harold Wilson, Royds Hall Grammar School, Grammar School, 8 years
Edward Heath, Chatham House Grammar School, Grammar School, 4 years
James Callaghan, Northern Secondary School, Portsmouth, Grammar School, 3 years
Margaret Thatcher, Kesteven and Grantham Girls' School, Grammar School, 11 years
John Major, Rutlish School, Grammar School, 7 years
Tony Blair, Fettes College, Private School, 10 years
Gordon Brown, Kirkcaldy High School, Grammar School/Selective High School, 3 years
David Cameron, Eton College, Private School, 6 years
Theresa May, Holton Park Girls' Grammar School, Grammar School, 3 years
Boris Johnson, Eton College, Private School, 1 year

Privately educated - 35.5 years
Grammar (or similar) 39.5 years

So no worries that just under half the time we were (are) ruled by the 7% whose parents could afford the fees?

And the fact that the vast majority of kids went to neither of those types of schools?

I agree it's an improvement over the preceding 45 years (as that was an improvement over the preceding 179 years), but it's still appalling.

Do you still stand by your words:

Which makes bleating in about class seem a bit antiquated.

?

[Son of Mathonwy]

Or, looked at another way, lots of people who had the benefit of private education, followed by a period where grammar school children help sway overwhelmingly, which then tailed off again recently and will probably not be repeated due to the closure of afore-mentioned grammar schools.

I refer you to my post below on education standards in the UK being the key to breaking down any class issues.

No one from a normal comprehensive (including Brown who was on a different programme) has made it to PM, despite the fact that children from those schools are now of an age where you would expect them to be making an impression.

Its not about class bias, it's all about education.

These seem a bit contradictory.

I agree that education is the way to fix this (I am talking about a drastic fix), but surely you can see that unfair access to education is a big advantage a certain class has over everyone else? It's not a question of class vs education, it's both.

[Digby]

I'd stand by those words. There are issues around inherited wealth and entitlement, but bleating isn't much of a response even if we all like a moan. We need positive progressive policies put forwards that people will actually vote for and then have those policies sensibly enacted and followed up on. Given wealth is continuing to coalesce at the top and yet we keep voting in the Tories it's more on us that there's an issue than the Tories, either we want it this way or we don't give a shit based on our voting to date

[Stom]

I'd stand by those words. There are issues around inherited wealth and entitlement, but bleating isn't much of a response even if we all like a moan. We need positive progressive policies put forwards that people will actually vote for and then have those policies sensibly enacted and followed up on. Given wealth is continuing to coalesce at the top and yet we keep voting in the Tories it's more on us that there's an issue than the Tories, either we want it this way or we don't give a shit based on our voting to date

It’s hard for people to concentrate on future “gains” when they find the present so difficult. Which really distracts, meaning these people tend to focus on things they believe will have an immediate impact on their lives and/or base fears.

Only 1 party consistently plays on those base fears. And it’s not Labour.

[Digby]

I'd stand by those words. There are issues around inherited wealth and entitlement, but bleating isn't much of a response even if we all like a moan. We need positive progressive policies put forwards that people will actually vote for and then have those policies sensibly enacted and followed up on. Given wealth is continuing to coalesce at the top and yet we keep voting in the Tories it's more on us that there's an issue than the Tories, either we want it this way or we don't give a shit based on our voting to date

It’s hard for people to concentrate on future “gains” when they find the present so difficult. Which really distracts, meaning these people tend to focus on things they believe will have an immediate impact on their lives and/or base fears.

Only 1 party consistently plays on those base fears. And it’s not Labour.

If people are easily distracted that's on them, and we don't have a better system than asking them. I don't happen to really like any election outcome myself but my liking said outcome is rather besides the point. As an aside I do recall from time to time the Labour Party saying the Tories are going to destroy/selloff/ruin the NHS, and that has some features of a fear campaign rather than offering the progressive alternative

[Stom]

I'd stand by those words. There are issues around inherited wealth and entitlement, but bleating isn't much of a response even if we all like a moan. We need positive progressive policies put forwards that people will actually vote for and then have those policies sensibly enacted and followed up on. Given wealth is continuing to coalesce at the top and yet we keep voting in the Tories it's more on us that there's an issue than the Tories, either we want it this way or we don't give a shit based on our voting to date

It’s hard for people to concentrate on future “gains” when they find the present so difficult. Which really distracts, meaning these people tend to focus on things they believe will have an immediate impact on their lives and/or base fears.

Only 1 party consistently plays on those base fears. And it’s not Labour.

