Tonight’s R5 Phone-in topic :
“Are Private Schools a Cancer on Education ?”
Discuss.
(presented IIRC by a privately educated cocaine user – keep those stereotypes coming, BBC !)
No Bias Here …
Bookmark the permalink.
Search Biased BBC
Recent Comments
- non-licence payer Nov 23, 14:55
Weekend 23rd November 2024
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jdz61j3yo What the farmers’ protest tells us about their argument with the government This could be retitled “When the bubble… - Lazy Cat Nov 23, 14:39
Weekend 23rd November 2024
“Hello. Is that the police? Yes, I’d like to claim a breach of Respect Orders.” “What seems to be the… - Lazy Cat Nov 23, 14:13
Weekend 23rd November 2024
Problem is that a few MPs have fingers in the climate change pie themselves. Too many see you next Tuesdays… - Guest Who Nov 23, 13:57
Weekend 23rd November 2024
As ever, it is what the BBC avoids that is most damning. Likely this will not get a mention, or… - Up2snuff Nov 23, 13:26
Weekend 23rd November 2024
Fed, I think felons in the US after they get elected to the Presidency get to pardon themselves. The nasty… - StewGreen Nov 23, 13:25
Weekend 23rd November 2024
Prison officer speaks up about justice system craziness after Southport https://youtu.be/wX_0fEcQr1o - non-licence payer Nov 23, 13:24
Weekend 23rd November 2024
FU2 starmer will only be a maximum of 18 months of one term. How he had the capacity to be… - Lucy Pevensey Nov 23, 13:03
Weekend 23rd November 2024
Staliner is now talking about introducing “Respect Orders” to deal with anti-social behaviour in “our communities” Easy to see where… - StewGreen Nov 23, 12:57
Weekend 23rd November 2024
YouTube today new videos from TR supporters protesting outside TalkTV against Peter Cardwell for smear-labelling TR “racist” on November 8th… - G Nov 23, 12:52
Weekend 23rd November 2024
“King Charles III and his wife Queen Camilla…….” Formerly / otherwise known as, Camila Parker-Bowles
Categories
agw anti-American anti-conservative anti-Israel anti Israel. pro Palestinian Antisemitism BBC - sickeningly biased at all times. BBC agenda BBC bias bbc bias and balance. bbc bias by omission BBC censorship BBC Question Time BBC selectivity bias Biased BBC climate change dhimmis general thread immigration Islam israel Mark Mardell obama obama bias Obamalove open thread pro-labour pro-palestinian pro EU pro Hamas pro Islam pro Labour bias pro Obama PRO OBAMA AT ALL COSTS. pro Obama BBC agenda question time question time live Richard Black save gordon. USA politics US economy US News US politics US presidential elections
A proposed follow-up discussion:
“Are tax-funded state broadcasting corporations a cancer on The Media?”
The 10 O/Clock news ran a story on how the children of a certain school won’t only have to compete in life with those from the posh one (their words) down the road. But millions of children from the third world.
Cue film clip of children around the same age as the British children taught in a basic classroom in India being taught about the American constitution. Our children (British) were colouring in a picture of an elephant.
Then they asked 3 children from the British Classroom what they wished to be.
White Girl; Doctor
White Boy; Accountant
Black Boy: Footballer.
Is it me, but shouldn’t the teacher have imparted onto the child that he needs to aim for something a little easier to attain (Like an education) or does the stereotyping that image presented me with really say that the teacher just can’t be asked with black children (hence their very poor educational rate in the UK) instead concentrating on their physical attributes.
Isn’t that racism.
Are shops a cancer on the distribution of goods? Are taxis a cancer on transport? What an absolutely bloody stupid question. The only way it makes any sense is if you assume that the tax-funded provision of everything is the default, with the free exchange of goods and services being graciously premitted under sufferance by a benevolent government.
No, BBC, it’s state schools that are a cancer on education, placing millions of children’s futures at the whim of every jumped up politician on the make who lands the Education/Children, Families and Fluffy Bunnies sinecure with some smartarse Big Idea.
