Fisking a wilfully ignorant private school parent

It is fascinating to see how many comments and how much passion this short post has created.
Private (aka public, although not all fee-paying schools are "public schools") schools cater for all sorts. Eton is now an academic hot house (apart from Prince Harry) which is why old Etonians will continue to do well in the 21st century. Other public/private schools cater for dimwits, getting them better results than they would at one of Alastair Campbell's "bog standard" comprehensives and adding a bit of "character" as well.
The parents of most pupils at private/public schools pay very large sums out of taxed income in order to get their children a good education, rather than some other purely social advantage. They include Labour supporters, even MPs (Diane Abbott) and ministers (OK I can only name a former minister - Lord Falconer). There is nothing immoral about this.

Others have sent their children to selective state schools (Tony Blair sent his sons miles across London to the Fulham Oratory and Harriet "Equality" Harman sent a child to a grammar school in Tory Bromley. (I wonder where Leo Blair will go to school?) Some spend money on coaching (the Blairs again).

It's human nature to want the best for your children. The simple truth was exposed by Alastair (ex-pornographer) Campbell's refernce to "bog standard" comprehensives.

50 to 100 years ago the Left was heavily involved in encouraging education among the working class. Now it is left to the state through "bog standard" comprehensives.

My father's parents were (a) a village polceman and (b) his wife who left school at the age of 13 when her mother died. Their sons bot got county scholarships to the local private/public school where they flourished (my father was head of school, captain of the first 15 at rugby and won many prizes). They both went on to Cambridge with county funding supplemented by college awards. This was in the 40s. Well done them I say.

For most parents who send their children to private/public schools it is about the certainty of a good education, rather than social class. Academic rigour has disappeared from GCSE and A levels. Someone will know the percentage of those who take A level physics who are at private/public schools - it is very high and quite shocking. The real issue with education today is the collapse in expectations in the state sector.

The reason for sending your kids to private school is partly the other parents. People who pay money for their kids to be educated are more likely to support the activities of the school. So the majority of kids will be encouraged to do their homework and told to do what they're bloody well told by the teacher.

All too often classes in state schools are ruined by one or two troublemakers who get a disproportionate amount of the teacher's attention. Instead of educating the majority of kids about maths or history, the teacher spends too much time getting a minority to shut up or sit down.

Lefty educational theories undermined the authority of schools and teachers and encouraged the view that children can learn as much from mucking about as they can from sitting still and being taught by an older and better who knows more than they do. The decline in authority led to a decline in discipline and private schools that had been in long-term decline were rejuvenated by the demand of ambitious middle class parents.

In state schools, all too often troublesome schoolchildren were and are routinely defended by indignant parents who resent the efforts of teachers rather than disciplining their own kids. Private schools offer an escape from this unfair system.

Of course a universal solution to the problem would return authority of state school headmasters who would be held to account not by local councils that are full of pseudo-intellectual guff, but by parents who are more interested in education than social engineering.

Comrade! Please do not sully this site with your sexist comments! Headteachers, both men and women, are making a fine contribution to equalising the cadres of the future in this part of the European Union. Schoolchildren are only troublesome if they come from underprivileged backgrounds. Personality issues are an irrelevance. As the system gets better and better under New Labour guidelines, Ofsted reports, examination results and Union Issues will demonstrate the increased uselessness of the so called "Public Charity Schools". Please take your Tory views to an appropriate site.

In state schools, all too often troublesome schoolchildren were and are routinely defended by indignant parents who resent the efforts of teachers rather than disciplining their own kids. Private schools offer an escape from this unfair system.

So private school parents don't indignantly march into school and take the teachers to task? Are you serious? Have you talked to any private school teachers lately?

"So private school parents don't indignantly march into school and take the teachers to task? Are you serious? Have you talked to any private school teachers lately?"

Yes I have and of course they do. But like the manager of a restaurant, there's only so much trouble you can accept from a troublemaker. You want their custom along with the party of ten they've brought along. You want them to return in future so you have a busy profitable restaurant. But you must weigh their custom against a) the hassle they cause your waiters putting on stupid Indian accents, knocking drinks over etc. and b) the offence they cause other customers who are thus less likely to return.

Similarly in school, parents are the customers and this gives them the right to question what's happening at the school and where necessary complain about it. But if their son or daughter's behaviour is adversely affecting the rest of the school they will be slung out because it's bad for business.

Well you're changing the argument here, but re

"Similarly in school, parents are the customers and this gives them the right to question what's happening at the school and where necessary complain about it. But if their son or daughter's behaviour is adversely affecting the rest of the school they will be slung out"

A) If the state takes my money and spends it on my behalf to educate my kids, I want the rights of a customer too

B) State schools can exclude children as well.

Phil Mill is right. I have many friends who are teachers who have started their careers in rough inner city schools and, naturally enough, sought to move on to better ones.

The reasons they do so are in a great many ways to do with the parents. In many inner city schools, the parents of troublesome kids are often very anti education themselves and actively encourage the kids to stick up for themselves. This is especially true for those teachers who have spent their entire careers at one school, where they may end up teaching the kids of some of their former pupils. In thi scase, they sometimes encourage their own kids to get the teachers back for some injustice they feel they received 20 years ago.

Its also a bit of a false argument to say that state schools can exclude kids as well. Yes, they can in theory, but in practice there is a lot of political pressure to keep exclusion rates down, and because of Labour's ridiculous policy of total inclusion, what happens is a game of pass the parcel, where troublesome children just go from school to school in the district causing mayhem.

"state schools can exclude kids as well. Yes, they can in theory, but in practice there is a lot of political pressure to keep exclusion rates down"

Not just political pressure. The school will lose the whole year cost of educating that pupil. So a school is penalised if it permanently excludes a trouble maker. Some schools will have an exclusion budget so that they can afford the cut if they have to exclude!

B Bendle, there is a wealth of difference between an assertive parent at a private school taking a member of the teaching staff to task over the quality of education and as I have witnessed, profane abuse, physical threats, and physical violence, because master chav had the temerity to get caught beating up another pupil and/or bringing a knife into school.

Fair enough David.

But I have to say that there are (male) middle class assertive parents who will physically intimidate female staff as well, as my sister, who teaches in a state primary in a wealthy suburb of a northern city, recently found out.

I'm really not trying to get into a working-class good/middle-class bad fantasy here. And I may be thinking more of state than private.

Also I acknowledge that the chavs will do all sorts of terrible things; indeed my sister taught at a sink school before fleeing to the suburban one. The final straw was the heroin abusing father walking into the playground with two rottweiler dogs as he came to reprimand someone.

But equally, there are self righteous middle class parents who themselves do some pretty rotten parenting; it is they more than working class who will turn up late to collect the children expecting that their meeting running late justifies anything, get solicitors to sue for anything they can, intellectually intimidate teachers, and, yes, neglect the children's reading and study at home - then blaming the teacher. My sister now says although there was the threat of being physically hurt by the chavs, the stress caused by parents is similar. In fact I recall her saying that the behaviour of chav dads and better-off middle class ones at sports day was strikingly similar, which probably says more about male psychology than class. Anyway, all this is largely why I am so annoyed by some of the nonsense being posted here. Perhaps I am bring too specific.

I don't think I have much disagreement with you or Phil really. For my own part, I'd prefer to send my daughter to a good comp, because I agree with William Hague that they (good ones) actually give you great advantages in life. However, if I can't get her in one, and I can afford it, it'll be private.

Phil,

Do you think that if people were made more aware of how much of thier tax money was spent on education there would be a difference? If they knew they WERE paying for thier childs education. What do you think?

"Do you think that if people were made more aware of how much of thier tax money was spent on education there would be a difference?"

Yes I do. But making people sufficiently aware of their own stake in an enormous shared pot is precisely the problem socialism always fails to address. Even when the stake people have is also their home, they still treat the place with less care than those who have purchased their house from the local council (I remember this vividly on my own house estate where I grew up - you literally knew if your friends' parents owned their own place from the state of the garden and whether the front door had a lick of paint). There's a pride in private ownership that seems to be missing from public ownership. Perhaps human beings are incapable of the abstraction necessary to perceive things in this more enlightened way.

In any event, the Swedish voucher model seems to offer the best of both worlds when it comes to education. No one is denied a good education simply because of their parents' financial position. At the same time, all the power is with the parents who are genetically-programmed to be more interested in the education of their children than anyone else.

Phil, glad you aknowledged it as a problem to be addressed. I think you may well have made my career in politics.


On a serious note, my mother brought up five children, worked and made sure the council house we lived in was tidy. She loved gardening and planted many beautiful flowers with excellent taste for spring, summer and autumn with attention to detail with colours and complexity.


I don't think you should generalise, I always found that the families who treated thier homes badly were the ones who valued themselves the least.


Thank you for your prompt response.

"glad you aknowledged it as a problem to be addressed"

No, I was trying to get you to acknowledge that it is a problem which has never been addressed and probably never can be.

"I don't think you should generalise"

Sorry, only reporting what I saw with my own eyes. Observations are not wrong because they are also generalisations. And generalisations can still be useful even when there are exceptions (as in the case of your mother).

"I always found that the families who treated thier homes badly were the ones who valued themselves the least."

I wholeheartedly agree. Perhaps those who value themselves more highly were also (and quite independently) more likely to purchase properties than those who valued themselves less. The correlation could be purely coincidental and unimportant but this would be quite bizarre. More likely, people who value themselves more highly look after their homes better, work harder, earn enough and are inclined to purchase their own place (I know people who actually do not want this - don't want the responsibility/hassle they perceive in it). In summary, if working hard in a career and keeping your home in a good state are one side of the coin, earning good money and owning a property are the other side.

We are now long way from the issue of education, from which we branched off over my claim that, other things being equal, people treat their own property with more respect than property belonging to someone else or communally belonging to everyone. I think this basic point is fairly self-evident.