If people are easily distracted that's on them, and we don't have a better system than asking them. I don't happen to really like any election outcome myself but my liking said outcome is rather besides the point. As an aside I do recall from time to time the Labour Party saying the Tories are going to destroy/selloff/ruin the NHS, and that has some features of a fear campaign rather than offering the progressive alternative

Yeah...it has all the features of a pretty terrible fear campaign. As, well, it's not a big fear for people considering the experiences many people have been having with the NHS in recent years.

[Digby]

It’s hard for people to concentrate on future “gains” when they find the present so difficult. Which really distracts, meaning these people tend to focus on things they believe will have an immediate impact on their lives and/or base fears.

Only 1 party consistently plays on those base fears. And it’s not Labour.

If people are easily distracted that's on them, and we don't have a better system than asking them. I don't happen to really like any election outcome myself but my liking said outcome is rather besides the point. As an aside I do recall from time to time the Labour Party saying the Tories are going to destroy/selloff/ruin the NHS, and that has some features of a fear campaign rather than offering the progressive alternative

Yeah...it has all the features of a pretty terrible fear campaign. As, well, it's not a big fear for people considering the experiences many people have been having with the NHS in recent years.

And the Tories would argue their fear campaigns are warranted, I might happen to agree with both parties at times, just it's not only one party that plays on base fears. And it's not even only them, the Lib Dems are hardly above it nor the Greens, it's just almost everyone ignores them, and the likes of UKIP and the BNP are obviously massive fear based parties

[Stom]

If people are easily distracted that's on them, and we don't have a better system than asking them. I don't happen to really like any election outcome myself but my liking said outcome is rather besides the point. As an aside I do recall from time to time the Labour Party saying the Tories are going to destroy/selloff/ruin the NHS, and that has some features of a fear campaign rather than offering the progressive alternative

Yeah...it has all the features of a pretty terrible fear campaign. As, well, it's not a big fear for people considering the experiences many people have been having with the NHS in recent years.

And the Tories would argue their fear campaigns are warranted, I might happen to agree with both parties at times, just it's not only one party that plays on base fears. And it's not even only them, the Lib Dems are hardly above it nor the Greens, it's just almost everyone ignores them, and the likes of UKIP and the BNP are obviously massive fear based parties

OK, I'll rephrase slightly for clarity Only the Tories play on people's ACTUAL fears. Labour have had a recent habit of missing the target, and the Lib Dems...well...

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I have privilege as a white person because I can do all of these things without thinking twice:

Homicides involving the police are stupidly high in the USA, indeed there's simply far too much brutality from the police in the USA. And one of the things which might come out of this is for a number of people to reconsider what they expect from a public service intended to keep them safe, even if they are a white racist because they shouldn't be assuming the police are no threat to them, the numbers don't suggest anyone can assume they're safe when interacting with the police. No question it's a disproportionate outcome, and that one would hope will be more fully addressed finally, but we'd be skirting over the grief of a lot of white families to suggest white privilege will protect you from the police

Don't know how accurate these are

For every 10, 000 black people arrested for violent crime, 3 are killed by the police.

For every 10, 000 white people arrested for violent crime, 4 are killed by the police.

In 2019, 49 unarmed people were killed by the police. 9 were black. 19 were white.
The likelihood for a black person being shot by the police is as high as being struck by lightning.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

If you don't know whether it is accurate don't fucking repeat it!

[morepork]

Pretty fucking much.

[Sandydragon]

Or taken through the lens of the World Wars being great levellers, from the end of the Second World War, over the last 75 years:

Winston Churchill, Harrow School, Private School, 3.5 years
Clement Attlee, Haileybury College, Private School, 6 years
Anthony Eden, Eton College, Private School, 2 years
Harold Macmillan, Eton College, Private School, 6 years
Alec Douglas-Home, Eton College, Private School, 1 year
Harold Wilson, Royds Hall Grammar School, Grammar School, 8 years
Edward Heath, Chatham House Grammar School, Grammar School, 4 years
James Callaghan, Northern Secondary School, Portsmouth, Grammar School, 3 years
Margaret Thatcher, Kesteven and Grantham Girls' School, Grammar School, 11 years
John Major, Rutlish School, Grammar School, 7 years
Tony Blair, Fettes College, Private School, 10 years
Gordon Brown, Kirkcaldy High School, Grammar School/Selective High School, 3 years
David Cameron, Eton College, Private School, 6 years
Theresa May, Holton Park Girls' Grammar School, Grammar School, 3 years
Boris Johnson, Eton College, Private School, 1 year

Privately educated - 35.5 years
Grammar (or similar) 39.5 years

So no worries that just under half the time we were (are) ruled by the 7% whose parents could afford the fees?

