Question for socialists

[Mich the Tester]

90,000 students left school without basic literacy or numeracy in 2007 alone It might not be enough to make the UK a third world country but parts of the UK are most certainly "third world" such as "The North" .

Is this more to do with bad schools or feckless parents?

[BrilloPad]

Is this more to do with bad schools or feckless parents?

Schools cannot operate without the support of the parents.

[doodab]

Based on observing those of my friends who went to public schools I would say they have a different level of expectation of life and of themselves. I think this is mostly attributable to the sort of people they have around them when growing up, as their parents and their friends parents are more likely to be high achievers, but their schooling definitely encouraged and reinforced it. They're also more likely to have good planning and organisational skills, good financial sense, good social skills and other important life skills. I think this is largely attributable to the fact they are the children of people with these skills rather than their schooling, as I see the same things in people from similar backgrounds who went to state schools.

Parental economic status correlates strongly with all sorts of things such as educational attainment and truancy rates as well as health, criminality and so on. To some extent people are poor because of low educational attainment but it's hard not to think that reducing inequality and poverty will do something to combat low educational achievement.

[DodgyAgent]

Schools cannot operate without the support of the parents.

Borstals could

[DodgyAgent]

Based on observing those of my friends who went to public schools I would say they have a different level of expectation of life and of themselves. I think this is mostly attributable to the sort of people they have around them when growing up, as their parents and their friends parents are more likely to be high achievers, but their schooling definitely encouraged and reinforced it. They're also more likely to have good planning and organisational skills, good financial sense, good social skills and other important life skills. I think this is largely attributable to the fact they are the children of people with these skills rather than their schooling, as I see the same things in people from similar backgrounds who went to state schools.

Parental economic status correlates strongly with all sorts of things such as educational attainment and truancy rates as well as health, criminality and so on. To some extent people are poor because of low educational attainment but it's hard not to think that reducing inequality and poverty will do something to combat low educational achievement.

I would say that education is key to breaking the cycle of poverty and inequality. I dont see how you can improve lives without first improving education

[sasguru]

They're also more likely to have good planning and organisational skills, good financial sense, good social skills and other important life skills.

Thank you, thank you

[Mich the Tester]

Based on observing those of my friends who went to public schools I would say they have a different level of expectation of life and of themselves. I think this is mostly attributable to the sort of people they have around them when growing up, as their parents and their friends parents are more likely to be high achievers, but their schooling definitely encouraged and reinforced it. They're also more likely to have good planning and organisational skills, good financial sense, good social skills and other important life skills. I think this is largely attributable to the fact they are the children of people with these skills rather than their schooling, as I see the same things in people from similar backgrounds who went to state schools.

Parental economic status correlates strongly with all sorts of things such as educational attainment and truancy rates as well as health, criminality and so on. To some extent people are poor because of low educational attainment but it's hard not to think that reducing inequality and poverty will do something to combat low educational achievement.

Let me recount a little story. A little while ago, the ravishing Lady Tester and I were wandering around a nearby small town that's known for its art galleries and little boutiques run by young designers. Obviously, some of the shoes on offer were of great interest to the lady of Tester manor, and of considerable economic disquietment to yours truly. Anyway, Lady Tester bought (and generously allowed me to pay for) a pair of shoes in a rather smart little shop. As we left the shop, we overheard a young boy asking his father 'what's in that shop?' His father, rather less elegantly dressed than most other perambulators, answered 'it's a shoe shop, but not a shoe shop for people like you and me'. He could have said to him 'it's a smart shoe shop, but you'll have to save up for some time to buy shoes in there', possibly 'it's a smart shoe shop, but you'll need to do lots of paper rounds to buy your shoes there' or 'it's a smart shoe shop and if you do your best at school and work very hard you might one day be able to buy your shoes in there'. But no, he told his kid it's 'not for you and me', rubbed his nose in his humble background and basically passed on the kind of fatalism that feeds poverty.

Isn't the problem inequality of ambition as opposed to purely economic inequality?

[Doggy Styles]

What utter tosh. I went to one and the emphasis is very much on the collective. Individualism is definitely frowned upon.

Lisa might not have put that the best way, but I know what she means. They engender the self confidence required to go out and be successful off your own bat. A bit like you sas.

[sasguru]

Let me recount a little story. A little while ago, the ravishing Lady Tester and I were wandering around a nearby small town that's known for its art galleries and little boutiques run by young designers. Obviously, some of the shoes on offer were of great interest to the lady of Tester manor, and of considerable economic disquietment to yours truly. Anyway, Lady Tester bought (and generously allowed me to pay for) a pair of shoes in a rather smart little shop. As we left the shop, we overheard a young boy asking his father 'what's in that shop?' His father, rather less elegantly dressed than most other perambulators, answered 'it's a shoe shop, but not a shoe shop for people like you and me'. He could have said to him 'it's a smart shoe shop, but you'll have to save up for some time to buy shoes in there', possibly 'it's a smart shoe shop, but you'll need to do lots of paper rounds to buy your shoes there' or 'it's a smart shoe shop and if you do your best at school and work very hard you might one day be able to buy your shoes in there'. But no, he told his kid it's 'not for you and me', rubbed his nose in his humble background and basically passed on the kind of fatalism that feeds poverty.

Nice story but there is another explanation.
Perhaps the father was merely pointing out to his child that the sort of people who bought shoes in that shop were flighty, shallow, pretentious, silly people who paid ridiculous amounts for fashion designer ware.

[Mich the Tester]

Nice story but there is another explanation.
Perhaps the father was merely pointing out to his child that the sort of people who bought shoes in that shop were flighty, shallow, pretentious, silly people who paid ridiculous amounts for fashion designer ware.

Possibly, but I'm not talking about mass produced Louis Vuitton crap here, I mean hand made one-offs by local artists and really very nice stuff. No brandnames but real craftsmanship; the sort of things the arrivistes would never recognise.