Politics Thread 6

[Hexx]

Improve state schooling.

Precisely. The way to get rid of private schooling and remove the advantage is to improve schooling for others, make it entirely superflous. Kill it by making it pointless.

[Knoyleo]

Abolish private schooling.

Race to the bottom! Equally shite education for all

Allowing private institutions to skim off the best talent deliberately disadvantages those who are less well off, for the sake of satisfying profit motive.

[That]

The state should not dictate how parents can raise and educate their children

Neither should private capital.

Abolishing private schooling is equivalent to mandating state education, which gives further power to the state, and potential for abuse.

Failure to abolish private schooling is an endorsement of the idea that bourgeois children should receive a different education than proletarian children. This serves only to advance the class interests of the bourgeoisie. It is not freedom; the proletariat are not free to send their children to Eton.

Allowing the education system to hold a profit motive to neglect the children of ordinary people and service the interests of a privileged elite is an actual abuse we suffer right now, so I think hypothetical state power abuses within some future state school system---which the vast majority could not meaningfully opt out of even if private schooling were to continue as an alternative---is whatabouttery.

[Jenuall]

I don't agree with every perspective on The West Wing but still think this one holds as true today as when it was on the show 20 years ago:

"Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes. We need gigantic monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. Competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be getting six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge for its citizens"

Education is fundamental to everything, invest in education and everyone benefits.

[Lex-Man]

As somebody who trained as a teacher private schools actual offer worse education than the best comprehensive schools. They only really offer a single prescriptive type of education that is heavily based around lectured based teaching with a slim range of subject choices. A woman on my course who was placed in two private schools during her training told me that her school didn't let students football in PE or allow students to do any IT based subject, with all work being submitted on pen and paper. This was two years ago.

From what I can tell the only reason to go to a private school is that there a far less behavioural issues and you get to meet other rich people's children which will help you get high paying jobs. It's basically a chance to do networking.

[OrangeRKN]

The state should not dictate how parents can raise and educate their children

Neither should private capital.

I agree. I think it is possible to avoid both. For example, bursaries can be granted, fees can be means-tested. In combination with other regulation private education institutions can exist without being beholden to the state, but while also being accessible to students from all backgrounds.

Abolishing private schooling is equivalent to mandating state education, which gives further power to the state, and potential for abuse.

Failure to abolish private schooling is an endorsement of the idea that bourgeois children should receive a different education than proletarian children. This serves only to advance the class interests of the bourgeoisie. It is not freedom; the proletariat are not free to send their children to Eton.

Allowing the education system to hold a profit motive to neglect the children of ordinary people and service the interests of a privileged elite is an actual abuse we suffer right now, so I think hypothetical state power abuses within some future state school system---which the vast majority could not meaningfully opt out of even if private schooling were to continue as an alternative---is whatabouttery.

I do not think state abuse of it's power over the education system is purely hypothetical. All schools maintained by a local authority are required to follow the national curriculum, and in doing so the history that they teach is dictated by the state. Unsurprisingly, a lot of this history is uncritical of Britain and deliberately ignores topics that the state does not wish its citizens to be educated on. Thankfully our system is open enough that some of this has been mitigated (look at some of the criticism of Gove's reforms when he was leading the department for education, which did lead to some change) but I think it's still very much there to see.

Of course private education has no guarantee to do better, but that choice should exist for parents to make - any intervention by the state over that choice needs to be well-justified.

I won't disagree that there are big problems with private schools reinforcing class divides, but I think that should be addressed in ways other than abolishing all non-state education.

[Mafro]

In other news...

twitter.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1161629920856084481

There aren't enough on the internet.

twitter.com/lizziedearden/status/1161979415204704256

[That]

For example, bursaries can be granted, fees can be means-tested. In combination with other regulation private education institutions can exist without being beholden to the state, but while also being accessible to students from all backgrounds.

Eton already offers a few bursaries. Every year a select few petit bourgeois children win the prize of a bourgeois education, to allow the institution to market itself as progressive and inclusive to centrists. I don't think this meaningfully attacks any structural, hierarchical problem with Eton. Even if the government mandated there had to be a dozen or two-dozen previously-privately-tutored middle class children at every upper class school it wouldn't make the quality or opportunities of private education accessible to working class children, nor would it change the fact that this is a society in which a privileged elite can simply monopolise the best education.

All schools maintained by a local authority are required to follow the national curriculum, and in doing so the history that they teach is dictated by the state. Unsurprisingly, a lot of this history is uncritical of Britain and deliberately ignores topics that the state does not wish its citizens to be educated on. Thankfully our system is open enough that some of this has been mitigated (look at some of the criticism of Gove's reforms when he was leading the department for education, which did lead to some change) but I think it's still very much there to see.

Sure, agreed. So what's the logical conclusion of this? You said---

Of course private education has no guarantee to do better, but that choice should exist for parents to make

---and let's say private education really does do better (it probably doesn't on the issue of racist history that you raised, but it's obviously far better in many other respects). It is still true that only bourgeois parents have the "choice"! It doesn't matter how much a proletarian parent cares about the quality of their children's education, they have no choice at all.

If the freedom to choose something better only exists for a privileged few, then that isn't freedom, it's simply another form of hierarchy between an elite and the masses. Bourgeois education as an institution---its existence and its implementation---serves to advance bourgeois class interests. Dismantling the economic hierarchy between the rich and the poor, which serves as the primary mechanism of control of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, is at least as important as dismantling state apparatus of control.

(It's right there in The Internationale: "freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all.")

