Gud Edukashun

[Dryce]

If we accept, however grudgingly, that - as things stand - children in state education have either to work harder or simply have greater natural ability in order to achieve the same results as their counterparts in public schools, then it's difficult to argue that their results should not be weighted to reflect this. Some would see this as going some way to redress the balance. Not an ideal way to resolve the situation - it's tinkering, after all - but a pragmatic way of doing something to level the playing field.

Well what are you begrudgingly accepting:

1. That state schools don't perform?
2. Or that pupils don't perform in state schools?

If state schoos are not performing then the students coming out clearly have an inferior education. 'Fixing' the results doesn't solve this - it simply camouflages it.

OTOH if pupils are not performing in state schools then they stiull have an inferior results .... ditto on fixing the results.

The solution is to fix the schools. There is a simple way of doing this and that is to provide a tiered system. But that's not acceptable to our educational intellectual elite.

So their solution? Bodge the results.

The reality of bodging the results is that it will matter even more where an 'A' pass comes from. Employers and universities will adapt so that an A* from Rottencaster is not worth the same as an A from Notsobadborough.

And that undoes the system at the core because a good pupil who earns a genuine A* from Rottencaster will be seen as inferior.

The law of unintended consequences that the liberal do-good bodgers tend to always overlook.

 

[Charles Morgan]

Oh dear, that won't go down at all well. Where on earth would Cambridge get its oarsmen from?

Harvard, as at present.

 

[finisterre]

The failure to provide universal state education to a high standard is one of the greatest tragedies of the modern era in this country.

It annoys me. The will is there in the workforce. I think the problem is more cultural than institutional though. In my view parking kids in front of the telly has to be a huge part of the problem. I would close CBeebies, Citv, nickleodeon, the lot. Make parents interact with their children.

 

[finisterre]

1 Like most establishments the quality of the school will be a direct reflection on the leader, good headmasters do not run bad schools, equally good teachers will not allow ill discipline or lack of achievement in their lessons.

2 Unfortunately the state sector is not well blessed with either and this is reflected in the poor standards under all governments.

3 I believe the teaching establishment have decided they dont have the skills to develop numeracy and literacy so have pushed soft subjects that fail the pupils.

1 I have to say that for some children achievement is using a spoon.
2 how do you know?
3 hmm, that has to be upside down. Or are you talking secondary?

 

[finisterre]

The solution is to fix the schools. There is a simple way of doing this and that is to provide a tiered system. But that's not acceptable to our educational intellectual elite.

For several good reasons. I agree the grammar system looks like it produced some social mobility but at quite a high cost.

 

[corned]

Does it make you loose your cool?

It doe's!

 

[MOCAŠ]

Well what are you begrudgingly accepting:

1. That state schools don't perform?
2. Or that pupils don't perform in state schools?

If state schoos are not performing then the students coming out clearly have an inferior education. 'Fixing' the results doesn't solve this - it simply camouflages it.

OTOH if pupils are not performing in state schools then they stiull have an inferior results .... ditto on fixing the results.

The solution is to fix the schools. There is a simple way of doing this and that is to provide a tiered system. But that's not acceptable to our educational intellectual elite.

So their solution? Bodge the results.

The reality of bodging the results is that it will matter even more where an 'A' pass comes from. Employers and universities will adapt so that an A* from Rottencaster is not worth the same as an A from Notsobadborough.

And that undoes the system at the core because a good pupil who earns a genuine A* from Rottencaster will be seen as inferior.

The law of unintended consequences that the liberal do-good bodgers tend to always overlook.

But the proposal isn't about trying to fix the results - quite the reverse. It's about trying to give due recognition to the results gained.

What's it effectively saying is that if two pupils - one at a private school, the other at a state school - sit the same test and attain the same results, then more weight should be given to the latter's achievement when clearing for university entrance. There is a logic to this, on the basis that parents mainly tend to select (and are prepared to pay for) private education because they believe it will provide a more conducive learning environment than the state system, whether in some specialism or just in general.

If a state-educated pupil performs as well as a privately educated one, despite having to contend with larger class sizes, slacker discipline, poorer facilities and fewer special trips/visits (if any), the logical conclusion is that their equivalent achivement is worth more.