But what we are discussing has implications from the parenting aspect. You failed to note my first comment was light hearted hence the commencement of my second sentence. Next time I shall make it more obvious so you won't have to quote it.


I am glad you agree on the self value issue. I think it can be adresses in some cases. Some people need to be tought self-value (you can't help everyone, that's life) and given the chance to lift themselves to a position of dignity. Your observations are fine, they reflect a failure of community and in some cases of the individuals in questions.


How can those with no self-value instill it in children? To me this is a duty to act.

To enable those who feel disinfranchised, to bring hope to those without it, and in many cases in vain. But it is better to try a thing than hide from it, segregate from the problem, hide from it, be ashamed of it, as many of our fine MP's do.

Just thought I'd add this comment, from Paul Waugh's original post...

(ps-still waiting to hear from Mother dearest. Funny how she calls when you least want her to but never calls back when you need her to!)

And you want us to have people of this ilk in government. The Conservative party is made up of these snobs. How on earth can they relate to the other 99% of the population? This obviously accounts for the huge shortfall in primary school places. Nothing to do with immigrant families, more to do with 21 carat snobs who have fallen on hard times and need their children to slum it with 'ordinary' kids until things improve. I hope this doesn't mean they go to the front of the queue for the places that are available, whilst children who have been on the list for months are left behind.

Posted by: Val Daniels | 17/07/2009 at 07:48 AM

This debate reflects massively on individuals' own formative experiences, the forces which shaped them as people, either in the way that the institution intended, or in opposition to the values and ethos of the institution.

What tends to be lost is the separation between aspiration and reality. This particularly applies to the state sector. I'm glad Alex's school realised its aspirations to be a decent place of learning, and created an environment for balanced young adults. Lots of school have these basic aspirations, but many fail at the most fundamental level, as individual children experience something else entirely. No, this is not a result of sharing a class with those less academically gifted than themselves. It is a result of overcrowding, teachers who are themselves mediocre and complacent, and the dehumanising aspect to having schools with thousands of kids.

We need to be clear, what a school can influence, and what a school cannot. An educational system cannot alone mend a fractured, unequal society. It's not fair or realistic to ask schools to be the only institutions working towards a fairer society. Schools are a part of this - no mistake. But New Labour burdened the schools with the horrendously fractured social reality, whilst largely leaving income distribution unchallenged, an economic system heavily tilted towards the rich. No, schools can't make up a post-Thatcher wealth gap on their own. But that is what people expect.

What a school can do is to value the individuality of its staff and students, to inspire children into learning, sport and culture. And state schools can do this, by using new methodology when it works, by emphasising creativity, and by encouraging self-expression. Many comprehensives have done this, for many people.

In many ways Labour's education policy has been the worst of both worlds, despite the extra money for infrastructure and teachers. I think Ed Balls is doing a rather better job than his predecessors. The overall story since 1997 has been of the reduction of this creativity, in favour of standardisation, far beyond that envisaged by the Conservatives. So the much-derided "60s liberal" approach - actually a representation of a far deeper strand of socialist teaching - has been all but driven out. Accompanying this, the government's support of those on low incomes has not extended to a wider cultural shift in favour of education for it's own sake, aligned with the restoration of the trade union rights to enable different centres of power to be created within society.

We have a country which is profoundly unsure of it's own culture, for much of the time it is rendered unable to represent itself, after a period of extensive socio-geographical change and a process which has seen the bulwarks against fundamental liberalism crumble. In this situation, as always, parents will want to do the best thing for their own children. If the best thing is available - a local school with a mixed, creative approach to learning, great teachers and a degree of tolerance - then they would want to take that option. If this is not available, then they will obviously look at their options.

Thank you Carl for a sensible, class-hatred-free post.

Ask people who have worked in state and private education what the biggest problem is for the state sector and they'll say discipline in the bad schools, and lack of resources caused by excessive bureaucracy. That bureaucracy has two layers: state and LEA. get rid of one and we could bring down class sizes which would improve results. As ever, new Labour has looked for complex solutions rather than simple ones like this.

Oh my what a masterpiece of truth. My only gripe is that Labour had to fight against Tory greed and arrogance in the only way it could; and it did. Now we have to get on and keep making it better which is what Gordon Brown is doing. Our 3 did very well at Ashby de la Zouch schools and had I known how well the 3 of them would do I'd never have put them through the trauma of a private hot house with the ever present threat of having to be taken out if the money runs out.

As an 11+ failure and comprehensively educated pupil, I sent my daughter to a private school and will be paying the fees off for the next 18 years as I remortgaged my house. Living in the inner city the standards are often a disgrace depsite all the best efforts of the staff. While the professions like law and medicine are dominated by public school people, business is not. Infact there is an inverse correlation between high level education and being a millionaire, e.g Sir Alan Sugar.

The main advantage of a private education (and Oxbridge) is the children have a level of confidence at 18-21 that I could only dream of at that age, not the networking. Hence being interviewed for a job they have a distinct advantage.

Alas self discipline, good manners, good diction (not accent) and good wrtten English also allows private kids further to have their CVs at the top of the pile. All these attributes which are not encouraged in state schools, (its their culture innit?) just perpetuates and widens gaps for state schools. Root and branch reform in state schools, especially discipline, reintroduction of grammar schools and assisted places for working
class in private schools is a start.

'Fisking a wilfully ignorant private school parent'

well alex, judging by the majority of the responses either a lot of the commentators are 'wilfully ignorant' or they think the writer of the article is a berk!

Considering the origins for 'berk' comes from the rhyming slang 'berkshire hunt' (and it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to work out what that is rhyming slang for) I doubt anyone thinks the author is a 'berk' at all.

Just thought I'd mention it.

i bow to your knowledge of the origins of certain elements of rhyming slang - any 'unfortunate' meaning was totally unintended on my part and i apologise.

Actually I enjoyed this Article and I think the Author has gained considerable varied response that one would expect from an interesting and fundamentally important subject that means a great deal to us all.

Do you mean Heather McGregor, Paul Waugh or me?

Paul's good; I'm distinctly average; Heather McGregor, not so much.

The collective.

Let me add to the countervening majority: it's only anecdotal, by my experience is that Alex's article is completely on the money.

Myself and the mother of my children were one of the few couples in the organisation where she worked to send our kids to state school. We were frowned upon, even openly criticised for this. When pushed, many of the parents who sent their kids to private school accepted that actually home background is main determinant of academic success (access to newspapers, books, intelligent conversation) and that what they were really buying their kids was access to the 'right kind of people'.

Ten years on, the reality is that with my son gaining a place in Oxford, and my daughter looking like she's heading in the same way, I can see little improvement on the educational performance of the private school children. True, their network might be more exclusive, but is it better than that of my kids, who have met people from all walks of life, who went/or go to racially mixed school which still has beacon status?

I think my kids got a better education, not solely academically, but in the school of life.

And I'd rather play the odds and send my kids to a middle class grammar.

But then I wouldn't choose my kids school based upon political leanings like you.

Guy M. Don't you realise you've said in every other post here that you send your kids to grammar school because of your political leanings?

And you fall into the fallacy of believing state/grammar/private is some three way equal choice. I don't mean to be rude, but I think you need some basic education in this yourself.

Only a tiny proportion of counties have grammar schools, and only 6 per cent of parents can afford/or think it's worth, sending their kids to private school.

Following your logic, you've concluded that 94 per cent of the country support comprehensive state education. That's a good majority. I'll take it.

No I've never said I send my children to a school "because of your political leanings". Please link where you think I have.

I've said I send my kids to a middle class grammar because a school with predominatnly middle class kids has/is:

1 An academically focus

2 More succesful in exam results

3 Good pupil behaviour

4 Committed to the next stage of academic education

I don't see those as "political" points but as reality.

You also have a rather lame argument in "Following your logic, you've concluded that 94 per cent of the country support comprehensive state education." I specifically distinguish between schools that are predominantly middle class and schools that are predominantly working class. Why would I have been saying that for tha last few hours if I meant private v state?

Best reread the posts Peter.

Well, it's alright for you to say that Peter.

Being Grammar School and Oxbridge educated and all that.

How nice of you to look up my CV.

Yup. I spent my teenage years on a council estate, and went to the local state school in Buckinghamshire in the 70s. I didn't sit an eleven plus. My mum, who couldn't have afforded it anyway, paid no fees. Thirty years on the education my kids have had at a state comprehensive has been just as good, and in many ways even better as a preparation for life.

So what's your point here, Mike? Is it that it's "alright for me to say" because I'm well educated enough to know the value of universal free education? Or are you falling for the politics of envy?

Oh no Peter, just the sanctimony of you and the irony of the same said sanctimony from the rest of Labour's supporters versus those that choose private over public.

I think Jarvis Cocker summed it up perfectly in 'Common People'.

Rent a flat above a shop,
cut your hair and get a job.
Smoke some fags and play some pool,
pretend you never went to school.
But still you'll never get it right,
cos when you're laid in bed at night,
watching roaches climb the wall,
if you call your Dad he could stop it all.

Isn't that the point? If it didn't work out in the State system then a quick call and a cheque later.....

Millions don't have that choice.

There's nothing wrong for wanting the best for your kids; I think it's a primal thing. However, choosing not to (assuming one can afford it) over political ideology strikes me as rather foolish.

Let's face it no-one here is going to seriously argue that private schools perform badly against State schools. After all, look at the State intake into the best Universities.

Please don't scream 'Elitism' it's a load of bovine excreta.

I could name plenty of Labour frontbenchers that made the same decision. Thing is, whilst their hypocrisy is galling; their instinct is understandable.

However, there are many parents who do want the best, pay their taxes and put their faith in the system. The overwhelming majority have no choice in who educates their children; worse they have their kids lumped into a bad school and there is nothing they can do about it at all.

What is the one thing that can triumph over circumstance?

A good education. It should be free to all right up to and including post-graduates. It should use every pound spent to maximise the education of our children.