And the fact that the vast majority of kids went to neither of those types of schools?

I agree it's an improvement over the preceding 45 years (as that was an improvement over the preceding 179 years), but it's still appalling.

Do you still stand by your words:

Which makes bleating in about class seem a bit antiquated.

?

I do, because much of that bleating has been the politics of envy and a desire to drag everyone down to the same level. I’d much rather we have poorer children with intelligence an opportunity to achieve via similar educational opportunities that don’t look like private schools offering pity.

[Sandydragon]

I'd stand by those words. There are issues around inherited wealth and entitlement, but bleating isn't much of a response even if we all like a moan. We need positive progressive policies put forwards that people will actually vote for and then have those policies sensibly enacted and followed up on. Given wealth is continuing to coalesce at the top and yet we keep voting in the Tories it's more on us that there's an issue than the Tories, either we want it this way or we don't give a shit based on our voting to date

It’s hard for people to concentrate on future “gains” when they find the present so difficult. Which really distracts, meaning these people tend to focus on things they believe will have an immediate impact on their lives and/or base fears.

Only 1 party consistently plays on those base fears. And it’s not Labour.

What?!! Labour running around taking the piss out of toffs isn’t playing on class?! Corbyn et al spent ages talking about class when they just couldn’t comprehend that times were changing and the breakdown I posted via the BBC is perhaps more relevant than the old tripartite system.

And middle class labour activist angst aside, the working class need to want to improve, which means putting them into an environment where peer pressure is reduced.

[Sandydragon]

So back to something that is actually American, there is an area of Seattle which has basically declared itself independent from the police. Trump is threatening to send in the National Guard as protestors, some armed, could potentially resist.

[Stom]

I'd stand by those words. There are issues around inherited wealth and entitlement, but bleating isn't much of a response even if we all like a moan. We need positive progressive policies put forwards that people will actually vote for and then have those policies sensibly enacted and followed up on. Given wealth is continuing to coalesce at the top and yet we keep voting in the Tories it's more on us that there's an issue than the Tories, either we want it this way or we don't give a shit based on our voting to date

It’s hard for people to concentrate on future “gains” when they find the present so difficult. Which really distracts, meaning these people tend to focus on things they believe will have an immediate impact on their lives and/or base fears.

Only 1 party consistently plays on those base fears. And it’s not Labour.

What?!! Labour running around taking the piss out of toffs isn’t playing on class?! Corbyn et al spent ages talking about class when they just couldn’t comprehend that times were changing and the breakdown I posted via the BBC is perhaps more relevant than the old tripartite system.

And middle class labour activist angst aside, the working class need to want to improve, which means putting them into an environment where peer pressure is reduced.

See my later clarification. Labour have, in recent times, tried to play on fears, but spectacularly failed because...well, they didn't choose people's actual fears.

[Donny osmond]

Is that last sentence supposed to be sarcastic?

Partially. We used to take bright children and put them into grammar schools where they would be expected to succeed. Now we keep them in with the less academic and expect far less.

with a good education, plus the expectation and role models, plus the opportunities in the extra-curricular sense, a child from a poor background can do very well.

As I pointed out...

At the school I was at, they took kids from poor backgrounds. Of those kids, I know one of them has gone on to run a store and be a well thought of graffiti artist, so he's done something. The rest...are working menial jobs, just like they would have if they'd gone to a standard school.

So did that "better education" benefit them? Or did their social status count for much more?

It gave them opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have had. You can take a horse to water....

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Donny osmond]

Homicides involving the police are stupidly high in the USA, indeed there's simply far too much brutality from the police in the USA. And one of the things which might come out of this is for a number of people to reconsider what they expect from a public service intended to keep them safe, even if they are a white racist because they shouldn't be assuming the police are no threat to them, the numbers don't suggest anyone can assume they're safe when interacting with the police. No question it's a disproportionate outcome, and that one would hope will be more fully addressed finally, but we'd be skirting over the grief of a lot of white families to suggest white privilege will protect you from the police

Don't know how accurate these are

For every 10, 000 black people arrested for violent crime, 3 are killed by the police.

For every 10, 000 white people arrested for violent crime, 4 are killed by the police.

In 2019, 49 unarmed people were killed by the police. 9 were black. 19 were white.
The likelihood for a black person being shot by the police is as high as being struck by lightning.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

If you don't know whether it is accurate don't fucking repeat it!