As indeed, is the BBC on broadcasting. Rolling in money independent broadcasters can only dream of – especially during a recession, which, of course, doesn’t affect it in the slightest – it stomps its great elephantine plates all over the radio spectrum, crowding out innovation and diversity (which, perversely, it loudly trumpets), hoovering up talent with salaries it itself would be the first to disdain if an independent company was paying them with its own money honestly earned. Is it any wonder it has difficulty seeing the real world clearly?
I wonder if you have noticed whats on the front page of the BBC news website..if that was a Tory they were talking about you would be calling them biased. I wonder if any of the authors will acknowledge this? Probalby not it seems you are all biased against the BBC. Thats hypocritical don’t you think?
Jack, do tell us what it is you are talking about.
I don’t mind private education, so long as no taxpayers money is involved.
Private institutions should not get any aid or subsidy from the government.
Zevilyn | 14.01.09 – 1:53 am
Quite agree. But those who opt to pay for their children’s education should not pay taxes to subsidise the state system.
One of the prime reasons we moved to Canada 14 months ago was our 4 year old daughter’s education.
She now attends a private school with the best academic record in Alberta. She’s in their junior kindergarden.
She’s now learning Spanish. It’s a snip at 12,000 dollars a year.
The education system in the UK is on the verge of collapse.
Jack, I presume you mean this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7824579.stm
Like you, I found it amazing, and worthy of comment, that the BBC had related the Labour party to any kind of scandal.
Now, what about these polls putting the ‘Tories’ back in a double-figure lead? Not to mention their absence would be hypocritical, don’t you think?
Jack, I noticed that (“Labour paid sex offender for work”) this morning and was surprised to see it. Although it’s not bias to have published it, it is merely going some way to correct previous bias. Perhaps our criticisms are having some effect?
Whilst I can see the political difficulty for any party here, the headline did suggest to me that sex offenders are not supposed to be allowed to work after conviction. Just what are they supposed to do? Live off benefits for the rest of their lives? Go off and die somewhere? (That last suggestion may appeal to many but is not very practical.)
I suppose the point is that Comprehensive education doesn’t really work for the less able student, whereas the Grammar schools and private schools seem to.
It’s not really the fault of the private sector that it surpassses the chronically over-regulated public sector option.
Ps I went to a comp —
I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation of how the state sector will cope if the private sector vanishes (when all those parents suddenly see the light, courtesy of the BBC), and tens of thousands of childen suddenly arrive on state school doorsteps. No doubt we’ll hear tonight.
“But those who opt to pay for their children’s education should not pay taxes to subsidise the state system.”
A fine sentiment; how about going one step further and no longer requiring those with NO children to subsidise everyone elses?
Jack 1:23
Do you speak english ?
Sam Duncan is absolutely right.
The part of our education system that is diseased, dysfunctional and which represents a threat to the life of the host society is the state sector.
The state should be made to take its interfering hands off our children.
A fine sentiment; how about going one step further and no longer requiring those with NO children to subsidise everyone elses?
Leonard Deakin | 14.01.09 – 9:13 am | #
Hmmm. So only the unhealthy to pay for the NHS? Only the old to pay for the pensions? Only victims of crime to pay for police?
In the school system, this is where the ‘voucher’ system gets round this problem. I believe some Scandinavian countries use it; each parent gets a voucher. They use it at the school of their choice. Good schools get the vouchers. Bad ones don’t.
We’ve got two older children in private day because the local state seconday (one of the best) cannot enforce a dress code, cannot clean its own lavatories, and insists on being a ‘sports academy’. I don’t want my children to have ambitions to be David Beckham.
The youngest is just getting to the end of his time at the village primary. In the ten years that we’ve used this once-fabulous school, it has been utterly sanitised: gone are the male teachers, the feeling of independence, the old-fashioned values.
