Nadhim Zahawi
:Irresponsible Bankers Should Be Jailed
Eleanor Blatchley
:Human Rights, Hashtags and the UK's Policy Towards Central Asia
Natalie Bennett
:Media Reform: Time to Go Back to Leveson
James Snell
:Prism: Who Cares?
Alex Ford
:Talking to the Taliban in Afghanistan Doesn't Betray the Dead - It Honours Them
Should Olympic champion Usain Bolt share his gold medal with his 100 metre competitors? Should a CEO be paid the same as a trainee? Should all competitions be banned?
It is unlikely that most people would say yes to the above questions, but there are a group of people who do just that. They are called 'cultural Marxists'.
Cultural Marxists are driven by egalitarianism, an ideology that decries we must all be equal. On the face of it egalitarianism seems like a good idea. Isn't it unfair that some people are born richer than others? And isn't it annoying that our boss takes home more money even though we work just as hard? The problem is that egalitarianism is at odds with meritocracy, the ideology that argues individuals should be awarded on their merits.
The world is a meritocratic place. If you are a talented sportsman, you are decorated for your victories. If you are a gifted academic, you are recognised for your intelligence. You do not, in other words, get recognition for being mediocre.
Mehdi Hasan, however, would have you believe otherwise. Mr Hasan believes that private schools, institutions where mediocrity is not accepted, should be banned. He bemoans that private schools are 'a blight on our society' and that they are 'divisive and corrosive'.
I agree with Mr Hasan's main point: there is a two-tier system in our educational system. Comprehensive schools, on the whole, are nowhere near as good as private schools. We disagree, however, on our solution to this problem.
Private schools should not be abolished, instead the state school system should be improved. Why destroy one of the educational institutions that actually works? For the sake of levelling everybody down?
The comprehensive project has failed. Even the good comprehensives, where students are able to attain the top grades, are inaccessible to working-class children because of extortionate house prises in the schools' catchment areas. Great Britain, as Mr Hasan acknowledges, has been engulfed by an educational apartheid.
The tripartite education system, introduced at the end of the Second World War, meant that prospective students would have to sit an 11-plus examination which determined where they went to school - a local grammar or secondary-modern.
Grammar schools, introduced at the end of the Second World War, gave youngsters from humble beginnings the opportunity to elevate themselves up through the social classes. Secondary moderns, though, were dubbed 'educational scrapheaps'.
Today grammar schools, seemingly too politically sensitive to touch, are banned. But why blame grammar schools for the shortcomings of secondary moderns? Grammar schools, after all, provided a rigorous academic curriculum and armed students with an education that could rival private school pupils.
The objection against grammar schools, that is wrong to segregate pupils at such an early age, is easily remedied. Introduce a reformed, modern 11-plus examination and select students at more than one point in a child's educational career.
Now, as England sits ashamedly near the bottom of the OECD education league table, we should recognise grammar schools as a solution.
Follow Ian Silvera on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ianjsilvera
Mehdi Hasan: Warren Buffett Is Right: It's Time to Ban Private Schools
Michael Buerk: Medals: It's Private Schoolboys and Girls Wot Won Them
Wasim Khan: The Olympic Effect - Developing a Sporting Culture in Schools
UK Independent Private Schools
Independent school (United Kingdom) - Wikipedia, the free ...
Independent Schools Council | Home
The Top 100 Independent Schools at A-level - Secondary League ...
Private Schools UK,Independent School England,public schools in ...
Independent schools: Value-added tuition
UK man detained in CAR returns to Britain
UK private-school fees increase twice as fast as inflation
The huge mistake you are making there is confusing ability with privilege. Children who are educated privately are there because their parents can afford it, not because they are intellectually superior. This dilutes the talent base in a country because elite positions are reserved for a few.
A better analogy would be to give Bolt's opponents 10m start because they can pay more, then call them winners and Bolt a loser.
First, I would argue they are anti meritocratic. If everyone went to state schools, the level of education would be on a closer level, rather than the very best(or highest paid) teachers teaching only the elites. This would mean that truly bright students would have more of a fair shot.
Secondly, when the elites in the majority send their children to private schools, their increased funding acts as a vaccum taking the best teachers(Again in the majority). It also means that the elites are less likely to the state schools, as it would harm their children. If there where only state schools it would become in everyone's interest to improve the state schools.
Abolition of the charitable status - That seems unfair to me. They're businesses, not charities
No one employed in the Executive, Legislature or Judiciary should be allowed to send their children to private school, as part of their contract of employment. Since these people make decisions about state education, they should have to use the system they manage. (I could drop the Judiciary on reflection).
To explain what I mean, answer these questions
- should rich parents be able get their kids a better education just by virtue of having more money ?
There are some who think NO, but to them I'd ask these questions:
- should rich parents be allowed to get their kids an advantage by spending their money on private tutoring ?
- should rich parents be allowed to get an advantage by buying more books to have in their house ?
- should parents of average income be allowed to get their kids an advantage by buying books for their kids instead of the sky sports subscription their neighbours buy ?
Unless you want to ban the idea of some people having more money than others, or ban people spending money on anything educational, you can't realistically stop anyone choosing to spend their money on things that help their family.