Fair point, altho it would wipe out 90% of posts on here

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Stom]

Partially. We used to take bright children and put them into grammar schools where they would be expected to succeed. Now we keep them in with the less academic and expect far less.

with a good education, plus the expectation and role models, plus the opportunities in the extra-curricular sense, a child from a poor background can do very well.

As I pointed out...

At the school I was at, they took kids from poor backgrounds. Of those kids, I know one of them has gone on to run a store and be a well thought of graffiti artist, so he's done something. The rest...are working menial jobs, just like they would have if they'd gone to a standard school.

So did that "better education" benefit them? Or did their social status count for much more?

It gave them opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have had. You can take a horse to water....

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

What I mean is that education is only part of it.

There are many complex social issues at play. To solve them...you need to change a lot. Many do not have the appetite for those changes, even though they would benefit society as a whole.

[Sandydragon]

Partially. We used to take bright children and put them into grammar schools where they would be expected to succeed. Now we keep them in with the less academic and expect far less.

with a good education, plus the expectation and role models, plus the opportunities in the extra-curricular sense, a child from a poor background can do very well.

As I pointed out...

At the school I was at, they took kids from poor backgrounds. Of those kids, I know one of them has gone on to run a store and be a well thought of graffiti artist, so he's done something. The rest...are working menial jobs, just like they would have if they'd gone to a standard school.

So did that "better education" benefit them? Or did their social status count for much more?

It gave them opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have had. You can take a horse to water....

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Additionally the Grammar School system took in a lot of children from poorer backgrounds, gave them the expectation of success and role models whilst studying amongst children from their own background. Whilst I'm not against private schools offering scholarships or similar, one does have to question if the peer pressure from amongst the pupils plays a very significant part in eventual outcomes?

[Donny osmond]

As I pointed out...

At the school I was at, they took kids from poor backgrounds. Of those kids, I know one of them has gone on to run a store and be a well thought of graffiti artist, so he's done something. The rest...are working menial jobs, just like they would have if they'd gone to a standard school.

So did that "better education" benefit them? Or did their social status count for much more?

It gave them opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have had. You can take a horse to water....

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Additionally the Grammar School system took in a lot of children from poorer backgrounds, gave them the expectation of success and role models whilst studying amongst children from their own background. Whilst I'm not against private schools offering scholarships or similar, one does have to question if the peer pressure from amongst the pupils plays a very significant part in eventual outcomes?

It absolutely does but that works both ways more than I think a lot of people would realise.

I've worked in schools serving pretty desperate catchments (i.e. being in the "bottom" 50 areas of multiple deprivation in Scotland) where a pupil would express a desire to be on benefits and have the absolute piss ripped by their mates for not having any ambition. Not that their mates would have great ambition to achieve incredible things, but still would like to achieve some sort of comfort, a steady paycheck, house, job, car etc.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Sandydragon]

It gave them opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have had. You can take a horse to water....

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Additionally the Grammar School system took in a lot of children from poorer backgrounds, gave them the expectation of success and role models whilst studying amongst children from their own background. Whilst I'm not against private schools offering scholarships or similar, one does have to question if the peer pressure from amongst the pupils plays a very significant part in eventual outcomes?

It absolutely does but that works both ways more than I think a lot of people would realise.

I've worked in schools serving pretty desperate catchments (i.e. being in the "bottom" 50 areas of multiple deprivation in Scotland) where a pupil would express a desire to be on benefits and have the absolute piss ripped by their mates for not having any ambition. Not that their mates would have great ambition to achieve incredible things, but still would like to achieve some sort of comfort, a steady paycheck, house, job, car etc.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

If the peer attitude of the fellow pupils is supportive then that's a big help. Home life attitudes to education are important (ass you know) and if no one in the home is interested then you guys are fighting a difficult battle. I recall a lot of children who I went to school with who just assumed they would follow parents into manual jobs.

My wife has taught in both sectors. She loved her first school (comprehensive) but really enjoyed time in a private school as well. She highlighted the opportunities etc but also the willingness of the children to learn because that had been developed in them throughout primary and into secondary levels but also because parents were very supportive.

She then went back to her first school to teach and left after 6 months. Huge discipline problems and most teachers couldn't teach the kids; they were focusing on crowd control and their own safety. Hard ot see anyone (regardless of intelligence) progressing in that disaster scenario.