As for the value of a qualification being relative to establishment from which it was gained, this has pretty much always been the case with degrees, where those with the magic suffixes Oxon, Cantab, Lond or Dunelm tend to carry rather more weight than any others. However, if we're talking about A-Level results gained by sitting a standard paper set by a given examining board, then the less prepossessing the school, the more it says about the pupil that attained the result.

 

[Dryce]

If a state-educated pupil performs as well as a privately educated one, despite having to contend with larger class sizes, slacker discipline, poorer facilities and fewer special trips/visits (if any), the logical conclusion is that their equivalent achivement is worth more.

But not their actual education.

And the grades are about attainment not some mushy abstract achievement.

It undermines the education system.

What do you do if you have a bad school with a few oustanding pupils who get genuine As and then you decide you'll bump up their lower achieving peers because of the school ranking.

How would an employer judge two candidates from different schools with the same grades when one might have basic flaws but an adjusted grade.

It's appalling.

It's a capitulation to the idea that you can't fix the schools so you fiddle the grades.

I don't think that people who justify this within the education and examination system could possibly be fit to set any kind of education policy.

 

[grober]

But not their actual education.

And the grades are about attainment not some mushy abstract achievement.

It undermines the education system.

What do you do if you have a bad school with a few oustanding pupils who get genuine As and then you decide you'll bump up their lower achieving peers because of the school ranking.

How would an employer judge two candidates from different schools with the same grades when one might have basic flaws but an adjusted grade.

It's appalling.

It's a capitulation to the idea that you can't fix the schools so you fiddle the grades.

I don't think that people who justify this within the education and examination system could possibly be fit to set any kind of education policy.

But not their actual education.

Naughty -subtle change of subject- we are not talking of exams measuring the quality of education but the quality of the candidate.

And the grades are about attainment not some mushy abstract achievement.

Exams are only a means of estimating a candidate's abilities or intellect at one point in time and as such are not an absolute. They are artificial in so far as they select candidates that are good at passing exams [ a technique that can be coached anyway] not necessarily the most able?

It undermines the education system.
It undermines a system of privilege where money can buy you a better start in life despite a possible lack of ability.

What do you do if you have a bad school with a few oustanding pupils who get genuine As and then you decide you'll bump up their lower achieving peers because of the school ranking.

Illogical argument the outstanding pupils grades would augmented as well as the lower achieving ones. Bumped up is of course more emotive than adjusted which is presumably your intention.

How would an employer judge two candidates from different schools with the same grades when one might have basic flaws but an adjusted grade.


That's easy he would give the job to the candidate that went to the same public school as he did.

It's appalling.

Is it not an attempt to recognise the greater achievement of a pupil attaining good grades " against the odds" against someone who has had a head start. Perhaps to goes to application and strength of character two qualities that may stand any candidate in good stead for achieving success in further education in addition to any ultimate intellectual prowess they may have.

It's a capitulation to the idea that you can't fix the schools so you fiddle the grades.

You are confusing issues again---- this is ultimately about assessing the candidates not an educational system. Its a recognition that the educational system in particular the state system is flawed. But its not about justifying or propping up the state system --which this might well do as an unintended consequence ---its about choosing the most able people which is perhaps a price worth paying?

I don't think that people who justify this within the education and examination system could possibly be fit to set any kind of education policy.

The success or failure of such a policy would really depend on how well its implemented. If it used measurable parameters to "adjust" marks then fine. I have to admit this might be difficult in practice and would require a different numerical scoring [ fitness for further education index ?] derived from the exam mark plus any other factors to be taken into account. Good colleges may do this informally at the moment anyway but maybe this would make it more uniform across all further educational establishments. I would be against any form of gross "social engineering" in education as most fair minded people would be. Its more positive action rather than positive discrimination.

 

[MOCAŠ]

But not their actual education.

And the grades are about attainment not some mushy abstract achievement.

It undermines the education system.

What do you do if you have a bad school with a few oustanding pupils who get genuine As and then you decide you'll bump up their lower achieving peers because of the school ranking.

How would an employer judge two candidates from different schools with the same grades when one might have basic flaws but an adjusted grade.

It's appalling.

It's a capitulation to the idea that you can't fix the schools so you fiddle the grades.