Not 20% skimmed off by the local education authority, not more percentage points skimmed off by pointless targets, mis-directed key-stages; the interest on PFI finance.

After all it's a system that gave us Faraday, Robert Stephenson and later, Frank Whittle, Tommy Flowers.

They share their success with Brunel, Turing & Berners-Lee who were privately educated. However, they all played a major role in shaping our world today.

Because they had a good education.

The answer isn't public v private. The answer is education above everything else and that is the problem; education comes second to political ideology.

Sadly judging by the comment here; education is a very poor second.

It's time to take politics out of education because politics hasn't made education better; it's made it a lot worse.

We need more Stevenson's, Faraday's, Flower's and Whittle's more than anything right now. Just as much as Berner-Lee's, Brunel's and Turing's.

Middle class crowing over 'slumming' it in public schools or risible remarks over middle class people wanting private education is the antithesis of what we really need.

My goodness. Where did that come from? Pop Lyrics and Brunel. PFI to slumming it. You're only a leaf of lettuce away from a complete word salad.

I dimly remember your propensity to cut and paste long quotations from Peter Lilley as a substitute for argument, but I'm frankly stunned by that exorbitant mishmash. It reminds me of those rants about the 'state of the nation' that Tim Brooke Taylor used to perform in the Goodies when I was a kid. All you need is union jack waistcoat and the National Anthem

Lord knows why don't you add Darwin and Babbage and Dickens to your litany, just for fun. (I won't bother reminding that during the nineteenth century 70 per cent of the British population was illiterate.)

I can only conclude that is the result of one glass of wine too many on a Friday night. (Or maybe, given you last comment, a glass of whine.) Perhaps we can continue this debate when you've sobered up.

On second thoughts, your inebriated posts do have the virtue of being funny.

Inebriated or not, I understood everything Mike said and I agree with him.

Because you have some grudge with Mike over what happened in the BNP thread last month doesn't make his comments nonsense, if you bothered to read what he's put, you'd find that there is a point of agreement in there with regards to education. Further to that, he's saying that education should be above party politics and I quote, "A good education. It should be free to all right up to and including post-graduates." How can you argue against that?

Name call and accuse him of being drunk all you like Peter, but his comment was a damn sight more relevant to the subject being discussed and at least it made sense rather than the whinging retort of someone who clearly can't be bothered to read a comment in full or take on a valid point of view without resorting to insults. Care to prove me wrong?

More than happy to take you on, Bill. We've not met before, but you don't have to point to a historic grudge with Mike Thomas to see the point of my reply - all you have to do is read the thread.

You complain about my insults and my failure to read his comment. But I hardly think you're being impartial in your rebuke. My evidence for that:

Item One: this interaction was started not by me but by Mike Thomas, and commenced with perfect example of an ad personam remark about my background.

Item Two: My argument is that my kids have had a great experience at a racially mixed comprehensive in West London. His reply is that because I won a scholarship to Cambridge I can't comment. He's clearly looked this up on the net, but once again this is trolling 101, using personal information about others, while providing no personal information of his own.

Item Three: I reply with a question about the aforesaid personal comments. This is still on the point: does my economically poor but educational successful background invalidate what I say?

Item Four: He doesn't reply to this point, but his post continues with snide comments about my education, framed by Jarvis Cocker, and a completely bad faith accusation that my belief in universal state education is just a stylistic unprincipled pose of 'slumming it'. You call that a 'relevant' argument? There are other comments scattered here and there, but this is the top and tail of what he says - a lame attempt at personal insult.

You say you've read everything Mike read and "you agree with it". Since you don't know me, and have no reason to doubt my good faith, I could find that insulting too.

As I said, I've not had an interaction with you before, Bill, but to criticise my comment for being 'insulting' is so laughably one sided or disengenous, that I'm even amazed I'm bothering to answer in this way.

But in good faith, I will continue. I've now reread MT's post of last night. Hidden somewhere in there are some statements I'd agree with about the importance of education. But that could have been expressed in a couple of sentences. You may disagree, but just on a stylistic or polemical level his post was wild, associative and incoherent, leaping all over the place, from PFI to Alan Turing. Looking at it again today, Mike Thomas' post looks more like a wobbly blancmange, laced (I still suspect) with some alcohol.

Feel free to disagree, but please don't go crying foul like some impartial referee. I've never referenced M Thomas' background, his personal life, or indeed his profession. I have no personal grudge with him, but I have an acute political dislike of most of what he says, and the way he says it. When subject to personal attack by him, I reserve the right to hit back, your one sided interventions notwithstanding. But my main point is political. You may not like my stance, but it's surely a legitimate one on a political blog

Care to prove me wrong?

I've never referenced M Thomas' background, his personal life...

What's this?

For the record Peter, I'm state school educated and from a very working class background.

For every story of a State school delivering what it should - there are many where it doesn't deliver at all.

Failed State experiment (2001)

One Size fits all fails brightest children

Teachers abandoning State school for private rises 4-fold in 15 years

Academies no better than average Comprehensives

Children's talent being wasted in comprehensives

Why has school failed my son?

And the best 'til last.

Sir Jonathan Miller's son blasts him for sending him to a Comprehensive because of his socialist beliefs.

You abbreviated my comment, Mike. I said I reserve the right to hit back when you start personal attacks, though if people read my comment of last night, it's mainly about your politics and style of commenting.

So having explained some of your own background (rather than falsely accusing mine of sanctimony) there's now some parity here. If you'll refrain from personal attacks (and desist from implying other posters are me in disguise) I'm more than happy to debate the failings of state education.

I'm out now, but before I look at those articles (which all come from The Daily Telegraph no less), let me clarify my opposition to the political opinions (when they were not just personal swipes) that you seemed to be expressing.

You seemed to deny there were ANY good state schools. You also seem to be promoting (like Oliver Letwin did recent) a wholescale privatisation of the education system. You've now talked about vouchers, but this is no more privatising the system than the inner market or trusts in the NHS.

I've made my personal commitment to universal free education quite clear. At the moment I have no idea what replacement you are proposing. A return to selection? Privitisation? Vouchers.

We could spend all week coming up with links to contermanding stories that prove the health, or sickness, of comprehensive education. But perhaps we could cut through the thicket if you gave some idea what kind of alternatives you and the Tories really believe in.

Gladly, but out of respect for what Alex has commented below I will keep it brief.

Your reply to Mike contained nothing on topic, it was an unwarranted response to a comment in my opinion, irrelevant of Mike's sobriety at the time. Again, only in my opinion, Mike did reply to you, you just didn't recognise the answer you recieved because you were too busy thinking up witticisms for your reply.

I do disagree with you and I believe that is clear in my reply to you above. You can babble on for hours about one sided interventions or your perception of my reply, but I stand by what I said, you didn't reply to his comment, you simply mocked him, implied he was drunk and insulted him without responding to a single point he made.

On the subject of proving me wrong, to be completely fair you have. Although long winded, you didn't insult or name call me once in your reply to me.

We disagree. Would you like to waste hours of your time and mine on a pointless debate that will ultimately reach the same conclusion and give Alex cause to delete what we have written?

Fair enough. But I did answer his main point, when he cited half a dozen or so excellent 19th pioneers who were privately educated. This was at a time (obviously Pre Butler Act) when most the country was functionally illiterate.

But I urge you to reread his post again, in which you say you "agree with everything he said". The main thrust, your must agree, is the accusation I was 'slumming it' by sending my kids to state school, as if I was some wealthy Bohemosloane who decided to go down market just to be cool.

I don't want to start off on a bad foot with you, Bill but since I lived most my home life in either a council house or a tiny terraced house, sharing a room with my brother and then my sister, I find the fact this false slumming it accusation both trollish and more insulting than anything I said to him. Do you "agree" with that?

In which case we have a big problem.

If you're happy to retract that, then we can leave it at that.

Very good Peter. Take a remark that could be construed as an insult to you and your family, presume he was directing the comment towards you and then make your primary objection to my reply because I "agree with everything he said".

Plausible argument, but not one I'm entertaining.

I really don't believe 'we' have a big problem at all, but I suspect you would like to create one based on your interpretation of Mike's comment.

Please reread the thread Bill. Check out the words "sanctimony". It's quite clear what Mike was saying. But since you clearly don't agree with his accusation about my personal background, I'll take that as a retraction, and we can let this rest as a honest disagreement without personal malice.

Thanks Bill and everyone else, I'm glad others have noticed.

Another great example of Peter's 'style'.

I hope Alex will allow me one last reply on this. You accused me of using a sockpuppet and was proved wrong by Alex. I don't know what ATT made of it all, but I suspect he's laughing.

Oh, and if "everyone else" is Guy M, you're in more trouble than you realise.

This is persona, irrelevant and distracting. All these comments will be removed in the future.

So you complain about cut and pasting, and you complain about not cut and pasting...

Do you have anything of substance to say, or are you just here to critique peoples style?

Shall I paraphrase for Mike?

Peter you are a socialist who uses his kids to make political points about how "old labour values" he is on state schooling.

Private (and selective state for that matter) perform better in general tha bog standard comps

Everyone deserves a good education but the Labour party's incompetance, target setting and red tape have made thigs worse not better for many parents and children

Historically our great thinkers were able to rely on an academic education whatever their background, this is no more.

You are an ass and posturing on how you are somehow morally superior because you used a state school is sickening.


Plus I might add you are the typical old fashioned socialist who should have died out with the dinosaurs. I have no problems in saying your views are political poison and the sooner you are culled at the next election the better.

The very sad thing here is that the reason we sent our 3 privately was not because of the social elitism but because of the so cruel way I was treated in state school because I am Aspergers, (**a bit!) years old and have only just found out after a lifetime on different kinds of tranquilisers and mental doctors and suicide attempts. And I can add most of the people in 12 step programs to that I am almost certain, but the Cambridge Dons don't want to know about it.