What do you hope to actually achieve by retaining the institution of private education? If it's a fail-safe for a potentially corruptible national curriculum, why not advocate for reform to the national curriculum? You could grant control of the national curriculum to a politically neutral not-for-profit, you could limit the scope of the national curriculum and allow schools more power to interpret it, you could widen catchment areas to create more overlap so all parents had a meaningful choice of schools, you could devolve all or parts of the national curriculum to local authorities. Lots of routes that don't involve a profit-motivated educational stratum.

[OrangeRKN]

I agree that all of those suggested actions sound good and reasonable. In terms of what I want achieved, then yes the allowed existence of non-state education as a fail-safe against a corruptible national curriculum is part of it. More fundamentally however it's conforming to my belief that parents take ultimate authority and responsibility in the upbringing of their children, which should only be transgressed by wider society in the well-justified and specific protection of a child's well-being (to allow for intervention over abuse as an example). I would apply the same argument to parent's being able to choose whether their children are vaccinated, as while I think those who choose not to are almost always wrong to do so, ultimately that judgment should be theirs to make, and the state can only provide them with the evidence and opportunity. I think the argument for society stepping in against parental judgment is much stronger in that instance than in choice of education, because of the potential health impacts, but still fall on the side of parental autonomy, so it follows that I think the same about education.

Undoubtedly there are problems that arise from private (and notably for-profit) education, but my commitment to the above means that I support finding solutions other than the enforcement of state education in principle.

To delve slightly into that "for-profit" comment, I think it worth noting that private education does not necessarily equal for-profit education, and removing that motivation of profit can counteract many of the issues you raise without completely outlawing all private education. Home schooling, for example, is not profit-driven. With private schools, the one I attended as my secondary school (while far from perfect) is run by a charity with the registered aim of advancing education in the area.

[That]

I'm OK with private schools that genuinely lack a profit motive fwiw.

EDIT: Well, sort of. They should be free for all children, non-discriminatory, and run as a genuine independent not-for-profit charity. Then I'm OK with them.

[OrangeRKN]

Which is why I made sure to say the school I attended was far from perfect! It's "a registered charity with a corporate trustee", which is a set-up I don't fully understand but seems immediately questionable as to how much is being motivated by profit in some way.

On "non-discriminatory", I don't see why being selective based on academic ability is a bad thing - rather I see the benefit as a natural extension of how separating pupils into sets allows for education more suited to those individuals - but I do acknowledge how existing methods for assessing academic ability are flawed and can be abused. I am not set in that opinion by any principle however, I think such structuring should be informed by evidence as to its effectiveness.

[That]

I think grouping children by interest and academic ability is OK in principle. I think it works a lot better in a socialist society, where you have something more approaching a level playing field for all children. I don't think it works as well in a capitalist society in which rich parents can generally purchase success for their children (tutoring etc.).

Sounds like we're probably on the same page (more or less) with that!

[Lex-Man]

Research into education has suggested that streaming is actually a bad thing and should be stopped, although most schools continue it because it's expected by parents. It's also a lot easier for teachers.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2017/sep/sch ... cause-harm

The study finds that fear of reactions from parents, who often expect children to be grouped in sets or streams, as well as a more general caution in schools, may be playing a part in these decisions.

It cites previous evidence that setting, where pupils are grouped in classes based on prior results in tests or other judgements the school may make about their "ability", is overwhelmingly used for maths in English secondary schools.

It is also widely used in English in secondaries, while setting has also been extending into primary schools. This is despite established research showing that, while "high-attaining" pupils may make some gains from the practice, the reverse is true for those in lower sets, including many students from poorer backgrounds

[OrangeRKN]

The entrance exam I took had a maths section, an English section, and a "verbal reasoning" section. I'm pretty sure the latter was, in practice, a test that you could afford a tutor.

Luckily I cheated by having a teacher as a parent who could tutor me for free 8^)

[Jenuall]

Yeah streaming is generally regarded as a Bad Thing™ based on most research, yet we still do it.

My wife is a teacher and this is just one of many annoyances that she bores me with enlivens my existence by telling me about!

[Hexx]

Yeah streaming is generally regarded as a Bad Thing™ based on most research, yet we still do it.

I don't know I quite like that Ninja guy

[Jenuall]

Yeah streaming is generally regarded as a Bad Thing™ based on most research, yet we still do it.

I don't know I quite like that Ninja guy

[Lex-Man]

I agree that all of those suggested actions sound good and reasonable. In terms of what I want achieved, then yes the allowed existence of non-state education as a fail-safe against a corruptible national curriculum is part of it. More fundamentally however it's conforming to my belief that parents take ultimate authority and responsibility in the upbringing of their children, which should only be transgressed by wider society in the well-justified and specific protection of a child's well-being (to allow for intervention over abuse as an example). I would apply the same argument to parent's being able to choose whether their children are vaccinated, as while I think those who choose not to are almost always wrong to do so, ultimately that judgment should be theirs to make, and the state can only provide them with the evidence and opportunity. I think the argument for society stepping in against parental judgment is much stronger in that instance than in choice of education, because of the potential health impacts, but still fall on the side of parental autonomy, so it follows that I think the same about education.

The problem with the vaccine thing is that the parents aren't just putting their kids at risk. They're putting other children who have been vaccinated at risk. Vaccines are only effective if 90+ of the population has them. When it drops below that level everybody, even those who have been vaccinated, are at an increased risk of contracting the disease.

[Lex-Man]

Yeah streaming is generally regarded as a Bad Thing™ based on most research, yet we still do it.

I don't know I quite like that Ninja guy

I just assume they're all racists and ignore them.

[That]

Yeah, I didn't address the vaccine thing as I felt like it would be going round in circles, but the material effect of herd immunity---and even in absence of that, just making sure as few kids as possible get preventable diseases---is far more important than some abstract concept of parental autonomy imo. Not vaccinating your kids is practically child abuse.