I don't think that people who justify this within the education and examination system could possibly be fit to set any kind of education policy.

Dryce, have you actually read the article about this proposal referenced in post #1?

It's not about fiddling with grades, nor will it affect how employers view candidates. It's about making the university entrance process more even handed. Once the applicants have gained a place at that university, they will all have an equal chance of success. The proposal is about recognising that they didn't all necessarily have an equal chance of reaching that point in the first place.

Just to be clear, the grades will not be adjusted, so nothing will be hidden; each school will have a separate ranking, and the university can choose whether to take account of that ranking when deciding its entrance requirements. In any case, it is only likely to influence the longlisting process rather than the final selection itself.

Here's the summary of how it would work (from the article):

How the new system would work

Under the new system, a pupil at a weak school who got a lower grade than a rival pupil at a good school could still be given more university entrance points, writes Richard Garner.

The blueprint would work like this. James goes to a low-performing comprehensive in a disadvantaged area. He manages to get an exam score of 36 out of 40. However, he is entitled to bonus points as a result of his school's low ranking (it scores minus three in the rankings).

Adam, on the other hand, goes to a top performing independent school with no pupils on free school meals and got 38 for his exams. But he faces being penalised on his school's ranking (the school is given a "plus three" ranking).

It would, of course, be up to the individual university to decide what to do with this information but one way of using it will be to add three points to James's exam score because of the background he comes from and deduct three points from Adam. On that basis, the place would go to James.

The argument in the paper is that there are still vastly more points awarded for exam performance than education context and it is unlikely that any university would be as crude as to deduct the maximum ranking points from Adam and give the maximum three extra to James.

However, what is likely is that both Adam and James would be longlisted - something that would not have happened to James without the ranking
system. Then James's potential would outweigh Adam's performance.

 

[Dryce]

Dryce, have you actually read the article about this proposal referenced in post #1?

Yes - days ago - and in the intervening time I got misdirected after my first example a few days after that.

However I stand by my advocacy that this is just a patch over a broken system.

I think this is wrong.

 

[Scott_F]

The solution is to fix the schools. There is a simple way of doing this and that is to provide a tiered system. But that's not acceptable to our educational intellectual elite.

How do you envisage a tiered system of schooling providing a solution ?

If I understand your thinking correctly, such a system would make it easy to identify schools that offer a thorough, "traditional" academic education but do nothing the reduce the number of failing pupils leaving under-performing schools with no qualifications.

Not really the simple solution that you advocate.

 

[jepho]

if two pupils - one at a private school, the other at a state school - sit the same test and attain the same results, then more weight should be given to the latter's achievement when clearing for university entrance. There is a logic to this, on the basis that parents mainly tend to select (and are prepared to pay for) private education because they believe it will provide a more conducive learning environment than the state system, whether in some specialism or just in general.

I am finding it difficult to accept this form of logic, MOCAŠ. Many teachers, with whom I have spoken, are in general agreement about the presence of one key common factor in producing well-motivated pupils. It is the parental input and their active support of school objectives.

My son has had as much of that positive parental input as it has been possible to provide. He now attends a school (albeit for just 3 weeks thus far) where your logic would penalise him for his test results when compared with state school children taking the same test and obtaining the same mark, when just three weeks earlier it would have dictated that his test results were weighted to give him some advantage over his independently schooled contemporaries. Logic, which is a moveable feast, is hardly worthy of the appellation.

The proposed levelling of the playing field would be penalising parents who determine that a society of well-educated people is more desirable than a society where survival of the fittest is the only imperative. Of course, I want my son to do well for himself on a personal level but I don't see him as living his life in a vacuum. We all contribute to the society of which we are denizens. Less people with a decent education makes for a more brutish society and it is my opinion that society has become a lot less civil during the passage of the last six decades.

If a state-educated pupil performs as well as a privately educated one, despite having to contend with larger class sizes, slacker discipline, poorer facilities and fewer special trips/visits (if any), the logical conclusion is that their equivalent achivement is worth more.

A comment which views test results in monochrome and as an absolute. It also ascribes far more importance to a single performance than the subject matter merits. Your logical conclusion is at once a non-sequitur and erroneous. If independent (private is an emotionally loaded term) schooling promotes a more coherent ethos, it is probably because state overseen schools are constantly being managed by different sets of well-meaning amateurs (politicians) who have little interest in long-term outcomes and display far more interest in snappy headline soundbites and votes to keep them in power.