I understand Ann. At school I was bloody smart and the other kids gave me hell. Unlike you, in the end I challenged them on my own and resorted to the only language they understood; force.


Sadly as a conscientious person I was felt guilty about the whole business and it left me a very unhappy and angry young man. I never used force to generate fear and I never bullied anyone at school. But I did protect myself and my friends but only after years of anguish and pain at the ruthless and unpleasant individuals who so desperately needed to inflict fear on others.


You must always remember that you are not to blame for the weakness of others and I am sad that you attempted to end your life when you yourself did no wrong. You are seeking to protect the ones you love most and that is to your credit. All schools should be places of learning and any intimidation or cruelty and bad manners should be dealt with discipline in my opinion. When I was at school the teachers were useless and just stood by.

And they are still going to send Gary McKinnon to the American Gulag Ralph and the Labour party should know better.

Yes, they should, but they are not listening to me as I do not advance anybody's career or offer money to them.

The truth is, it's not the working class kids who are the problem in sink schools, it's the parents. They don't give a damn and it soon filters down to their kids. If you have no support from the parents, it is very very difficult to do anything with the child.

I'm afraid that my principles of supporting the state system would always take second place to me getting my children into a decent school (and private if need be).

Easy Charles you are speaking ill of Labour's core vote; or what's left of it that still votes Labour.

Only to an extent. The sort of parent Charles brought to mind for me probably doesn't vote at all.

I should be a bit clearly, I'm talking about the sub-section of society who don't give a damn about anyone or anything. The presence of their out of control children in classrooms completely distorts performance - the borstal would be a better option. Oh and the return of specialist schools for SEN pupils (who are completely failed by the current system).

Charles, i'm not sure if I'm understanding - you're not actually saying that all working class parents by definition don't care about their kids educations though, surely?

B Bendle, while not all are indifferent my guestimate is that 1/3 are. Parent's open evening at my daughter's primary school in Hackney (she was privately educated from the age of 11) was like entering a ghost town. Very few parents bothered to turn up or were motivated to improve the school. Of course there were some parents, especially asian who showed interest but my overwhelming impression was that for the majority school was a child minding service while they picked up their benefits or went to work.

I try to be non party political and be subjective on LabourList but Labour have much to answer for on education, I have had to deal with the reality.

David, I wouldn't dispute any of that for a minute, certainly not the 1/3 figure. To be honest, I've just been a bit shocked by some of the posters here dismissing the entire working class uninterested; it just seems so inaccurate to me. But of course I know there is that large problem element. I don't have much time for them really, and I sometimes think there are those on the left who are more interested in them than the aspiring, hard-working working class who want to better themselves - a big mistake if you ask me.

Re the reality, I'm a parent myself, and my sister is a teacher, so i take your point 100%.

No I'm saying that schools in rougher areas tend to get more parents (and therefore pupils) who don't give a shit. Middle class parents tend not to cluster in those areas and if they do will ensure their kids get to go to schools in other areas.

Of course many parents care in those areas but teach is busy dealing with the kids of those who don't and spending more time on crowd-control than education.

My broader point was that I'd be quite happy for my principles to take a back seat to the education of my children.

Thanks Charles, can't argue with that. Sorry to misunderstand - as I say above, I'm just a bit surprised by the open, crude class hatred from some conservative posters on this thread.

Also to Charles; do you think that SEN children could be gifted Asperger or autisitc and should also be put into a gulag?

I think that mainstream teachers simply don't have the skills or training to deal with the many of the problems that SEN children have and the result is a poor and frustrating learning experience for the child and a feeling of failure on the part of the teacher.

A specialist school with properly qualified educational specialists is, not to my mind, a gulag but your milage will vary.

here in South Korea the opposite is true, between 70 and 80& of families invest a third of thier wage (both middle and lower class) on extra tuition for thier children AFTER school.

This includes, Music, English language, maths oh and Tai Kwan Do (in a big way).

Makes you think doesn't it.

Ralph, do you have any sense then of why poorer Koreans seem more education oriented than their British counterparts? Would be very interested to know.

Yes, thier strength lies in thier devotion to family. The children are tought to show complete respect to the oldest male/female of the family. They have specific events in the year when the children show respect to thier parents and elders and then receive a reward.

It is practiced throughout. There is a legitimate fear within South korea that these values will be lost as they become more westernised. I have to admit I truly fear for them. They have a good situation at the moment, they have the liberal democracy along with thier traditions, I hope they can keep the balance.

Some parents work in factories, some have businesses, some are affluent inherited wealth, but they all devote massive monies into the education of thier children. They want the very best for thier children and have a sense of "harmony" based upon thier confucious (this is deep stuff) philosophy, they don't argue as openly or passinately as we do. When I ask the kids most of them deeply revere thier elders. In the year that I have been here I have seen four pieces of graffitee. I think that says it all.


Respect and honour are still very important out here.


In the Uk the kid with the best trainers is popular, in Korea it's the oldest person.

Well the parent in this article is evidently very delusional themselves about the benefits brought by independent schools. They really don't offer much of "a network - membership of a club". Sure, you might keep in touch with a few old school friends, and they might go on into important positions, but you won't be able to just ring them up to get sorted with a great job for life. There is no secret, "real reason" why people educate their kids privately - look at league tables, and you might see why they do.

And as for the second part: a good parent will do plenty of "hands-on-parenting" regardless of schooling. Any decent parent who cares about their child will want to take an active role in their life and education.

"Decent", "Fair", "Equality".

Those words are backed up by lie, smear and innuendo by anyone that disagrees.

Whenever I see these words used by any Labour supporter; I am immediately suspicious as it means "Tax", "Spend", "Waste".

Mike, I'm not sure if that comment was directed at me, but just to clarify: I'm not a Labour supporter, I'm just saying that independent schools are favoured simply for academic success, not for anything else. If the government wants to "beat" them, it has to make state schooling better. I was also pointing out that the parent who wrote the original article was clearly fairly idiotic and is not a typical "private school parent" - most are normal people who want the best for their kids, not "toffs" at all (though boarding schools are perhaps a different matter).

Many of the best private schools are at the bottom of the league tables.

They have rejected the GCSE and use the IGCSE instead - the government doesn't recognise these in their league tables, so privately educated kids often have no (government) recognised english or maths qualifications.

In this instance Labour have forgotten that when it comes to private schools the parents aren't the usual thick chavs that Labour deal with, people who need the government to tell then what to do and what to think. So private schools don't care about the governments tables.

However the thick chavs are satisfied, because their local bog-standard-comp is 'better' than a private school - just look at the league tables!

Another reason I hate the labour party - its contempt for those who trust it.

"so privately educated kids often have no (government) recognised english or maths qualifications."

That's wrong, it might not be counted for the league tables but the IGCSE is an internationally accepted qualification and is fine for a-level applications or other types of further studies.

Indeed. It is generally accepted as better than the GCSE (hence private schools using it). It is just the government who do not recognise them in the league tables... I wonder why??!!

All its saying is that toffs can make just as poor parents as the chavs. Quelle surprise.

It would indeed seem to be a surprise for some people posting here, Charlie old chap.

Alex, why can't you 'support state schools' and let the toffs get on with what the toffs do? Or you could fisk all the members of the cabinet of the worker's party, past and present, who don't/didn't attend a private school, and more importantly do/don't send their off-spring to one. That should keep you busy for a while.

I moved house into the right catchement area for a grammar school.

I spent time getting my 2 girls into the right feeder school for the grammar and paid for a tutor to prepare them for the entrance exam.

The reasons for this were mainly:

1 The grammar school was academic not vocational in outlook

2 The grammar school would almost exlusively have pupils and parents committed to academic education

3 The grammar school would have parents and pupils largely from my own social class which reinforced point 2.

On top of that the route through grammar and then good university would undoubtedly mean my girls made good contacts with other people/children I'd like them to mix with.

I imagine this sort of thought process is exactly the same reason why many parents use private schools.

You may not like the reality but most middle class parents want their kids educated with other middle class kids rather than working class/ underclass kids and want that for good reasons.

How I've missed Labour list! Here the true voice of petite bourgeois angst can be heard.

You're not middle class, Guy. You're lower middle class. Your whole tone of 'we're better than working class/underclass' bespeaks someone anxious about their social status, and with none of the real attributes of the British middle classes.

My grandfather was one: head of the Law Society in East Anglia. He was an early supporter of the Beveridge report and the Butler. He harboured Jewish refugees during the war. He adopted my mother, whose biological father had escaped the Armenian genocide. He believed in real middle class values; a sense of responsibility to the rest of society: a moral requirement to help those less fortunate than yourself: a sense of stewardship towards the land for future generations: a knowledge that what made a people civilised is a sense of public service: and the understanding that character mattered more than class and background.

He did lots of pro bono work, and was revered in his community. He passed Dr Johnson's famous test "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." He would have despised the post you've just made, and recognised it as the thin skinned snobbery of a man with no real values, and actually, no class.

I see you haven't actually learnt to read yet though.

Schools with a higher middle class intake tend to have better discipline, a more academic focus, better exam results and higher rates of pupils passing onto the next academic stage.

Your father tendences weren't middle class, upper class or lower class, they were socialist in outlook and practice. To pretend otherwise is to once again extend the "morals" of socialism into some "truth" that a lot of us just don't buy into.

As for the "You're lower middle class" comment, i found this description of lower middle class:

"The Lower-middles are a fairly small class of folks. Generally they are white-collar, but extremely low-level white collar. The door-to-door salesman, the local restaurant manager, the foreman or overseer of blue-collar workers. Also included in this class are waitresses, bartenders, checkout clerks, etc."

Is that me? Who knows, my recent roles i.e. Head of Data, Head of Consultancy Services etc. doesn't seem to indicate that to me, but if you feel the need to thrash about with a few badly targetted insults Peter, far be it for me to spoil your fun.

