Planet Ivy
:The Harsh Reality of Life as a Graduate
William Davie
:Bad Atmosphere
Mark Wilkinson
:Is Britain Being Starved of Vital Skills?
Hilary Aked
:Student Rights Group Claims Media 'Mistakes', Conflation with Extremism 'Not the Fault' of its Gender Segregation Report
Octavia Sheepshanks
:Man-Hating Feminism More Than Just A Myth
According to the Duke of Wellington, the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton.Fast forward almost exactly two hundred years, shift focus to the Olympics, really just sublimated warfare after all, and the only thing that's changed is that Eton is actually one of the battlefields. It's public, ie private, schoolboys and girls wot won it.
Half Britain's medallists at Beijing went to private schools. Our gold medallists this time started with the rowers Helen Glover and Heather Stanning (Millfield and Gordonstoun, respectively), the shooter, Peter Wilson (Millfield again) and Sir Chris Hoy (George Watson's, Edinburgh). "Wholly unacceptable", trumpeted the chairman of the British Olympic Association, Lord Moynihan (Monmouth, in case you wondered).."one of the worst statistics in British sport". Sentiments echoed by the Prime Minister (Eton, of course).
There are two things to be said about this. First, it's not just the private sector's better facilities or the insane sale of state school playing fields. State schoolchildren have been crippled by the anti-competitive ethos - nobody can win, because nobody must be allowed to lose - not to mention state school teachers' famous reluctance to do more than they think they're paid for. (Private schoolchildren spend twice as much time playing sport than state schoolchildren).
The second is that it doesn't matter. Sport's a sideshow, a distraction.
What's really important is how the privately educated are tightening their hold on most of the commanding heights of British life. Social mobility hasn't just seized up, it's gone into reverse.
The Education Secretary, Michael Gove - Robert Gordon's Institute (scholarship, though, and as the adopted son of an Aberdeen fish merchant he's more Moses basket than top drawer) - pointed out that not only are most of the cabinet privately educated, but so are many of many of Labour's senior figures - Ed Balls, Harriet Harman, for instance. A third of the House of Commons went to independent schools.
Only 7% of our children go to these schools but 88% of our senior judges came from them, along with half the country's barristers. This proportion is rising. For instance, in 1988, 59% of the partners at Britain' five biggest law firms were privately educated; now it's 71%. The same is true of most of the professions. A third of students studying to be doctors and dentists now come from the independent sector. The arts are dominated by them - theatre, cinema, even pop music. Comics - McIntyre, Baddiel, Ianucci, Armstrong, Mitchell. The BBC is a private school old boys and girls' association. Most of our newspapers are edited by them - even the Daily Mirror and that scourge of privilege, the Guardian, which has been edited by public schoolboys for the last 60 years.
This is not, or not just, entrenched privilege. As a broad generalisation, private schools have better qualified teachers, smaller classes ( half the size, on average) and a more disciplined, achieving ethos. They certainly get better results. More straight As at A level than all the comprehensives put together. Often in harder subjects, too.
Gerrymandering the system to push less achieving state schoolchildren ahead of their more successful private school counterparts is not the answer. Levelling up is.
Grammar schools gave poorer, bright children unlimited opportunities and changed the face of British society. For more than 30 years, 10 Downing Street was occupied by people who went to state schools, Harold Wilson to John Major. The few grammar schools that remain do as well as the best private schools.
Selection works for bright children. It surely could be done more flexibly than the once-and-for-all 11+. Perhaps it's simply not possible to provide a different education for the less academic that is equally worthwhile and pushes them to realize their potential - though other countries seem to do it.
Things are changing in the existing state system, but not fast or far enough. Their lack of ambition betrays our children, particularly the cleverest. A recent survey found that less than half the teachers in state secondary schools would advise their brightest pupils to try for Oxford or Cambridge; a tragedy to haunt us long after the Olympic triumphs are forgotten.
You can find more of my content at: The Fifth Column or subscribe to the podcast via iTunes 
Follow Michael Buerk on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheFifthColumn
Carla Buzasi: The Week That Was: Great Britain
Korina Karampela: UCAS Clearing: Six (Rather Harsh) Choices to Make
Stephen Hull: Why I Will Never Watch the Olympic Games Ever Again
David Cameron: I cut school sports target because pupils were learning Indian ...
