I2 Debate on Abolishing Private Schools
#11
(05-18-2020, 08:41 PM)ChamonixBaggie Wrote: Well my self esteem has taken a hit if people with first class degrees and masters from Oxford are "brain dead nonentities" and "fucking idiots"

I take it you've listened to them? I'm not sure you can claim to have any grounding in economics if you also claim to be "literally, a communist".
Reply
#12
I haven't actually. I usually listen to podcasts while hiking but have been reaching for atletico mince and tail-enders the past week... I'll give myself a slap on the wrist and listen to something self improving this week.

Whilst I'm not a communist myself 'd disagree that they're necessarily economically illiterate but we're probability poles apart on that one
Reply
#13
I didn't bother with the debate, but this is a subject I've thought about a lot. I went to a Direct Grant Grammar School, which is obviously now private. They run an "assisted places scheme" whereby up to 30% of the pupils don't pay fees. This should be a compulsory requirement for all private schools taking advantage of charitable status (as many of them do). They provide a good alternative to over-loaded state schools. Abolishing them would be madness.

But of course, not all private schools are good schools. There are posh academies that turn out boys and girls with next to no academic qualifications, but the right accent and an inside track on society. There are faith schools: Jewish schools where boys just learn scripture in Yiddish up to the age of 16; Christian schools teaching creationism and eschewing science altogether; Moslem schools which completely fail to embrace modern multi-faith or no-faith society. And then there's home-schooling. Bearing mind that most of us are barely adequate for the role of parent, we shouldn't be allowed to educate out children on our own.

So why don't we have a National Curriculum? Not the one introduced by Thatcher as a stick with which to beat the state sector, the one which now applies to very few schools (as academies seem to be exempt). I mean one which sets out a reasonable basic minimum for education and applies to all schools and schooling situations. One which makes reasonable provision for religious differences but doesn't compromise where learning is threatened by religious dogma. One which sets out parental responsibilities and empowers teachers to do their jobs instead of burdening them with fear of failure. Of course this would require politicians, teaching unions, local authorities and religious bodies to work together for the common good, and it would mean that education could no longer be the political football it has become.

None of this is ever going to happen in Britain.
Reply
#14
(05-19-2020, 09:52 AM)Cheshire East Baggie Wrote: I didn't bother with the debate, but this is a subject I've thought about a lot. I went to a Direct Grant Grammar School, which is obviously now private. They run an "assisted places scheme" whereby up to 30% of the pupils don't pay fees. This should be a compulsory requirement for all private schools taking advantage of charitable status (as many of them do). They provide a good alternative to over-loaded state schools. Abolishing them would be madness.

But of course, not all private schools are good schools. There are posh academies that turn out boys and girls with next to no academic qualifications, but the right accent and an inside track on society. There are faith schools: Jewish schools where boys just learn scripture in Yiddish up to the age of 16; Christian schools teaching creationism and eschewing science altogether; Moslem schools which completely fail to embrace modern multi-faith or no-faith society. And then there's home-schooling. Bearing mind that most of us are barely adequate for the role of parent, we shouldn't be allowed to educate out children on our own.

So why don't we have a National Curriculum? Not the one introduced by Thatcher as a stick with which to beat the state sector, the one which now applies to very few schools (as academies seem to be exempt). I mean one which sets out a reasonable basic minimum for education and applies to all schools and schooling situations. One which makes reasonable provision for religious differences but doesn't compromise where learning is threatened by religious dogma. One which sets out parental responsibilities and empowers teachers to do their jobs instead of burdening them with fear of failure. Of course this would require politicians, teaching unions, local authorities and religious bodies to work together for the common good, and it would mean that education could no longer be the political football it has become.

None of this is ever going to happen in Britain.

Totally agree. 

Faith-based schools should not come under any national banner and really should be banned - if parents want kids to learn fairy tales then this can be done outside of school hours. I'm OK with an element of learning about others' faiths but an hour plus a week is frankly ridiculous. If my son is stuck with writing a piece about "miracles", for example, I've asked him to give a standard reply about "either the laws of physics have all been temporarily suspended, in your favour, or someone who is uneducated or heard something second-hand is under some grave misapprehension".