It's also worth mentioning that, though all three main parties claim to support comprehensive education and to oppose grammar schools, there is not a single local authority in England that is attempting to close one of the few remaining grammar schools. In many ways, the country seems to have got crazier over the past few decades. But, at least it can now be said that closing a successful state school (of whatever type) is likely to be politically suicidal for whichever politicians are responsible.
I agree we should have public grammar schools where the cream of the crop go. No reason to hold them back.
1. Comprehensive schools are NOT intrinsically inferior to private schools, nor do they engender this mythical 'prizes for all' culture so beloved of the elitists. If comprehensive schools had the class sizes and advantaged intake of private schools, with their motivated parents, they would be as good or better. Some actually are. So let's, then, think about how to improve the intake and class sizes of our comprehensives. Mr Silvera's solution of going back to grammar schools is nothing more than tinkering with and reinforcing present inequalities. The "sod 'em" approach.
2. Mr Silvera massively overstates the poverty of the state system. Plenty of state school children reach, and do well, at universities of all grades. 65% of our Olympians were state educated. In 2010 70% of students going to the best universities were state educated. And we are NOT "near the bottom" of the OECD rankings. 25th out of 65 countries, and above the OECD average, is not "near the bottom". The OECD analysts themselves warned against politicians making political capital out of the results, the difference between 15th to 25th places being described as 'statistically insignificant'.
The state system is actually doing quite well, thank you. And it would do even better, with the full support and involvement of our so called 'betters'. Finland, the best system in the world, according to OECD, does not have private schools - they're all state.
In socialism the rich are the state and their friends, it is even worse than capitalism.
Now which side of the line do private schools come down on I wonder? It's not clear is it?
Labour also were the party to introduce top up fees to prevent the poor escaping poverty.
The governing classes, left and right wing / media, send their kids to private schools and deliberatly make state schools third rate so as to give their children an advantage.
Poverty is created by the state, it does not happen by accident.
Uneducated people on benefits is the aim of the labour party as they hope those people will have to vote labour.
There is no hope.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/08/13/more-than-third-olympic-team-gb-private-school_n_1772467.html
If that is Silvera's idea of meritocracy, he might want to take another look at himself.
A meritocratic country is something to be aspired to but when you stymie a child's chances because of an accident of birth, that meritocracy is based on something of little, if any, value.
Michael Howard famously told Tony Blair in the Commons that "this grammar school boy wasn't going to take lectures from a public school boy" (not verbatim); no spring chicken, Howard illustrates, how long free and excellent grammar schools existed alongside public schools but the latter still thrived. Would it really change now?
so by general reasoning most people want states schools to improve educational standards...
HOWEVER THE POINT MUST BE MADE SO EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS IT...
UNTILL THOSE WHO MAKE THE DECISIONS ARE EFFECTED BY THE DECISIONS THEY MAKE
WE WILL NEVER HAVE A FAIR AND EQUALL EDUCATION SYSTEM ........
THE OPT OUT FOR RICH PEOPLE ALLOWS THE STATE SECTOR TO BE CUT TO RIBBONS:
BECAUSE THOSE IN POWER SEND THEIR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO OTHER
PRIVATE SCHOOLS NOT EFFECTED BY THESE CUTS.......
SO THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS TO SEND ALL CHILDREN TO ETON OR HARROW AS THAT WOULD SEEM TO GUARANTEE A GOOD SET OF EXAM RESULTS AND A GOOD JOB PLUS A PLACE IN THE GOVERNMENT.................
I am all in favour of spending more and more on education as done well it boosts the next generation beyond all measure, but Eton costs lots!
WHAT WILL STOP THEM SENDING KIDS TO SCHOOL IN OTHER COUNTRIES - PRISON?
Make it par tof the contract of employment for all members of the Executive and Legislature that they have to use the State system. They over see and manage it, oblige them to use it. I would also require them to use the NHS too.
Everyone else who can afford it should have the freedom to educate their children as they choose.
Did Usain engineer for himself, everything required to accomplish his achievement? Or was it a Team Humanity effort? If the others had been provided with several seconds start, where would he be right now?
“Should a CEO be paid the same as a trainee?”
Or should they be rewarded commensurate with their contribution to a common endeavor?
“an ideology that decries we must all be equal”
If only the creator of the wheel had kept it to them self. We could all be walking now. If the objective of those in power is to have their line continue, then optimizing the entire human resource is the way to go. Inbreeding is an insular survival strategy that just won’t cut it.
“some people are born richer”
Survival of the artificially privileged. Is that a practical reality in terms of powering progress?
“meritocracy”
Advancement by individual ability. As opposed to inheritocracy. Advancement irrespective of individual ability. Aka, a race’s race to the bottom.
“an 11-plus examination which determined where they went”
did not function exclusively by ability. But in addition by available place numbers.
“as England sits ashamedly near the bottom of the OECD education league table”
it is those in charge who desperately require an education.
If schools can maintain good discipline then state schools should be able to get results every bit as good as a grammar. Private schools will always be better still as they have higher funding per pupil.
As for old boys network, of course it exists. Moreso though I think it exists at university.
I think you would be much better off going to Huddersfield 6th form and then study English at Cambridge than you would be if you went to Eaton and went to Brighton Polytechnic to study media.
Networks are formed and bonds are made at university. Mostly this isnt sinister in my experience, just looking out for the next generation.