Independent schools are businesses and the most sought after schools have to provide the type of service which the customer pays them to provide or else they would not survive. My son's new school has been in existence since 909 AD so there is enough evidence to suggest that the school knows its own business rather well. There is probably an interface between independent provision and government provided education, where some overlapping of education ethos is inevitable.

In other words, some government funded educational institutes will encourage pupils to undertake some of the educational facets which comprise a classical and well-rounded education. Some independently funded schools will encourage their pupils to accept the wider implications of their own existence.

While state provided education may be seen as a panacea for all of the current ills of society, I would argue that it is little more than a dystopian simulacrum of society that merely provides the government approved version of education and stifles independent thought. Education with a very small 'e' rather than a well-rounded education that actually prepares students for life outside of school. Educated people are far more likely to express demands in the societies in which they live and that would never be an acceptable norm for governments, who would rather that democratic principles were quietly subsumed into the daily business or running a country. The cannon fodder of society is the poorly-educated, unwashed masses that are asked to make do with mediocrity as the state-approved benchmark in education... and worse, we are all supposed to be grateful for it.

As for the value of a qualification being relative to establishment from which it was gained, this has pretty much always been the case with degrees, where those with the magic suffixes Oxon, Cantab, Lond or Dunelm tend to carry rather more weight than any others. However, if we're talking about A-Level results gained by sitting a standard paper set by a given examining board, then the less prepossessing the school, the more it says about the pupil that attained the result.

As stated, the conclusion you draw from a single event (taking an examination) is breathtakingly wide. Examination results from whichever school they are derived are not a 'qualification' as such. They merely demonstrate the fitness of a candidate to undertake a course of study that may lead to a career in their chosen field of endeavour. The International Baccalaureate is a far more complete test of the abilities inherent in candidates, than our rather bedraggled GCSE examinations, yet it is largely ignored by schools in the UK. Of course, it may be that it is not subject to the whim of whichever political agenda is ruling the roost at the DfE.

FWIW, MOCAŠ, I come from a very poor background and I am largely self-taught. I work in a clinical environment these days and I want my son to be well-educated... not just so that he can be wealthy and want for none of the things I did without but so that he can make a positive contribution to the society he inhabits. It pains me to think that some misguided politician would deem my son's efforts to better himself as worthy of some sort of penalty (ostensibly to level the playing field) because he is perceived as a kid with a privileged background merely because of his school tie. I am my son's privileged background!

 

[MOCAŠ]

My dear jepho, I must declare that I find many of your posts to be rather exquisitely formed curate's eggs, and the above example is no exception. On the face of it, it is the heartfelt cry of a parent who clearly wants the best for his son; yet it is tinged with a hint of crassness that leaves your motives open to question. How disappointing to read in your closing lines that you want your son to be 'wealthy' and to have all the things that you did not - words that might have fallen from the lips of your average lottery winner. By contrast, the laudable desire that he should make a valuable contribution to society almost comes across as an afterthought.

The notion that independent schools are necessarily the choice of parents that take an active interest in their children's education is at best suspect. You will find that for every pushy parent seeking to determine their child's outcome, there is at least another whose sole aim is to get their offspring out of their hair for the best part of the year. Somewhere in the middle are those who simply seek to place their child in a conducive environment and let things take their course.

However, it has to be said that placing one's child in boarding school is very much about cutting the apron strings. Admittedly this appears to have come rather late to your son (I gather he did not attend prep school before going up to Wells), but once he is settled in he should find that his primary influence comes from his masters and his peers. I hope this is something for which you - and he - are prepared.

I'm afraid your deconstruction of my argument in support of the proposal falls rather flat when placed in a relevant context. In particular, I need to challenge your suggestion that test results are not an absolute. I'd agree that they do not represent an absolute measure of the individual (how on earth could they), but they are the absolute measure by which longlisting for university places is conducted, which is the context of the argument. And while I can only agree with your assertion that the relative merits of independent and state-funded schools exist on a sliding scale, the propsed ranking process seeks to recognise this; it's not as though all independent schools would automatically get marked down and all state ones marked up to the same exent.