In has come a headteacher who is little more than a buzzword-speaking manager. In has come a series of robotic ‘teachers’, doing little more than read out state-produced pamphlets (Typical maths problem: ‘Ahmed has three healthy vegetarian meals. He eats one. How many ethically-friendly vegetarian meals has Ahmed got left to give to his friend Mohammed?’. Everyone gets 100% at everything. No child gets pushed or challenged. Education by tickbox. Ho hum.
“I don’t want my children to have ambitions to be David Beckham.”
Massively successful at a highly skilled profession, lived in several of the nicest cities on earth, ultimillionaire, thoroughly nice bloke, patriot, family man… What’s not to like?
There’s only one pair of cancer cells in our education system – Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper.
Cockney “Massively successful at a highly skilled profession, lived in several of the nicest cities on earth …….. What’s not to like?”
It’s not a question of “like”. The original quote said “ambition to be”. Wanting to become David Beckham may encourage a child to work hard at football but not at his studies. If he succeeds in becoming the next David Beckham, fine. But if not?
Football and music are seen by many as short cuts to success. That is the last thing we need right now.
‘What’s not to like’?
Apart from the spitting, the swearing, the cheating, the diving, the inane celebrity culture, the lack of respect for the officials (right down to schoolboy level), the fact that the ‘First Division’ isn’t the first division and the ‘Champions’ have a whole division above them, the short shelf life, the fact that while learning to be top footballers they seem to have missed the lessons on speaking English (except, of course, the foreign players!), Posh Spice, the Bentleys, the spit-roasting, the nightclub fights, the crowd segregation, the hand gestures, the fact that the BBC gives special weather forecast for ‘the match’ (as if no other sports exist)…
Apart from that, nothing at all.
IMHO the BBC’s attitude just reflects left-wing dogma:
1) Private schools – ‘unfair’, ‘posh, ‘British’
2) Comprehensives – places to play social engineering, doesn’t matter if everybody fails – fairer than some children succeeding.
I have some left-wing friends. Their hearts are in the right place, but their ability to build a logical argument is seriously impaired.
I was discussing this a while ago and suggested that if private schools do give an ‘unfair’ advantage, perhaps the solution is to privatise all schools. The government could still pay and then nobody would be getting an ‘unfair’ advantage – everybody would be privately educated. Of course, this lead to (literally) screaming indignation. The argument suddenly shifted to ‘profit from education’ and all that claptrap. I tried to point out that teachers, cleaners, dinner ladies, caretakers, LEA staff, etc., were all making a profit from education. I also tried to explain that the schools could be run ‘not for profit’ but as private commerical enterprises. Nothing could dissuade them from their dogmatic positions. Instead, they called for an end to all private schools (even for Forces’ children, whose parents are obliged to move on a regular basis).
I’m not sure why Socialists think it is a good idea to drag society down to the level as ‘the street’, rather than attempt to drag the ‘most disadvantaged’ (to use their buzzword for anti-social scum) up to the same standards as our professional classes. I do wonder if they would be happier if everybody in the country was starving to death in the streets – at least it would be fair, because we’re all starving.
…the Bentleys, the spit-roasting,…
Chuffer | 14.01.09 – 11:44 am | #
So there are a couple of good things about becoming a footballer?
Hang on…
Abuse of public schooling is a typical lefty measure to crush aspiration and demonise hard work and success, but owning a Bentley is a BAD THING??
Considering the bloke is possibly the most internationally recognised performer (if far from the best) in the world’s top sport I think he conducts himself admirably despite a limited natural intelligence. A model for us all.
And Posh is pretty hot.
Frankos:
“I suppose the point is that Comprehensive education doesn’t really work for the less able student, whereas the Grammar schools and private schools seem to.”
Less able children don’t get into grammar schools.
Slightly off BBC topic, but concerning the state system my daughter loves reading the Key Stage books. When she found her Stage 4 book too easy we asked for the next stage.
It was as if we had just revealed we were secret members of the National Socialists German Workers’ Party. The horrified 19 year-old coldly told us that it was “not a race” and then frankly that there was “no bar to reading outside the Key Stage books”. Then she reported us to the head. A visit to the head confirmed her original comments. The very thought of someone progressing ahead of the pack does seem to strike fear into the state school system, in my limited experience.
