Starmer's vision quest

[multitool]

bizarre ranting abuse

Wow. Quite the tantrum. Weird thing is, only one person is shouting, screaming, swearing, being abusive and trying to bully somebody off.

Back to debate in hand...not everything is about you, icow. Despite all your special pleading it is still about wealth.

 

[newfhouse]

it is proven that girls do better in girls schools by a country mile.

Maybe some do better in purely academic terms but it’s not universally true. Will they grow up with an understanding of how to deal with mixed environments? Why not have single sex universities or workplaces? And what about boys? Don’t they, in general, do better in mixed schools? Don’t they matter?

In turn, I have worked hard, remortgaged my house several times so that my children can have the best start in life. I am wealthier than my parents were which is a plus as now assisted places don't exist. I still rely on my children getting scholarships and stretch finances thin so that they can have a great start in life.

Well done. It’s still about social isolation though, whether that’s from boys or from kids without your financial good fortune.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I think research tends to show that both sexes do better in single sex schools. Having taught in both a girls school and in mixed schools, it's definitely a different vibe in single sex. The girls are more confident, free from worrying about what boys think of them, free to be more assertive and competitive without being thought of as pushy. Whether these academic and confidence benefits outweigh the social benefits of mixed education depends on a family's personal situation I think, and the approach taken by the single sex school obviously.

They do have all women colleges in American unis, and in Oxford and Cambridge. Bit of a legacy from when women were first allowed into higher education rather than ideological though.

https://www.agsa.org.au/news/study-finds-single-sex-schools-successful-especially-girls/

 

[Deleted member 28]

There you go. Exactly as I said in that first quote of mine, icow.

Doesn't matter if you phrase it as "allowing children to flourish who would get destroyed at a state school".

What you are saying is that only the kids whose parents are wealthy enough won't get destroyed.

I can't believe I'm saying this but I totally agree with the tool on this one, it's just a shame cowbloke hasn't got the balls to admit it too.

It's like going privately for medical treatment and saying you're only doing it because you would suffer more than someone who can't afford to, it's boll*x and you know it.

Luckily for your kids (and you with your apparent awkwardness?) they have the opportunity which is fine, just don't make out they 'need' it anymore than some other kid off the estate.

As far as I can see you still think you're owed something and come over as a bitter individual despite your parents efforts and I assume your relative success in life.

 

[qigong chimp]

The money's mine.
As are the educational advantages.

 

[Deleted member 28]

The money's mine.
As are the educational advantages.

Who the f**k asked you?

 

[qigong chimp]

You'd rather I hid my light under a bushel?

 

[Deleted member 28]

You'd rather I hid my light under a bushel?

You feel free pal, always good to read something totally incomprehensible. 👍

 

[bobzmyunkle]

You'd rather I hid my light under a bushel?

Bushels should be burned

 

[qigong chimp]

We did the one about the Venn diagram of the sets 'things that can be comprehended' and 'things shep comprehends' didn't we?

 

[qigong chimp]

Bushels should be burned

No, that's bushes.
The pair of you are making an unanswerable case for retaining private schools.

 

[newfhouse]

No, that's bushes.

Beds, surely?

 

[icowden]

I can't believe I'm saying this but I totally agree with the tool on this one, it's just a shame cowbloke hasn't got the balls to admit it too.

It's just a shame Shep that you appear to be as thick as multitool. I went to a private school. My parents were not wealthy.

Do you see? Private schools are not just for the wealthy. It's as simple as that. There is a class of children at private school who are not wealthy. This is a trope trotted out by the labour party.

Do I want to be paying for a private school, of course not. But until we get a government willing to sing *significant* amounts of money into education, there is no acceptable provision for some children by the state.

Finland is held up as the example. Their schools have excellent facilities and small class sizes. There is very little benefit to going private in Finland. We have poor schools with few resources and inadequate teachers. You get good teachers by paying more. You get good schools by investing money in them so that they have equipment and facilities.

 

[icowden]

Maybe some do better in purely academic terms but it’s not universally true. Will they grow up with an understanding of how to deal with mixed environments? Why not have single sex universities or workplaces? And what about boys? Don’t they, in general, do better in mixed schools? Don’t they matter?

Yes they do. It removes the sexual competition and the pressure of boyfriend / girlfriend. Girls don't feel that they cannot do STEM subjects because they are somehow unfeminine. They are more competitive at sport because they are not worried about what the boys think. They come out of school more confident. Girls do better academically, socially and emotionally and there are many many studies to back this up.

 

[qigong chimp]

Beds, surely?

Bridges, maybe.