The fact that you speak in such disparaging terms about state education and those who are in charge of it serves only to underline the extent of the advantage you consider those in private (sorry, independent ) education to enjoy. But let's be clear about one thing. This proposal will not make the slightest difference to the quality of the education your son will receive. That is down to what happens in the classroom and during his study periods. Full stop. Even if he flunks every exam he ever sits (which I'm sure he won't), he'll still have his education to fall back on. You see, we are in agreement about exams being a crude measure. I don't know enough about the IB to be able to say whether it's any more worthwhile than a GCSE (could be a case of frying pans and fires for all I know), but I do believe that a person's education should be valued far more highly than his exam results or qualifications. After all, it is his education that sets him up for the rest of his life.

So what impact might this proposal have on your son in five or six years' time, were it to be adopted? At most, it might mean he is more likely to find himself on a university's longlist alongside the best pupils from the state system. Surely you're not worried about the competition?

By the way, I suspect that the longevity of WCS has rather more to do with its strong ecclesiastical associations over that period than its having been run as a business...

 

[jepho]

Thank you MOCAŠ. Your response has been helpful in clarifying some of our differences of opinion. Firstly, curate's eggs (when applied to opinions) tend to reflect reality. Opinions are neither right nor wrong and they should have no role in the formulation of an argument, given the difficulty of testing them. I have yet to hear any complex expression of opinions with which I am in total agreement, and it follows that opinions will contain a mix of 'good' and 'bad', depending on one's own biases and viewpoint at the time the opinion is discussed. I share your disappointment at any expression of venality in my posts and I must remember not to post late at night, after a day spent working, and when I am most likely to be incoherent through tiredness. I had meant wealth in the wider sense of that which we carry with ourselves through life.

I retired from my work in 2001 and these days I work in an area that permits me to use my work skills which were gained over several decades. I am paid for my work and it could not be any other way for it costs me a considerable amount to work all over the country but the pay is immaterial to me for it is the act of the work that I enjoy. It is a part of my total wealth without being an issue which is exclusively about the income I derive from my work. I apologise for not being clear about this point as I can see that it has created some confusion. In summary, no sensate parent wants to think of their child being a drain on the resources of the state and unwilling to work for their livelihood. By the same token, it is natural for parents to want their children to have all they need in material things as well as the less tangible wealth to which I have alluded. I would go as far as to suggest that the survival of one's children is hard-wired into the brains of parents and does not concern venality in the sense intended in your portrayal.

I know of several families where they can consider and afford independent education for their children. Anecdotal accounts are not data and they are possibly less reliable as evidence, nevertheless they do provide me with some personal experience of people who want to consider education for their children, in a setting that is different to that which the state provides. We all do what we think best and the parents who use independent education as a form of baby-sitting are doing what is the best for themselves under the circumstances they find themselves. That being the case, it does not amount to a demerit against the seeking of independent education. Your use of the term 'pushy' to describe parents who have an interest in the education of their children ( I count myself as just such a parent… if you mean that I am a parent with a keen interest in my son's education and well-being) is needlessly pejorative. As for parents who may send their children to an independent school and are happy to let matters take their course; this too does not amount to any plausible argument as to why choosing an independent education is a suspect choice, where it was made by parents who are (rightfully) concerned for the education of their progeny.

Independence and taking responsibility for his own actions (cutting the apron strings if you will) is one part of the rationale for believing that my son requires a school where he will be encouraged to work hard, develop the ability to think for himself and learn that his actions will have consequences. Another reason for the decision to send my son to WCS was the excellence of the music tuition being offered alongside a classical education, in contradistinction to the Menuhin, Chethams and Purcell schools of music, which don't place the same emphasis on non-musical educational activities. He was invited to become a music specialist scholar after an informal audition and the scholarship was awarded on the basis of his exceptional grasp of the piano after only four years of study, having just one 30 minute lesson per week. He still had to sit an entrance assessment and the fact that he scored the highest mark in his year for the SATs and that he was the top of every class in his year group, at the state school, for every academic subject, prompted the staff at WCS to offer him an immediate place. Prep school was never a part of my son's education.