Beyond the Olympic glory lies a patchy future for school sports
Camp Kilpatrick, nation's only detention center with sanctioned high school ...
The left and right are mainly on the make and on the take.
No change.
Most state secondary schools are content to force kids into 8 weeks of football "training" and 8 weeks of athletics with scant regard for either broadening their education or promoting sport itself.
PE is schools should be about Education, not fitness anyway. Introduce kids to sports from far and wide, a little history about the sport, a basic idea of rules and techniques, a demo or two, a few practice sessions and most importantly of all a route to go down if they want to find out more.
Instead what we usually find are vanity projects of PE teachers who care more about how their rugby or football team does against other schools than about genuinely educating kids or involving the less physically able. Private schools have these projects also, but they do so almost exclusively outside the normal curriculum.
The reason for her success, parental support.
"Half Britain's medallists at Beijing went to private schools."
Not now, Mr Buerk. According to the Guardian this weekend, 32 London 2012 medal winners were privately educated, BUT 53 were state educated - a significant improvement then, Mr Buerk. Your smear against state schools insults the 62% of London GB medallists who were state educated , Mr Buerk.
And guess what? Most of those privately educated medallists (22 out of the 32) were from TWO disciplines ONLY -- equestrians (mummy and daddy could afford a horse) and rowers (mummy and daddy had a house near the river). But even among the rowers, 14 were private and 14 were state educated.
The cyclists (bar one) and most of the other medallists (including Mo Farah, Jade Jones, Laura Trott, Bradley Wiggins, Victoria Pendleton and Jess Ennis) were all State educated. So get your facts straight Mr Buerk, and stop peddling poison about state schools being anti competitve and their teachers feckless.
You really should do better than this, 2/10, see me.
In that case, maybe the groundsman deserves a mention.
“What's really important is how”
come the "cream" have made such a mess of running things?
“Perhaps it's simply not possible to provide a different education for the less academic that is equally worthwhile and pushes them to realize their potential - though other countries seem to do it.”
So its not that it can’t be done. Its that we don’t have leaders capable of doing it.
"the Olympic triumphs"
are unrelated to real life. Because one is everyday, while the other is a couple of weeks every four years.
I went to secondary, then grammar school at 13 until 16 and then into an apprenticeship! My employer sent me to college and encouraged (and paid) for me to study four engineering related subjects including mathematics and physics up to degree level! They gave me every possible assistance and encouraged me all the way through!
They were, if you like, the equivalent of a well educated parent! That's why the children of these public school, professional parents do well at school. They encourage their children, they can provide additional facilities, equipment and most of all, contacts!
Selection need not write off children, there are various methods to steer them towards achieving the best that their abilities allow. Not all children are academically bright, some are exceptionally good at the Arts, some are good with their hands, some are compassionate and caring. Most have some abilities that just need encouragement and steering in the right direction!
The statistics are skewed by the presence of teams, especially in rowing which had the most number of individuals winning gold medals. The top 3 sports for number of medals won were rowing, hockey and equestrianism which all had a big proportion of private school educated people. I would not think that is particularly l surprising.
Remember that the sports in the olympics tend to be minority sports - unfortunately, for you lovers of private education by far the biggest sport in the UK is football and this is overwhelmingly state school
This biased reading of the data does noone any help at all, and the original data is biased as the sports where we have won the most medals are ones that are mainly pursued by the monied classes (rowing, equestrianism, hockey) and only involve a few countries. Also, because we did well at these sports in the past, they receive more funding and so will do better again next time.
As to say there is no competitive sport in schools in nonsense as well - there has and always will be competitive sport. What has happened in the 80s when I was at school is that the facilities were run down extensively. You should have seen what equipment we used.
This government, in particular, regularly peddle lies about standards in state education because they want to privatise state education. Standards have never been better, and add to that the fact that 62% of our medal winners were state educated. Take out the equestrians and rowers, and privately educated people make up just 10% of medallists. Not much of a return for all that extra money mummy and daddy fork out, is it?
Most private schools ain't all that.
Sports our state school kids won medals in require a pair of running shoes, some boxing gloves or a bike and they faced competitors from all over the world.
It isn't hard to work out why we get more medals in sports where there is less competition but it seems to have escaped the chattering classes.
Just because a sport needs investment in equipment (or horses) does not make it out of reach of working class folk.