[Donny osmond]

Additionally the Grammar School system took in a lot of children from poorer backgrounds, gave them the expectation of success and role models whilst studying amongst children from their own background. Whilst I'm not against private schools offering scholarships or similar, one does have to question if the peer pressure from amongst the pupils plays a very significant part in eventual outcomes?

It absolutely does but that works both ways more than I think a lot of people would realise.

I've worked in schools serving pretty desperate catchments (i.e. being in the "bottom" 50 areas of multiple deprivation in Scotland) where a pupil would express a desire to be on benefits and have the absolute piss ripped by their mates for not having any ambition. Not that their mates would have great ambition to achieve incredible things, but still would like to achieve some sort of comfort, a steady paycheck, house, job, car etc.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

If the peer attitude of the fellow pupils is supportive then that's a big help. Home life attitudes to education are important (ass you know) and if no one in the home is interested then you guys are fighting a difficult battle. I recall a lot of children who I went to school with who just assumed they would follow parents into manual jobs.

My wife has taught in both sectors. She loved her first school (comprehensive) but really enjoyed time in a private school as well. She highlighted the opportunities etc but also the willingness of the children to learn because that had been developed in them throughout primary and into secondary levels but also because parents were very supportive.

She then went back to her first school to teach and left after 6 months. Huge discipline problems and most teachers couldn't teach the kids; they were focusing on crowd control and their own safety. Hard ot see anyone (regardless of intelligence) progressing in that disaster scenario.

Parenting is the elephant in the room with so many of these discussions, not just education but all the life experiences of kids growing up to understand why and how to set themselves standards in whatever area of their lives, parenting is such a big factor that is almost never discussed, or at least sidelined far too easily.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Donny osmond]

It absolutely does but that works both ways more than I think a lot of people would realise.

I've worked in schools serving pretty desperate catchments (i.e. being in the "bottom" 50 areas of multiple deprivation in Scotland) where a pupil would express a desire to be on benefits and have the absolute piss ripped by their mates for not having any ambition. Not that their mates would have great ambition to achieve incredible things, but still would like to achieve some sort of comfort, a steady paycheck, house, job, car etc.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

If the peer attitude of the fellow pupils is supportive then that's a big help. Home life attitudes to education are important (ass you know) and if no one in the home is interested then you guys are fighting a difficult battle. I recall a lot of children who I went to school with who just assumed they would follow parents into manual jobs.

My wife has taught in both sectors. She loved her first school (comprehensive) but really enjoyed time in a private school as well. She highlighted the opportunities etc but also the willingness of the children to learn because that had been developed in them throughout primary and into secondary levels but also because parents were very supportive.

She then went back to her first school to teach and left after 6 months. Huge discipline problems and most teachers couldn't teach the kids; they were focusing on crowd control and their own safety. Hard ot see anyone (regardless of intelligence) progressing in that disaster scenario.

Parenting is the elephant in the room with so many of these discussions, not just education but all the life experiences of kids growing up to understand why and how to set themselves standards in whatever area of their lives, parenting is such a big factor that is almost never discussed, or at least sidelined far too easily.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

If only those American police had better parents, they might not be such violent wankers, eh?

*back on track*



Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

[Sandydragon]

It absolutely does but that works both ways more than I think a lot of people would realise.

I've worked in schools serving pretty desperate catchments (i.e. being in the "bottom" 50 areas of multiple deprivation in Scotland) where a pupil would express a desire to be on benefits and have the absolute piss ripped by their mates for not having any ambition. Not that their mates would have great ambition to achieve incredible things, but still would like to achieve some sort of comfort, a steady paycheck, house, job, car etc.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

If the peer attitude of the fellow pupils is supportive then that's a big help. Home life attitudes to education are important (ass you know) and if no one in the home is interested then you guys are fighting a difficult battle. I recall a lot of children who I went to school with who just assumed they would follow parents into manual jobs.

My wife has taught in both sectors. She loved her first school (comprehensive) but really enjoyed time in a private school as well. She highlighted the opportunities etc but also the willingness of the children to learn because that had been developed in them throughout primary and into secondary levels but also because parents were very supportive.

She then went back to her first school to teach and left after 6 months. Huge discipline problems and most teachers couldn't teach the kids; they were focusing on crowd control and their own safety. Hard ot see anyone (regardless of intelligence) progressing in that disaster scenario.

Parenting is the elephant in the room with so many of these discussions, not just education but all the life experiences of kids growing up to understand why and how to set themselves standards in whatever area of their lives, parenting is such a big factor that is almost never discussed, or at least sidelined far too easily.

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Easier to blame a glass ceiling.