I want my kids educated with middle class kids as middle class parents commit to academic education and good behaviour in schools amongst other things. As has been said, get other social classes to cimmit to those things along with state schools and there's no reason to withdraw our kids from schools without that middle class intake.

Of course you can't do that, as after 12 years in power your lot have made the divide worse not better.

Watch it Peter, you'll confuse them if you start bringing in anything more subtle than two classes, middle and working.

I wonder who the Conservative posters here have in mind when they talk about the rotten working class parents with no interest in their children's education: nurses, maybe? Tradesmen? Farm labourers? Shop assistants?

I fail to see how anyone can say that working class people by definition don't care about their kids' education. On the contrary, many of them will see it as a key route to bettering themselves.

Of course there are members of the working classes who don't value it, and in urban areas where these people have a dominant influence, state schools can run into trouble. There is no point denying that. But the "working class" has many layers, from criminal to aspiring skilled, and the line between "nice" and "rough" is still as important as it was when Marx, for Pete's sake, acknowledged it in the 19th century. The fact that the trolls here don't acknowledge this, preferring to indulge in class hatred, exposes a really horrible snobbery, and may well say a lot about the real nature of Conservatives. No wonder the party made it so hard for Mrs Thatcher, who, for al her faults, did understand the nice/rough divide, far better than a lot of New Labour people do.

"Of course there are members of the working classes who don't value it, and in urban areas where these people have a dominant influence, state schools can run into trouble. There is no point denying that. But the "working class" has many layers, from criminal to aspiring skilled, and the line between "nice" and "rough" is still as important as it was when Marx, for Pete's sake, acknowledged it in the 19th century." may well be true

However, the fact remains that those schools with predominantly middle class intakes get better results, are more academic in outlook, have better discipline and set their students up better for the next academic stage.

You can argue all you like, but faced with that reality what is it you expect parents to do?

Oi Guido, I was objecting to unpleasant, over-generalised and inaccurate class-hatred, not the assertion that schools with more middle-class kids get better results. Obviously I expect people who care about their kids education to try to get them into the best school they can, which as you imply means they will be try to get them into schools with more middle class kids.

My point is that not every individual person who earns below a certain amount, or speaks with a certain accent, or lives in a council house, or hasn't been to university theirselves, or whatever social marker you choose, is badly-behaved and indifferent to their children's education. Saying they are - as you have done - just seems very mean and hateful to me, and I'm honestly surprised to read you saying it.

People have to deal in generalities and not specifics.

Like it or lump it you are generalised into Englsih/Scottish; North/south; white collar/blue collar; ABC1C2DE; middle class/working class.

To a busy middle class parent with a seemingly endless myriad of variables in school selection to weigh up, an easy and basically correct starting point is to say schools with a largely working clas/immigrant intake will not be/have:

1 As academically focused

2 As succesful in exam results

3 As good pupil behaviour

4 As committed to the next stage of academic education


as a predominantly middle class school.

Grammar and private schools only exacerbate the this obvious divide.

Stating the self evident truth that "not every individual person who earns below a certain amount, or speaks with a certain accent, or lives in a council house, or hasn't been to university theirselves, or whatever social marker you choose, is badly-behaved and indifferent to their children's education." does not escape the equally self evident truth of the general group traits between predominatly middle class and working class/ underclass schools

Yeees, this is a somewhat different point to the one that working class people don't care about their children's education. I'm objecting to the posts where you implied all working class people were indifferent to education, not your point re school intakes, which is in any case dodgy as ATT points out. (What about schools with American and South African immigrants? They seem to do pretty well.)

Why do you keep linking working class and underclass as if they are the same thing? You think a nurse is the same as a heroin-abusing workshy chav?

As for the point re generalisations, a) working and middle is an awfully big generalistion, since it splits the country into only two. That's why we have ABC1C2DE and so on, although that too has been unreliable for some time. The important thing in this context is that C2 is very different to E, but you are happy to ridiculously lump them together.

C2 and E are close in that they predominantly support Labour. That is enough for me to lump them all together as supporters of a failed comprehensive system.

ABC1 is a pretty fair macro socio-demographic grouping. They tend to vote Tory, tend to support academic education and tend to support discipline in schools.

You say "working and middle is an awfully big generalistion, since it splits the country into only two". At the next election the ABC1 (middle class) grouping will tend to vote Tory whilst the C2DE (working class/underclass) grouping will tend to vote Labour. That to me splits the country firmly in two.

I've said before I have no time for "common ground", the Labour party/government has done nothing and will never do anything positive for me or my family, I despise them and their political ideology. It's a straight fight to the finish and all I care about is that my side wins.

You really don't know your a**e from your elbow do you? Whether is homophobia, class hatred, or xenophobia, you keep on vomiting up your half truths.

"An easy and basically correct starting point is to say schools with a largely working clas/immigrant intake will not be/have"

As as teacher, I find it despicable and fat ignorant. In fact, students from a Hindu or Indian background perform better than most white kids, middle class or not.

So please go and peddle your nasty lies elsewhere. I'm getting sick of them.

Please link research, exam results and any other evidence you can collate to show that middle class schools do not out perform working class schools on:

1 As academically focused

2 As succesful in exam results

3 As good pupil behaviour

4 As committed to the next stage of academic education

As for the "In fact, students from a Hindu or Indian background perform better than most white kids", yes they do if you take the entire white population, but compare only middle class kids and then you'll see little or no differences.

My girls grammar school is a mixed ethnic and racial school and thrives on it. It isn't a mixed class school in general though.

Keep pushing your left win educational dogma though ATT, only another generation or two of kids to screw up before you realise what a mess Labour and leftwing educational policies cause.

Ah. So you're now dialling back on your 'immigrant schools' smear. Nice one.

A sure sign of your mental instability is this constant digging. So now you have a raft of completely new points. I'll leave others to demolish them because even an idiot can tell this is just a sign of 'selection' and not the performance of individual schools. Many schools in working class areas exceed in value added terms a lot of middle class schools. This is not dogma, just statistics. I get you the links to the tables if you want. My school is about midway up the league. But on the other hand, you seem to have no familiarity with the idea of 'facts' and I'm wasting my precious time.

Not at all.

Look at most inner city large % immigrant populated schools and most middle class parents woldn't go near them with a barge pole.

Ever heard of white flight? Asked yourself why it occurs?

Read the stories about inner London schools and the black on black youth crime, muggings, stabbings and shootings?

Again dream land for ATT, harsh reality for the rest of us.

I note that you fall back on to "value add". Umm the parents I know couldn't give a rat's ass about "value add", they want to know what grades the school's pupils get.

"Value add" doesn't get you a job or university place. Exam grades do.

"Value add" is just another government statistic used in the desperate attempt to get parents eyes off grade scores. It isn't working.

Peter & B Bendle,

Excellent postings ;)


The affluent have nothing to prove but plenty to hide.....

You snotty bastard Guy M, you're disgusting.

If you can show evidence that schools with predominantly middle class intakes don't generally:

1 Have a more academic focus

2 Have better discipline

3 Get better exam results

4 Prepare students better for the next academic level

then go ahead..

If you can't do that, then do explain what parents should do when faced with the above reality?

'--- most middle class parents want their kids educated with other middle class kids rather than working class/ underclass kids---'

all i wanted was for my children to be educated in an environment where effort and aspiration were the norm - the social class was irrelevant

"all i wanted was for my children to be educated in an environment where effort and aspiration were the norm - the social class was irrelevant"

which generally means a middle class environment, which explains why:

"most middle class parents want their kids educated with other middle class kids"

sad but true and a realistic reading of the world as it is. rather than as the hand wringers and tissue tearers think it should be.

Your ignorance is remarkable. You need some exposure to what most state schools are like. Why don't you come with me into my old school? I'll give you a tour? Seriously.

Alex - maybe there are some comps that arn't bog-standard and you were lucky enough to go to one.

Mine was bog standard and useless - unfortunately my family weren't in a position to get anything better.

I gave the state another chance with my own kids - their experience was going exactly the same way as mine - luckily (the harder I work the luckier I get) we can give them something better.

You should check out the figures for school children smoking, that alone should have middle class parents fleeing the local comprehensive.

Smoking, drugs and drink were all strong reasons for su to avoid the local comp as well as the academic education issues.

As the NHS showed in a report, smoking is far higher amongst the working class (you see lots of the local comp 16 year olds with cigarettes and not one from the girls grammar):

http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/documents/smoking_and_health_inequalities.pdf

Please tell me that was a joke Guy?

Do you seriously believe for a minute that teenage smokers are prodominently from a working class background based on dodgy manipulation of data sourced from ASH?

That is the equivelent of me posting up links to FOREST to back up an argument on passive smoking. I'd be hung for bias.

I looked into a lot of dodgy smoking related data (in my quest against the NHS's place in the arch nagocracy that we live under) - it was pretty consistent that smoking is primarily a working class activity...

The middle classes can no longer afford such expensive hobbies - it is really for those being subsidised by benefits.

Why do you bother saying this sort of thing? You're as wilfully ignorant as the last one.

I'll happily answer - which bit don't you like?

I looked into a lot of dodgy smoking related data
I did.
(in my quest against the NHS's place in the arch nagocracy that we live under)
That was part of my purpose in doing so.
- it was pretty consistent that smoking is primarily a working class activity...

That seemed (to me) to be a reliable conclusion that the studies had drawn form the data gathered (unlike some of their other conclusions)
The middle classes can no longer afford such expensive hobbies
Well I couldn't, I may over generalise - do you know families who could add (say) £105 to their weekly outgoings (3 smokers, 20 a day, £5 a pack, 7 days a week) without noticing? Thats about £5,500 a year... out of taxed income (if you are working)...
- it is really for those being subsidised by benefits.
I couldn't afford it, but I see plenty supposedly 'worse off than me' who can...