I am happy to agree with you about the context of the argument. I am less than happy with the notion that a level playing field is the answer to the central issue of poorly performing state schools, which is what has prompted the need for remedial activity. My experience of poorly performing schools follows and it is why I speak in disparaging terms… which are no more than the outward signs of despair, for the state schooling which I have witnessed and which is inimical to the interests of the pupils.

My son has undergone 6 years of state education and it has been an eye-opener to me. He was reading at the age of two and when he went to a lower school at the age of five, he completed the reading scheme in under two years. The school was unable to offer him any alternative reading materials or guidance because he was not seen as a special needs child. The budget which was available to him under the terms of the schools gifted and talented policy was £8 per year.

His middle school had a homework policy of 3 pieces of homework to be set every week for the core curriculum subjects of English, Maths and Science. Set homework was due back in school one week after it was set. It was frequently never set and homework was also left unmarked and not discussed. In WCS he is set two or three pieces of homework every day and it must be handed in the following day. All work is completed in ink, using a fountain pen, and he must not use a computer to word process his work or print out drawings or materials found on the internet.

This is exactly what needs fixing… the low aspirations of state schools. I feel that the two schools with which I have had direct experience (I am a parent governor at the middle school which is about to become an academy, whatever that portends) do not push their students to aspire to do well for themselves. I want to enable all of the students to reach for targets which are above their current level. I have sat and assisted non-readers in the middle school (aged 10) to take their first steps in reading and there is, to my mind, something desperately wrong with an education system which permits perfectly educable children to get to the age of 10 (after five years of state schooling) and be unable to read.

I have no concerns for the quality of education which my son will experience at WCS. I have no fears for the competition he will face in due course. He has already been assessed as being in the top one per cent of the children who apply for a place at WCS. In fact, only two other students in the last 6 years were offered a place on the basis of their informal audition. My difficulty with the proposal is not that it will level the playing field which it will not (unless all other things are equal) it is that the proposal masks the problem of a poorly performing state education system and this proposal will draw attention away from that matter. Nothing is changing in the school system. All that will change is our perception that something is being done. It is a proposal that is destined to produce an ersatz change in the way children from state schools are considered.

/curate's egg

 

[Deleted member 37751]

I've just got to say that, after giving it some deep thought, I think it's right that children from state schools are given recognition for how hard it will be for them to achieve the same results as their comparative in a private school.

If anything, it's actually admitting that state schools are failing and this is the way to address it.

 

[jepho]

I've just got to say that, after giving it some deep thought, I think it's right that children from state schools are given recognition for how hard it will be for them to achieve the same results as their comparative in a private school.

If anything, it's actually admitting that state schools are failing and this is the way to address it.

I am not disagreeing with you, sweetpea. Your words, my emphasis is what I perceive to be the problem. State schools are failing our future generations. Trying to get more children from state schools into our best universities is, on its face, a laudable aim. To hand out university places to state school children, in preference to children from independently educated backgrounds, to satisfy a notion of even-handedness; defies analysis.

The state education sector needs to be managed by committed teaching staff. It needs to be removed from the hands of the league table creators. I was educated up until the age of 15 years, in the state sector. It would have served my purposes well, had I been a good student. All of my classmates were literate and numerate. The tragedy of the UK today is that our education system does not appear to educate our young people well... or at all in some cases.

The recent removal of the Education Maintenance Allowance from children aged 16 ~ 18 years, was an act which widened the chasm between the haves and the have-nots. Where is the coherent policy to demonstrate that the DfE is joining up the dots and creating policies which will assist state schools to send more kids to university?

Despite the following interventions: Education Action Zones, City Academies, Beacon Schools, Advanced Skills Teachers, Leading Edge Partnerships, Primary Strategy Learning Networks, Literacy and Numeracy Hours, Foundation Schools, Abolition of the 11 plus examination, Abolition of the Assisted Places Scheme, Curriculum 2000 and so-called specialist schools... we appear to have a state school system which does not do anything like enough to educate our children for life.

The linked document from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is instructive.

Another interesting snippet is that Finland is apparently blessed with a very good education system. The UK has much it can learn from other countries who educate differently.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Jepho,

Firstly, let me discount the suggestion that in post #94 you demonstrated any signs of venality. I removed the word "venal" from my post within a few minutes of hitting "submit" (and long before you posted your response) as I realised that there was simply no evidence in what you had said to support its use.