The BBC (by accident?) illustrated the difference between our “education” system and that of (I think) India last night on the 10:00 pm News.
In India we were shown a traditional classroom; children at single desks all facing the front: the teacher at a blackboard (yes – a blackboard) writing neatly and the children obviously (although it might have been the camera’s presence) quiet and eager to learn. In the UK the children (seemingly of the same age) were grouped round tables – ie half of them had their backs to the teacher who, BTW, seemed to be wandering aimlessly round the room – colouring in books.
If this is how most of our children are “educated” then in 30 year’s time we’ll be the Third World. I hope India will see its way clear to throwing us a bit of charity/development aid when the time comes.
It’s part of the social levelling jihad conducted rather bizarrely by an elite of self-loathers who don’t peer too deeply into the campaigns they take up.
In America there is a similar phenomenon – well off people who send their children to private, but have such fantasies of statism themselves that they only listen to NPR and watch PBS, a fantacy media that does whatever it can to appear to operate like a government mandated and run media even though they simply call their advertizing “sponsorship”.
I presume Mr bacon will be making the point that if social levelling is a great desirable the onus should be on state schools to raise their standards to private school levels.
the other option is too ridiculous to think about…
I am totally and utterly confused by this!!
Most Beeboids send their own kids to private school. So why now are they trying to sabotage them?
Please someone ecplain this logic to me, as I don’t get it.
I’m reminded of Dianne Abbott (and others)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3229453.stm
Does BBC Director General, Mark Thompson think that private schools have a ‘cancerous’ effect? Or can they only have a ‘cancerous’ effect on non-BBC people?
After all, Thompson went to one:
‘Wikipedia’
“He was educated by the Jesuits at Stonyhurst College… [Lancashire].”
They know this. The people who filed the report know this. Just like homosexuals at the BBC who promote the gay hating Muslims, just WHY are the BBC trying to exterminate themselves and their offspring with this kind of anti-private school PR. It truly boggles the mind.
Football: ‘the world’s top sport’?
There, Cockney, me ol’ mate, we’ll have to agree to differ (in the nice new spirit of this site)!
Opening up a class war could be Gordon’s biggest mistake. OK, the bbc will go along with the “equality” agenda because they’re already middle/upper class, despite the fact that most of them claim to have working class roots.
So they’ve already made it.
They don’t have to climb the greasy pole, so it’s easy for them to talk about making the pole not quite so greasy.
But will anything actually happen? Will the government abolish private education? Will more kids in real poverty make it to Oxbridge? Answers on a postcard please!
Frankos:
“I suppose the point is that Comprehensive education doesn’t really work for the less able student, whereas the Grammar schools and private schools seem to.”
Less able children don’t get into grammar schools.
Agreed, –but the more talented do –as did my dad who benefited from the aspirational attitudes taught at these schools. On the other hand, private schools seem more beneficial for the average pupil than comps.
Many of my ex schoolmates would have achieved far more in the private system.
Cheeta | 14.01.09 – 1:31 pm | #
During the caretaker’s strike of the late 70’s my dad gave me extra lessons at home. When school went back to normal my teacher noticed that I was “ahead” of the other kids, especially in maths. So my dad was called into a meeting with my teacher and the head mistress, at which they basically asked him what the hell he thought he was doing by teaching his own son and that it was their job to educate me, not his.
I also remember the same teacher telling us kids that computers should be banned as they were going to cause mass unemployment and that eventually they would get out of control and take over the world. Lefties, eh?
What annoys me is how the BBC refuse to attack Labour Ministers who have had a private education themselves or who send their children to private (or selective state) schools and we get the defence that ‘oh any MP will want to do the best for their children’ which of course is rubbish.
Why didn’t Diane Abbott send her kid to the local shit state school? If it’s good enough for the people who vote for her why not her?
“The BBC (by accident?) illustrated the difference between our “education” system and that of (I think) India last night on the 10:00 pm News.”