Of course most of the £5,500 goes to the government so they can recycle it back out as 'increased benefits' and pretend they are doing their clients a favour.

p.s. I have a little pile of weird and wonderful books of research and stats here that I got off ebay to follow the data back to source (horrific I had to *pay* to check figures published by the government!), I also have some emails from various government and research agencies/departments relating to this data...

How does your dictionary define 'ignorant' Alex? I think it must be different to mine...

stating the truth is now "wilfully ignorant"?

Smokers are predominantly working class and/or live in working class areas.

Reread what I wrote Guy. I said teenage smokers, I wasn't talking about adult smokers.

You're so busy correcting other people who haven't read your comments in full that you end up doing the very same thing.

Adult role models Bill, parents etc.

Perfect reason to avoid working class schools and peer groups I'd say.

Interesting link.

It repeats the bogus "17,000 children under the age of five are admitted to hospital every year with illnesses resulting from passive smoking." I fully researched that claim before, it seemed such a definite and unchallengable claim, that I was intrigued where the figure came from. The original data doesn't support any such claim!

However as it supports my argument, maybe I'll just go with it eh?

Part of the research that gave the 17,000 figure pointed out that smoking among adults is heavily biased towards the working class, and that parental smoking was a strong indicator of a child starting to smoke.

However it also noted that smoking among children was actually pretty evenly spread between working and middle class kids - and suggested that this was because non-smoking middle class kids were mixing with smoking working class kids and picking up the habit from them...

Drink, drugs... could well be the same (if they can afford them).

p.s. Researching the 17,000 figure really opened my eyes to the complete baselessness of the 'evidence' that government action is based on (there is no reason to believe that any other figures are any better), you really wouldn't believe how bogus that figure is... One factor (not the worse) was the fact that part of that figure is based on a sample of about 1400 children of which 37 were admitted to hospital (for all reason) reprocessed and eventually multiplied up to give a national 'passive smoking' figure !!). It was based on a level of risk based on whether the mother smoked - not whether the smoking (let alone passive smoking) was actually cause of the admission etc... This is the kind of stuff that the government use to spend billion of pounds of our money - extorted from us as tax... Just so they can stand up in parliament and be smug about how much of our money they have wasted on non-existent 'good causes'.

Guy, you do know that drink problems are higher among the middle classes? Cheers!

Glasgow must be a haven of sobriety then

?

If you don't believe me, here are a few well-known left-wing sources on the issue:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566292/Middle-class-are-biggest-abusers-of-alcohol.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2666587.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-513443/Brainy-people-higher-chance-developing-alcohol-problem-say-scientists.html

http://news.scotsman.com/health/Scotland39s-Alcohol-Shame-Hungover-middleclass.4061327.jp

I well remember these reports when they came out and almost laughed myself into oblivion both on the research, the fact Labour wanted to "save the middle classes form alcohol abuse" and from the general responses from the middle classes on sites.

The responses could generally be grouped as "f off you damn nanny statist socialist idiots".

As far as I'm aware you don't see middle class parents knocking back high alcohol content beer on street corners, they aren't roling about on the floor outside night clubs on a Friday and Saturday night etc.

This was a bit of research that was rightly regarded as having been talked up through political motivation for the Labour government to take a stern tone with the feckless, absent parent middle classes who were clearly in too much of a drunken haze to get to work on time.

Seriously if this is the best you can do....

This is a usual troll tactic on LL - argue until presented with the evidence, then attack the evidence. It's what people who prefer to be governed by their own prejudices and assumptions rather than real life do. Whatever, Guy.

Well I don't know what other middle class parents *really* do; but what ever it is, everyone else should be doing the same.

Stop looking for random reasons to criticise the middle class - just accept that they are doing pretty well, and encourage the working class to copy them.

First step - encourage the working class to copy the middle class by voting to get rid of this damn labour government (as if they need any encouragement!)

"Evidence"????

the evidence basically states that more than 11 units of alcohool a week puts you in serious danger of alcohol related diseases. If that is the case there is a ticking time bomb of liver failure through a large proportion of the UK population.

The NHS will be swamped in a few years time. Alternatively nothing much will happen and it will be just another stupid lone government statistic.

Sorry but this is nanny state Britain as run by Labour going into overdrive.

Now decent hard working families are no longer safe in their own living rooms as Labour wants to control your behaviour there as well.

I have no issue if anyone wants to smoke, drink, eat or drug themsleves to death if they do so in their own space and affect no one else.

the fact you think this is worthy of government shows just how oppressive this country has become under NuLabour's jackboot.

Whatver, I tire of this leftwing claptrap. Please please please send you kids to the local comp and feel good with yourself for your "moral" decision.

I and other middle class parents like me will avoid the sink estate comps, the working class comps and all the little chavs and oiks those schools push out on to the streets.

As Marx intimated it's class war, there is no middle ground between Tory and Labour. There is no understanding or common ground between middle and lower classes. It's just a straight fight to see who is in control.

Cheers to that.

When you show me the vast majority of state schools getting good exam results (and not by making the exmas progressively easier as Labour have done), being academic in outlook and having good discipline then a lot of middle class parents might think again.

As for the middle class / working class issue, I would like my kids to have good role models career wise and however you want to put it middle class parents are better career role models for a bright child than working class parents.

Both my kids are at RAF cadets. It's funny but even though the cadets are open to all, the majority of kids there are from middle class backgrounds. That ethos of military cadets and academic education is far more prevalent in the middle classes than the working classes and is a major reason why the middle classes want to keep to their own.

You need to solve the problems of academic educational splits and behaviour problems rather than denigrate middle class families for their choices and sacrifices.

Now I know you're delusional Guy.

So RAF cadets are filled with middle-class children are they? Maybe your local branch of RAF cadets are filled with the middle-class from the surrounding area, but if you really believe that military cadets are far more prevalent in the so-called middle classes than elsewhere, you really need to get out and about. Your claims about the 'middle classes' are getting more and more outrageous by the day and are so detached from reality it is making me wonder about you Guy.

Out of interest, when was the last time you were at a military cadet camp Guy? You know the ones, usually held in summer and bringing cadet groups from all over the country into the one spot.

The RAF cadets my kids attend have as a large part other kids from the areas grammar schools.

It's not a positive or negative just a fact from the evidence of who attends.

As a point about "if you really believe that military cadets are far more prevalent in the so-called middle classes than elsewhere" the cadet force themsleves have said they are looking to run a course of visits to try to get children from other social backgrounds in. It's nothing to do with me, but if the cadet force themselves see a need then that sort of provides evidence a lot of middle class kids are using it?

it's another of those uncomfortable facts that you see when you drive up to pick up the kids from the airfield, but which those on the left want to pretend don't exist.

Sorry Guy but you're wrong, I know you're wrong on this one.

The cadets are constantly running campaigns to get membership from all social backgrounds and to my knowledge have done so for at least the past 20 years. You may see a mass of middle class at the airfield, but that doesn't make it a middle class club as you're seeing one airfield in one area. Actually you could visit a number of airfields where you would see kids who have reasonably well off parents, but I could take you to a number where the kids come from fairly urban environments and who's Dad used to be a milkman, now works in Ikea.

The only thing uncomfortable is how narrow your view is on the world where what you see is magically duplicated across the nation. The one pretending here is the person who can't see what is north of the Watford Gap.

No I can't see what's north of the Watford gap and you know what? I don't care.

If the cadet force nationally is far more diverse then good for them. Makes me even happier though that my kids are in one of those leafy non urban airfield cadet groups.

Thanks for the warning though, I shall think twice before signing off on any camps now.

You beggar belief, you really do. Now in addition to anyone who is gay coming into contact with your kids we have anyone from a different social background.

You're doing a wind up Guy, you must be. I don't believe that anyone in this country, other than those who openly admit to being window-licking mentalists, would narrow down the experience of thier children so much. You may have different views from me on a wide range of subjects, but you're not a window-licking mentalist, so you genuinely baffle me with some of your comments.

As I said before, none of my business how you choose to bring your kids up and by all accounts it sounds like they have a good life with plenty of opportunities for the future. Just hope they never step outside the comfort zone you've put in place as the world isn't quite as forgiving as an argument on an internet blog.

You don't have to care what is north of the Watford Gap, but over half of the country exists past that point, it does exist so it makes many of your arguments about the middle class appear naive at best. Oop norf as you often put it isn't all flat caps and whippets on a string no matter how many times Jeremy Clarkson writes it in a book.

You're doing a wind up Guy, you must be

Yes, I've also considered the sockpuppet hypothesis - perhaps Guy is a LibDem arguing against Labour, posing as an extremist Tory in order to cast suspicion on Cameron's "caring conservatism"?

Reluctantly, as further evidence has come in, I've had to conclude that Guy is simply barking.

"barking" as in I don't agree with you.

Because anyone not agreeing with anything you say must be "barking" musn't they?

My father was from Blackpool and I spent a lot of time up there.

However the more I read LL, the more I become convinced that the UK I wish to live in is a fairly middle class "southern" viewpoint.

I don't want to be near council estates, social housing, nor have my kids "hang" with kids from those estates and social housing.

If you really can't get your head around the fact that there is a fairly clear difference in value sets between the middle class communities and working class / underclass communties then we will never understand each other.

Voting intentions are firming around class groupings and from my point of view it is a clear fight. A middle class, education focused UK led by the Tory party or a working class /underclass reality tv /celeb focused UK run by the Labour party.

It's a fight so important that I have no time for trying to find commonalities, but would rather drive Labour and socialist ideology and ethos into the ground as hard as possible.

Okay, I don't view it as quite so black and white as the picture you're painting, but to a degree I can at least see clearly where you are coming from.

Could I ask one question and something you answer quite directly without shirking to a 'don't care' viewpoint?

What class am I in your opinion?

You've read enough and seen enough, and I hope I've been fairly honest in my comments, so you should be able to determine my class fairly accurately. You may also be able to judge what type of school I attended. It has little or no bearing on our differing viewpoints, I'm interested in your view on this Guy. As I've said a few times, it isn't me being funny, genuinely interested.