Oh and those bikes cost more than most row boats do.
university graduates and the professions and banking. LIMIT THE TOP 20 UNIVERSITY'S TO A MAX
INTAKE OF 10% OF PUBLIC SCHOOL APPLICANTS EACH YEAR FROM OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE TO L.S.E. AND THE SAME FOR THE TOP 20 PROFESSIONS. INCLUDING THE
CIVIL SERVICE AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT. THIS WILL ENSURE THAT THE TOP
POSITIONS IN SOCIETY ARE NOT DOMINATED BY A SOCIAL ELITE.
BEFORE PEOPLE SAY THATS NOT FAIR. NO IT'S NOT . BUT ON OUR ROAD TO A MORE EGALITARIAN SOCIETY. IT'S THE FIRST STEP.
I THINK IF MOST CHILDREN ARE TAUGHT TO READ AND WRITE FROM THE AGE OF 5 YEARS.
HAVE ENOUGH FOOD TO EAT. ARE MADE TO DO 2 HOURS HOMEWORK EACH NIGHT
THEY COULD EASILY OBTAIN SIMILAR EXAM RESULTS TO THOSE OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
WE WERE NO MATCH FOR THEIR UNTAMED WIT. BUT SOME OF THE LADS SAID THEY BE
BACK NEXT WEEK.
Remember the scale and numbers involved are very large indeed, im not saying we should do nothing but whatever we do must work properly straight off and without creating another messy and expensive disaster in the long term. I have no faith in the present goverment, i doubt they could organise a pi**up in a brewery.
My partner teaches at a large comprehensive school in outer London and works around 60 hours per week, ensuring kids work is not only marked diligently but they have meaningful comments to help the student understand what they do well and what they need to improve. The school offers Saturday morning sessions plus half-term revision courses. They care passionately about helping the kids succeed.
Where the merits / brickbats of the two school swap over is in the engagement and drive of the parents. At the grammar, every parents evening and school meeting is attended by almost every set of parents. At the London comprehensive, barely a third of parents (and normally only the mum) turn up to any event. The end of year musical (organised by teachers after school) was attended by 30 people on its first night.
Teachers - whether from private, grammar or comprehensive can be inspirational - but parent's attitudes and aspirations for their children matter more
People who can afford to send their children to private schools are indeed wise to do so, private education works.
More care and attention will be lavished on them and if they are likely to thrive they academically they will do so in a place that nurtures.
It is not only in the interest of a private school to get the most from its pupils, but it is critical to the schools survival, no achievement no pupils, no income.
People who pay for their childrens education, pay for results, not excuses.
Whilst facilities and equipment in private schools are better, they are paid for, they do not come free, are cared for and maintained.
Finally, if teaching Unions had their way, everything would be dumbed down to so they look good.
Stop carping about private schools and do something positive to improve the chances of those who have to attend state schools.
My 9 year old is very, very bright; at least 2 years ahead in her state primary school. It's a great school, but I know she would do well wherever she goes as she has a love of learning......so she excels despite being in a class of 30.
People often ask me if she will take the 11 plus and go to the selective schools in the nearest city; they are also all girls school. But, to me, an education is about more than academic and sporting achievements.........I would rather she had a thinking brain than go to some posh school where they tell you what to think and who to suck up to.
Her cousin goes to Clifton in Bristol...........I'm afraid my daughter is doing better.
Believe it or not the privately educated are taught to think for themselves far more comprehensively than your child will get in any state school. She will be told how to answer questions in the exam and that she should not worry about how something works, just accept that it does and do it. She will be left to her own devices because she can meet the targets without help, so she will rarely be engaged or pushed in any way. If you are lucky she will maintain some self-motivation and do well regardless, but many instead simply stop trying because they get zero support.
In a private school they will support her desire to go above and beyond a basic curriculum in whatever subject she excels in. She will be encouraged to think for herself and to explore her options.
Trust me, as someone who has succeeded to a decent level as an engineering professional despite the kind of state education I described above (massive lack of motivation meant I barely got a decent Uni place, once I got there and found engagement the improvement was exponential), I regularly interact with those who have had a private education and realise I could have done so much more with those opportunities, many of them which could easily have been given in state schools but were not.
Don't know why Yorkshire did so well though Mr Buerk? May be you should be on here extolling the benefits of the White Rose County rather than shilling for private schools.
For Cricket and Rugby it's down to better coaching at private schools which I completely accept is a fact.