Try logging on to
http://www.cbseguess.com
for Indian past maths exam papers for 16-year-olds (Year XII), and then compare them with our own GCSEs on
http://www.aqa.org.uk
How can the UK compete in the global market with such dumbed-down exams ?
Odd – the BBC has ignored this bit of Labour hypocrisy disclosed on Guido’s blog and by the Mail.
I give up.
I’ve asked the same question twice and still get ignored.
Bye all. Have fun. Too many people trying to be heard up here, no-one listening.
The reason Bacon was having this discussion was that some lefty educationalist dweeb had pronounced private schools to be a “cancer on education.” To discuss it they had Fiona Millar, Alastair Campbell’s pretend wife and uber leftist, and Anthony Seldon, the head of Wellington College who wrote a biography of Toni Bliar.
The fact is that people who send their children to private schools are buying them a better education, which in a free country they should have a right to do. The question is why they are buying their children a better education? I would say the reason is that state education is shit, because for the last 50 years lefty educationalist dweebs have made it shit. They are the true cancers on education, just don’t ever expect the BBC to frame a discussion in those terms. The default position for the BBC (and how could it ever be different?) is that state provision of any service is the correct thing, and the private sector should have to fight to justify its existence.
Ratass:
Why the huff? WE can’t answer your question. You should be addressing it to the BBC itself. On this site – at least, while no beeboids are here – your question becomes rhetorical.
The phrase ‘a cancer on education’ is such a weird one to choose, so I googled it.
Lo and behold, it was coined by the High Master of St Paul’s, no less.
But he wasn’t referring to private schools………..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1047512/Private-schools-boycott-exam-league-tables–cancer-face-education.html
So the BBC is getting Balls’s retaliation for him eh?
Is that really the job of a supposedly impartial broadcaster?
So the bbc was quoting someone else’s comment to frame a debate, and invited two people from opposite sides of the debate to comment.
MWL, Seldon is an über-blairite. He’s also my old man’s boss and an enormous self-aggrandiser (we also think he’s fishing for a peerage from his Labour chums or a cushdie job in the Dept of Education), so it is hardly surprising that he is the BBC’s go-to guy if they want an independent headmaster.
He’s also well into the whole Neue Arbeit “academies” sponsored by the private sector.
So he does NOT in any way provide balance.
Ratass Shagged | 14.01.09 – 4:37 pm |
I’ve asked the same question twice and still get ignored.
Didn’t you notice that James gave you the answer in his comment @ 3:09?
OK, the bbc will go along with the “equality” agenda because they’re already middle/upper class, despite the fact that most of them claim to have working class roots.
So they’ve already made it.
I guess because it wasn’t addressed directly to you, you missed it.
I would only add that, like with so many other issues they cover, the Beeboids are reacting emotionally and not logically. They do not realize what they are doing.
DP
“the Beeboids are reacting emotionally and not logically”
But, David, if you listened to You and Yours on the EU yesterday one of the studio minions who reads out emails chose to say “the responses from the No camp are definitely more emotional than the Yes responses”
Talk too on PM of the “drip drip effect” of Eurosceptic blogs. Not so the BBC’s drip drip effect the other way around.
Arghgh.
OT – but top urgent
Newsflash from the Downing Street bunker:-
http://bbcpioneers.blogspot.com/2009/01/live-news-from-downing-street.html
Sorry but I thought the title of the debate was an early April Fool.
David Vance: Can you please do a thread for this silly Labour woman who spoke about the “green shoots of recovery”
Anyone who saw the BBC 6PM news could only see a complete whitewash by Robinson and Peston to defend this silly bitch.
For starters we had endless clips of the Tories and the ‘last recession’ with Norman Lamont (quite what THAT has to do with the current depression I don’t know)
Then that tosspot Peston clearly under orders from Downing Street comes on and defends this woman.
There are no green shoots of recovery, we’re in a depression.
Tonight the BBC hit rock bottom.
The BBC are fighting hard to remind everyone of the Conservative recessions which were 100% home-grown in contrast to this one which is 80% the fault of the USA and 20% the fault of greedy bankers (all of whom vote Tory).