I also find it strange that such focus, energy and stress is heaped onto GCSEs which, in effect, are pretty much redundant nowadays given that kids need to stay in education until 18.
Reply
#15
(05-19-2020, 07:51 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(05-18-2020, 08:41 PM)ChamonixBaggie Wrote: Well my self esteem has taken a hit if people with first class degrees and masters from Oxford are "brain dead nonentities" and "fucking idiots"

I take it you've listened to them? I'm not sure you can claim to have any grounding in economics if you also claim to be "literally, a communist".

Two observations. Sarkar doesn't claim to be an economist, her field of academic interest is literature. Also Marx is clearly historically an important figure in economics, it would be like me claiming that a modern day adherent to the economics of Adam Smith has no grounding in economics.

I know it wasn't you who used the terms brain dead nonentities and fucking idiots, but your reply to Chamonix implies an agreement with the terms used - is this another example of how only those on the left use online abuse against their political opponents.
Reply
#16
(05-19-2020, 10:23 AM)Shabby Russian Wrote: I know it wasn't you who used the terms brain dead nonentities and fucking idiots, but your reply to Chamonix implies an agreement with the terms used - is this another example of how only those on the left use online abuse against their political opponents.

To be honest Shabbs, given the course of history I think anyone who suggest's they're literally a communist  is a dangerous brain dead idiot.
Reply
#17
(05-19-2020, 10:27 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(05-19-2020, 10:23 AM)Shabby Russian Wrote: I know it wasn't you who used the terms brain dead nonentities and fucking idiots, but your reply to Chamonix implies an agreement with the terms used - is this another example of how only those on the left use online abuse against their political opponents.

To be honest Shabbs, given the course of history I think anyone who suggest's they're literally a communist  is a dangerous brain dead idiot.

Well don't come on here ever again complaining about personal abuse by left wingers.
Reply
#18
(05-19-2020, 10:58 AM)Shabby Russian Wrote: Well don't come on here ever again complaining about personal abuse by left wingers.

There's a world of difference between a left winger (misguided) and 'literally' a communist (dangerous lunatic).

Or do you consider liberals like me to be 'literally' a fascist?
Reply
#19
(05-19-2020, 05:57 AM)JOK Wrote:
(05-18-2020, 09:47 PM)Logic1 Wrote:
(05-18-2020, 08:41 PM)ChamonixBaggie Wrote: Well my self esteem has taken a hit if people with first class degrees and masters from Oxford are "brain dead nonentities" and "fucking idiots". I won't be so vulgar as to enquire after your economic qualifications.

I think being young, female and left leaning has more to do with this bile directed towards blakeley than her intellectual capacity. Her book is well reviewed I might give it a go.
I'm a Professor of Economics. Sorry for the agricultural English, I went to school in Northfield. Nothing to do with her being female. She and her ilk are partly responsible for letting this shower of a government get a majority of 80.

Also, don't waste your life reading her book. I just read Piketty's new book - a 1000 pages but worth it. Read that instead.
Study at the L.S.E. By any chance?

Cham. read both books. Always study at least two sources, not just the ones that fit your view!

Na, you could have read 20 academic papers in the time wasted on Blakeley's book. Still, at least you can use it for the lavatory if you bought hard copy.

Not the LSE as well.
Reply
#20
(05-19-2020, 12:50 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(05-19-2020, 10:58 AM)Shabby Russian Wrote: Well don't come on here ever again complaining about personal abuse by left wingers.

There's a world of difference between a left winger (misguided) and 'literally' a communist (dangerous lunatic).

Or do you consider liberals like me to be 'literally' a fascist?

Communists in Italy, France, the UK and even in the USA have made significant improvements to society.
I'm guessing the 'dangerous lunatic''s are the leaders of various regimes? If so, they're as communist as Hitler's 'socialist' party was socialist.


Communism as a workable system has been completely discredited, but that doesn't stop it's conclusions being correct. 
The failings were not in the system itself, but in us as human beings.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)