If your use of the word 'wealthy' was intended to imply more than its literal meaning (in non-U circles, at least), then I'm afraid that passed me by. As this was presented as the corollary to your stating that you came from a very poor background, am I to gather that this too implies more than mere financial straitening? Again, not something I had considered until reading your response, but most unfortunate if true.

Now, let's consider the term curate's egg. I don't recall ever having used this term to describe to someone's opinions, and certainly not on this thread. No, I was using it to describe the nature of your posts, which frequently seem to consist in more or less equal part of reasoned argument, didactic tendencies and pointless sniping; an interesting if occasionally frustrating mixture. Of course, the last two serve only to detract from the first.

I'm intirugued by your assertion that opinions should have no role in the formulation of an argument. Are you being serious? Paradoxically, if every argument were based solely on irrefutable facts then there would be no argument to be had in the first place. The whole point of an argument is to expound one's opinion on a given subject, usually with the aim of gaining support for it.

My use of the adjective "pushy" was purposely pejorative, rather than needlessly so, and was aimed at parents who not only take an interest in their child's education (which is to be expected) but try to determine its outcome (which is a little too controlling from my liking, and probably places a child under undue pressure). To illustrate the point, the former type might ensure that their children attend school, do their homework and have whatever extra-curricular support their means will allow, with the intention of giving them the opportunity to become whatever they want to become in later life; while the latter will have a preconceived idea of their child's future mapped out from an early age (perhaps even pre-birth), and will not be satisfied if they feel the said child is not fulfilling this ideal, whether they perceive this to be due to the child themselves, their school or some other factor. I would hate to be the child of such a pushy parent, but I am not suggesting that you are one - that would be rather impertinent, given that we've never even been introduced.

Getting back on topic, you say that you cannot agree that "a level playing field is the answer to the central issue of poorly performing state schools". I'm glad to hear it, as this is not what I was positing. Far from being the answer, I was merely suggesting that the proposed measures might have "some merit" by way of a pragmatic means of addressing the issue. You seem to have taken this as my wholehearted endorsement of the proposal as a quick fix for the education system, which is neither what I was suggesting nor, indeed, what the AQA is aiming to achieve.

On reading this thread I found a universal and all-too-predictable reactionary response to the AQA's plan. Knowing that few things in life are black or white, such polarisation of opinion for or against an idea always tends to arouse my curiosity. After all, if the matter were really so cut and dried, why would someone waste their time making such a 'crackpot' proposal. Was it mere blue-sky thinking, an Aunt Sally if you like? Or was it something more substantial, that could at least be an effective measure. Scratch the surface, explore beyond the attention-grabbing headline, and you usually find something quite reasonable, or at least understandable.

The proposal is not some kind of panacea, and it cannot even hope to cure the ills of the education system, whatever they may be. In fact its overall impact will be at best negligible, but if implemented adopted, it will provide universities with another tool in their selection process; that's all.

You note that you have no concerns about the quality of education your son will receive at WCS. That's good to hear, but why then did you previously state that you saw the proposal as a means of "penalising parents who determine that a society of well-educated people is more desirable [than the alternative]"? As I pointed out in my previous post, the proposal will not affect how children are educated.

One final thing: can you please clear up the apparent contradiction between these two statements:

"The bill for a single term at my son's new school is huge and I do not know anyone who could afford it."
​

"I know of several families where they can consider and afford independent education for their children."
​

 

[Dryce]

After all, if the matter were really so cut and dried, why would someone waste their time making such a 'crackpot' proposal. Was it mere blue-sky thinking, an Aunt Sally if you like? Or was it something more substantial, that could at least be an effective measure.

It's quite logical that somebody would waste time on the crackpot proposal.

Why?

The system is subject to dogma (to be fair - from all sides).

If you're not willing to face up to solving the problems using a practical approach because of that dogma then harebrained approaches are what you're left with.

Scratch the surface, explore beyond the attention-grabbing headline, and you usually find something quite reasonable, or at least understandable.

If only ...

 

[MOCAŠ]

If only ...

Not everyone scratches...