Let's all hang out together and learn nothing from anyone else and not mix with people who, God forbid, might be different!

It gives kids a very blinkered education, both socially and academically.

I always said the best thing about my school was that on your left you've got wealthy kids from Highgate and on your right there's an orphan from the Congo.

Now that's an education.

No it's called not having your kids in schools with a group of other kids who have no committment to education, whose parents have no commitment to education and who disrupt lessons and learning day in day out.

Alex, when your precious Labour government actually improve state education and discipline in schools so that they near grammar and private schools you might find middle class parents going back to them.

My kids mixing with other middle class kids (or many races by the way) and going to an unashamedly "academic" school will mean they will likely do far far better than going to the local bog standard comp that you propose.

Guy M - commitment has only got one t. Don't try and edit your comment because this will still be here!

No 'commitment' had two t's - one in the middle and one at the end.

Funny must be on the spelling b site... Thought I was on labourlist...

Ann, then why do you spell commitment with two 't's yourself? (As most of us do, indeed.)

But I agree that three are a t too many.

"Guy M - commitment has only got one t. Don't try and edit your comment because this will still be here!"

So does "pedantic" Ann

LMFAO. Commitment has two T's Guy. Just not three.

You are becoming a laughing stock, you do know that. I would score you D minus for grammar and spelling. And here you are raving about how good your schooling is. Comic relief.

Dear ATT, please read again and you'll see the comment:

"Guy M - commitment has only got one t. Don't try and edit your comment because this will still be here!"

is in speech marks as it references Ann Andrews who said it 3 posts above.

Perhaps you should address your comments to her instead?

Also I think you realise that Ann's comment about the "t" was refering to the number following the "commi_", then maybe you are rather slow so perhaps you didn't.

It seems "pedantic" also applies to you.

By the way shall I collate all the posts you haven't responded too? I guess you are having trouble managing some of the arguments?

I especially liked the "That's science" post from you, firstly because you wouldn't know "science" if it came up and kicked you on the backside and secondly due to the marvellous inanity of your point.

Finally ATT, you are right my grammar and spelling slip as I type very quickly and don't use a spell check or review my posts before hitting "post comment". I simply don't place enough importance on a blog to worry about every little potential mistyped key.

Spent an awful lot of time on this site today for someone who supposedly has such a high profile job, haven't you?

Guy, I think you're just a parody of a right-wing extremist. I can no longer believe you're 'real' because nobody in this country could seriously be as retarded or as backwards as you pretend to be.

I was in my office yesterday (see any posts from me in office hours) in meeting pretty much all day from 10am until 5pm.

I shall be back in my office next Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday (probably) when again I'll probably be too busy to comment during the day

Today, next Monday, Friday and maybe Thursday I'll be working from my home office and free to post.

It's sad that the reality of 21st century remote working has passed you by monkey.

I thought you said you worked a 40 hour week in the office?

That would work out 8 hours a day Monday to Friday.

When you tell too many lies, you get caught out. Just like you're getting caught out with your never-ending boasts about how supposedly 'high-flying' your children are.

Reading your comments, people would think you're some kind of highly intelligent, dynamic high-achiever. Yet reading your comments, it's apparent how incredibly ignorant and boorish you are, and as a commenter above pointed out, you have absolutely no class or dignity whatsoever.

Please post where I said I "worked a 40 hour week in the office".

You won't finding me saying that anywhere as I don't work 40 hours in my city office.

If you can't read and remember posts that's your business but don't assume everyone is as dull as you clearly are.

Umm "high flying kids"? There are both at grammar school, one is in NAGTY (not that it's worth much now) and that's about it. So you think grammar school is evidence of "high-flying"?

That's a perfect example of the dumbing down of expectations educationally under Labour I'd say.

I note you don't post during working hours? I suppose pc internet access on the dustcart you man isn't feasible?

"I note you don't post during working hours?

That's probably because some of us actually have jobs rather than just pretend to.

You're a wind-up Guy and you've been caught out. Now that your routine has been found as fake, why don't you kindly piss off and allow this forum to become a serious place for debate again?

Usual brainless post from you Monkey.

My city office is based near Chancery Lane. I have the options of Farringdon and Chancery Lane tubes as a stopping point but often walk in from Temple.

As I've pointed out, 21st century, senior manager, I work remotely a lot of the time. That allows me to work whatever hours at whatever times I want. Often that means sitting working at 10pm at night as the mood takes me.

You place everyone in the context of your experience. It seems clear that you aren't that well educated and you don't have a particualry high graded job.

It's a bit akin to me walking into my company postroom and trying to explain my working life.

Seriously you continually make an ass of yourself. Just because you can't grasp remote working or senior management work arrangements doesn't mean they don't exist.

I despise you for your militant gay rights views which I'm happy to say I'll oppose 100% in every walk of life from now on. I am, however, beginnig to despise you for the simple fact your are dumb. Congratulations on that.

It would help if the so-called moderators at this site started doing their job.

It's much better than it was a couple of months ago.

Mike

I think the moderators are probably wetting themselves at having such a popular and dynamic and cr*p free site (although to be fair we don't know what they block).

Did you see labour list under the 'previous management'?

Being freelance my availability is unpredictable - so I am careful about where I spend the time I do have. But when I do have time labourlist is quite high on my list of places to p*ss people off.

Since Stains f'd me over a story I gave him - I am no longer a regular at order-order, and pure labour/tory sites tend to be full of 'we all agree' vs one or two pure trolls.

Mind you, I think it is fair to say that labour supporters who dissent from the parly line no longer bother to say so, while tories (with an imminent victory ahead) are working their nuts off to register their opinions before camerons pm'ship rolls over the starting line.

But here on labour list (4/5 non-socialists) vs (unlimited socialists) it is a far more balanced argument.

Mind you, once labour are where they deserve to be (in the dustbin of history as a poor opposition, fading and passing the batton to the lib-dems (ha ha!)) I wonder how many non-labour bods will bother to visit?

I am here because I hate the socialism that is being forced upon me - once that is gone, I have no reason to complain or take its supporters to task...

Actually, I rather approve of the "light touch". Even if it did mean that the gay posters here suffered an unwarranted and vitriolic stream of attacks on all the threads relating to LGBT issues over Pride weekend. Sometimes it's good to be reminded how far we've come, and how much work there still is to do before full equality becomes completely unremarkable.

Goodness, I was almost tempted to become activist again - in a way I haven't felt since the protests at the introduction of Section 28 ! Sometimes, it's easy for me as a fully-out gay man for over 30 years, whose battles for acceptance at work and socially were fought and largely won many years ago, to forget just how oppressive a minority of people still are.

Good, because the approach of you and others like you has pretty much convinced me to take the opposite position to what your "activist" groups say 100% of the time.

As to the "vitriolic stream of attacks", perhaps you could remember the position where anyone not signing up to your views on gay marriage and gay adoption was bigot, homophobe and closet homosexual.

You and yours are so damn blinkered that anyone might have a moral opposition to your views that even now you play the victim.

I don't want gay marriage due to amoral standpoint

I don't support gay adoption as the equal of heterosexual adoption due to a moral standpoint

When confronted with those positions all you and your fellow "activists" due is revert to name calling.

Personally irrespective of your "sexuality" I wouldn't hire, work with or socialise with you and those other posters of your ilk on LL, simply because I despise you.

As TT says, your group and activist base has got into peoples faces for far too long and has got away with branding all opponents to your "rights" in pretty nasty terms. So you deserve it in the neck time and time again and if it gets little too hot for you then stfu and stop aggravating people.

"So you deserve it in the neck time and time again and if it gets little too hot for you then stfu and stop aggravating people. "

Actually, I'm not part of any group, no longer really consider myself an activist, and have never been part of the "gay scene". I'm often accused of being "straight-acting" by the more radical elements ...

As for "who started it" - well, lets just say there are occasions when it's a bit ... I dunno, I guess "uncouth" to go steaming in: Pride weekend under a specific guest editor is arguably one such.

Another such is, for example, Remembrance Day ... if you survive that long, I suspect that you'll start foaming at the mouth if there's a concerted Pacifist campaign here!

Peaceful co-existence is easy.

But when one group start 'asserting' themselves, they can hardly pretend to be surprised when the other group feel they have to go onto a similar footing.

IE, man if you worked for me you'd be fired by now.

Well fortunately I'm at a level career wise where there's not much chance I'd be working for you Alex.

That's a relief

Working or free to post?

If you don't place enough importance on a blog, why are you on here everyday boasting about your job, your class, your kids?

You know what they say about holes? Once in them, stop digging. Though in your case continuing at this rate will soon land in Australia.

Oh dear, how did:

"I simply don't place enough importance on a blog to worry about every little potential mistyped key"

become

"you don't place enough importance on a blog"?

Selective use of partial quotes and willful stupidity makes me suspect you work at Labour HQ?

I do not propose bog standard comprehensives and I do not think comprehensives are bog standard. But I think you're a product of your own thinking on this. Your idea that you want your girls to mix purely with middle class kids is the reason they too will grow up to think that all comprehensives are inferior.

Open your eyes, get into a school, these places are incredibly vibrant, mixed, passionate places that do a huge amount of good for all classes.

Then the educational results will match, their teachers will promote top universities and they will resist moves to introduce vocational diplomas then?

They will recommend what's best for that child, dependent on that child's needs and tailored to that child's desires.

Will they? Or will they try to show that they're trying to meet Tony's "50% in higher education" target by pushing kids who don't need/want it down the academic route? I remember seeing an article on the BBC a while back which quoted a child (from a comp) as saying "I didn't really want to go to university but my tutor said I kind of had to" - well that left me open mouthed, I have to say.

Which is exactly what we did by getting our kids into a very "middle-class" grammar school.

I'm glad we agree.

http://www.futurefirst.org.uk/About/AboutFutureFirst.aspx

You do what you feel's right for your children. That's great. Where we disagree is that I think it's better for children to be exposed to different strands of life, not the "membership club" spoken about by Heather McGregor.

Tony Blair, Harriet Harman, Diane Abbot, Ruth Kelly, Trevor Phillips etc.

All sent their kids to other than the local bog-standard comp.

Cold you explain why they took those decisions?

No, to me that's inexplicable.

No offence, but if you really can't comprehend their reasoning then maybe there is a flaw in *your* understanding of the situation?

I would bet you a penny to a pound, that if those people didn't have kids they would absolutely swear blind that

"if I had children, of course they would go to the local comprehensive"

When it comes to principles, I don't trust the word of a socialist alone - because whenever they are forced to show us the evidence they generally turn out to be liars. "Do as I say, not as I do" is their only motto.

No, I think they were wrong to make those decisions. I think they would have found that their children would have had superb educations in their local comprehensives, as I've found in the two schools I've worked in and those I've attended.

I appreciate that when you become a parent, you want the best for your children. To me, that means bringing them up through a school that exposes them to different measures, different aspects of life, new social environments.

If Blair et al were too middle class or too blinded or lacking in faith in the state schools they helped to create, then more fool them.

I think it says more about those people than it does about the quality of schools in this country.

I find it fascinating that the posters here who decry comprehensives the most are the ones with the least experience of them.

My kids comprehensive is amazing. The teachers get stellar results. They're smart (often dressed in Armani suits too) and really engage the children in all aspects of learning - not just the curriculum but sociability, responsibility, decency, and respect to others with a different heritage.

I truly think this equips my kids with an insight into the modern world, and an ability to succeed either professionally or personally with the diversity of this nation and the world.

I know some people have had bad experiences of state schools, but I've had only good ones. My experience of the privately educated, though I have many friends who are, is not so good though. They tend to have a partial and fear driven view of people they don't know or understand.

I'd call that a poor education.

Then do post all the evidence that shows state schools with prodiminatly working class intakes exceeding on exam results state (often selective) and private schools with prodominantly middle class intakes?

I think my kids will be equipped "with an insight into the modern world, and an ability to succeed either professionally or personally with the diversity of this nation and the world" better from attending a predominantly middle class grammar with middle class friends than a predominantly working class sink estate comprehensive.

By all means though, you take your kids and go to whatever school you want as I don't think middle class parents will pay one iota of notice to your argument. Best just leave us alone then as we are quite happy with our choices at the moment thanks.

I am delighted that some kids in the state system get a good education - but they are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. They are sorted, fine, now forget about them they require no further attention - and concentrate on the kids who are let down that is where the attention needs to be.

If you local comp is so good I am sure there are people lining up to lie about living in its catchment area (and probably being bugged and spyed upon for doing so), it probably puts up the value of your house too - good for you.

Now the cr*p comprehensives... I am lucky (the harder I work the luckier I get) enough to have the choice for my kids. And I want choice extended so everyone can abandon bad schools - give the parents £10,000 a year per child towards their education and let them all choose.

Whereas the left want to remove choice and force me to use the local comprehensive.

I can tell you now my kids won't be going back there - if that was the only option we would be selling our beloved home and moving to another county/lea and different catchment area...

Watch the prices rocket as we gentrify areas around good schools and force all the labour voters in to the cr*p ones.

Agreed. It speaks volumes about "those people".

'Could you explain why they took those decisions? '

'No, to me that's inexplicable.'
but we all know why they took these decisions - 'because they could'

Could I suggest then that when finally faced with the reality of providing less than the best than they could for thier own children, their duty to their children won out over a set of political principles that are best suited for "telling" rather than "doing".

In all cases I think you'll find they thought the education they chose was a better start for their kids than the local comp.

It does seem to strike me as a spoof letter.

However, the best schools invariably attract the worst element of the competitive pushy parents. Is that a big deal? If Labour are happy to encourage mediocrity in State schools; it's a bigger and greater advert for private education.

I think the whole State v Private argument is pretty much settled. Chucking money at the State system has not brought results. It's time to change the system.

It's not a spoof - she writes for the The Spectator and FT.

'It's time to change the system. '

agreed, but all the time the focus is on achieving 'equality' by reducing standards to the lowest common denominator, there will be little or no improvement in the public sector.

every time an education minister refers to 'world class'and 'better than ever exam results' you can be sure he is praising mediocrity

perhaps change could come about by introducing a voucher scheme and letting parents have a direct influence in driving up standards - although as this would diminish the role of central and local government i can't see it ever happening (and the tories will be no different).

I think the whole apparatus of the State should be shrunk. The DoE sets a 20-hour a week curricula, three key stages and inspects schools once a year. That's it.

The rest should be left to schools to manage and organise. The money follows the child; parents could opt to top it up with full tax relief.

Standards would rocket.

Alex,

You have missed the entire point - Pauls article was an ironic and sarcastic dissection of an article that he believe to be a parody/fake written precisely to give people like yourself some ammunition to attack parents with children at private schools.

My boys went to a local primary school which our eldest survived, but made our youngest miserable.

When going to secondary school one of my eldests 'best' friends said that he would be dropping my son as a friend because my son is very 'bright' and would be 'bullied'.... some friend... (thats chavs for you).

After a year of being held back in the senior school (maths not even streamed for the first year) and having watched his massive enthusiasm disappear and start to turn to boredom and distain for the state school system system - we found a private school with a brilliant headmaster who was *eager* to have our son in his school. When our youngest finished his miserable primary education he too moved to the same private school.

We are plundering the 'collage fund' we have been saving since before they were born to pay the fees - but both are happy and despite being very bright, are being challenged in class. In fact the school takes great pride in getting the best out of every pupil - in contrast to the local bog standard comp that sees bright kids as a 'problem' and is probably delighted that we have taken our problem children away from them.

Labour promised help for bright kids - do you know what it is? A magazine every few months from the 'gifted and talented' something or other... ha bl*ddy ha...

Make the LEA hand over the £20,000 a year that it receives for my kids and the state education can f'off and die for all I care.

"Pauls article was an ironic and sarcastic dissection of an article that he believe to be a parody/fake"

Eh? He clearly states that he has confirmed she/the feature is authentic. As can anyone by reading her equally batty pieces for The Spectator. If anyone's interested, the one about paying the nanny is a real cockles-warmer.

I have yet to see a government show some damn backbone and address bullying. That is what we are really talking about here and I am sorry for your kid's experiences.
I have tought and as an ex-forces chap, I had no nastiness or bullying in my classes. I didn't tolerate it.

That means no children laughing when a wrong answer is given, I hold the view that in learning mistakes are good as they help us learn...how many times does a baby fall over as he/she learns to walk?

Any dominant individuals are given the rules straight away and made to understand who the teacher is fast.


Then we get to the business of enjoying ourselves and learning.

Now imagine a whole school like that.

Imagine a school of around 400 pupils with a headmaster than knows every childs name (and probably all the parents names). Where every teacher is committed to the same purpose - to get the best out of each and every child.

The schools unofficial motto could easily be "instilling a life long love of learning" - and they are living up to it.

And all this for about the same cost as a state education.

No wonder the lefties hate private schools so much - it puts the lie to all their fanciful, collective dreams.

Now if only we could have back the money we have paid towards a state education for our boys...

The kids in my school were private students, but I treat them as children and would do so in a State school as well (if alloewed in England), but I think teachers hands have been tied in England due to the history of crap teachers in the past. There will always be bad and good teachers. There will always be ethical and unethical students. But teachers should have the support of the parents and government in giving thier children the chance to feel great about learning.

To do so free of fear and intimidation, but not rules and measured (by strict rules) discipline. "Discilpine is a freedom".

I don't know all of my childrens teachers well, but I trust the headmaster and his choices/decisions - the school is part of his life, part of him.

One teacher in the school tried to retire a few years ago - but (on the insistence of her pupils who were staying on) then agreed to stay on to teach them (just one class) through the six form to A level - she finally retired fully/for real just a few weeks ago.

And all for the same price as a cr*ppy state education.

In a state school, trusting the headmaster would count for little, the unions are in charge of staff. And the head could change any time, the heads career is part of his/her life... not a particular school...

Actually, maybe the saddest part of my eldests' time in the local comp was after my wife and I meet his maths teacher - he was an ex-pupil of the school who had moved through, done well, one to university and come back to teach in that very same school (a real, new MATHS teacher!!), he was a great young guy and very enthusiastic about 'putting something back'... but as a newish teacher who was known to older siblings of the pupils he was teaching, he was disrespected and bullied to the point that he later quit. How tragically sad is that?

"Labour killed Mr Chips", "Ms Jean Brodie savaged by Gordon Brown"

My god (if I had a god, other than my family), that school is sh*t and a dark pit for any dreams or hopes - just like all the other state schools I have come across...

My eldest girl was in NAGTY, the "national academy for gifted and talented youth".

When she was fist accepted she went on a week long residential course at age 13 to study theoretical maths at warwick university with a lot of international students her age.

Last year NAGTY funding was cut and support for it as an institution was withdrawn by Labour (probably as it wasn't "progressive" enough for them) there are no more course and all my kid receives now is the "magazine" you describe. Fortunately she is at grammar and getting pushed.

How Labour can attack private and selective schools whilst with the sort of nonsense like NAGTY hanging around their necks amazes me.

looks like you daughter fell foul of of governmet education policy or 'equality of access to mediocrity' as we have come to now it.

perhaps a labour minister (or former pm) or an mp would like to comment on how they sent their child to a 'bog standard' comprehensive and not a fee paying or a very selective rc school and how pleased they are with the result

No, Paul doesn't believe it to be fake. That's the irony. Paul's is not incredulity or faux horror, and neither is mine - because people really do think that way. Icnluding Heather McGregor.