Britain’s state school system is a conspiracy against the public | James Delingpole

April 2, 2011

Britain’s state school system is a conspiracy against the public

The other day Girl’s class found themselves with time to spare in the vast play area behind the Imperial War Museum. The children looked wistfully at the swings, roundabouts and climbing frames. ‘I’m not sure we can go there,’ said the teacher. ‘I haven’t filled in a risk assessment form.’

(to read more, click here)

11 thoughts on “Britain’s state school system is a conspiracy against the public”

  1. Martin Lack says:2nd April 2011 at 8:42 amSo are you.
  2. JimmyGiro says:2nd April 2011 at 9:53 amDuring last Christmas, I was working in the local sorting office as a casual. From one sixth-form college, we received a large assignment of postcards, with the term’s ‘student reports’.

    Needless to say, no meaningful assessment of the student could be gleaned from the language of the reports, which used superlatives and neologisms, as though ready for the plasterer’s trowel. But the plasterer’s art was instantly revealed, as all reports from the same teachers about different students, were identical.

    And to simulate individuality, each card was hand written. One maths teacher had misspelled a word in his multi-batch, thence tip-exed out that mistake in all the post-cards from him, so that you knew from a glance the author.

    Why don’t parents with children from the same schools, gather and swap school reports, so as to get insight into the con, that is modern state education.

    And don’t get me started on Ritalin.

  3. Nige Cook says:2nd April 2011 at 11:58 am“Britain’s state school system is a conspiracy against the public on an epic scale. Over a period of at least three decades, generations of children have been sacrificed on the altar of an entrenched ideology which — in the name of ‘progressive’ values — has successfully removed from a once-functioning system every last vestige of rigour, discipline, aspiration and competition. Thanks, Miss Snuffy, for telling it like it is.”

    I attended comprehensive state schooling and then red brick colleges, and I agree 100%. To maintain discipline during the late 80s, my form tutor (“Ms” with dyed pink hair, who was also my English teacher), allowed us to watch “Neighbours” at 1:30pm after half an hour’s free discussion (usually on the topic of socialist ethics, Marxism, the perils of the May 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, etc.). She was disillusioned and confided to us that despite using up here grant allowance on higher education, she was planning to study law (in the fine socialist legal tradition of defending the guilty-as-sin, at great public expense, thus upholding law and social justice). One other memory was the chemistry teacher, who deliberately used explosions and bromine to wake everyone up. Nobody bothered him, since he carried around a jar of uranium acetate in his pocket.

    The great thing about state education is the complete freedom to do your own thing, to think for yourself, to resist conforming to the dictatorship of others, in fact the necessity of doing your own thing if you want to pass any exams ever. Everyone who I knew who got grade A’s did so on the basis of out-of-school study, tutored by parents or by elder siblings. I swim and run regularly for exercise, but I refused to do any competitive sport as a matter of Marxist/Christian principle when at school: competitive sport is immoral prize-grabbing and (trying to) make others losers, hardly the kind of thing Jesus would do. I think it’s curious to see that instead of producing the intended clones, the socialist system of state education backfires and produces innovators and freethinkers. Looking at the products of English public schools, you find prime ministers, civil servants, Nobel Laureates, and other high status clones like fashionable writers.

    They mostly tend to suffer from customs, ethics, groupthink ideology, and conservative political correctness that stifled free thinking and genuine innovation. The exception to this rule (James) is the moral equivalent of Blair’s “plastic copper”; a “visible presence” who won’t overcrowding the prisons. Ideal. You find all socialistic dictatorships have a special “complains department”, the BBC’s Raymond Snoddy, the Guardian’s “Reader’s Editor”, etc. The more open and proud they are of their procedures for dealing with dissent, the more of a problem they end up creating, the self-fulfilling prophecy problem.

    If they don’t have procedures in place to allow “concerns to be redressed”, they’re more careful about doing their research and getting their facts straight in the first place. With the BBC and the Guardian, you find that they immediately refer their damned “proudly” to their “unbiased” complaints departments as soon as they receive a complaint. It’s the same with government departments. The more procedures they put in place to deal with problems, the freer they are to get things wrong and make use of those departments, and the more impossible it is to get any direct and honest reply from the people who actually make up the lies. Instead of lying to the public being considered a sackable offense, the mechanism is in place to turn lying into a social nicety, just a matter of giving James Delingpole something to complain about.

  4. Velocity says:4th April 2011 at 12:58 amBritains State schools are going (have gone) the way of everything else run by Westminster and local Councils (ie. politicians). They are being run, expensively and incompetently, into into the ground

    Everything Govt touches turns to crap

  5. Felicity says:7th April 2011 at 11:09 amWhat type of parent would send their child to a school which they won’t even set foot in themselves?

    Oh right – the type of parent who can’t be bothered shelling out the extra cash for something as frivolous as their daughter’s education. It’s especially important to limit your daughter’s opportunities in life if you have a son which you wish to send to the most expensive type of school in the country.

    Nowadays rich and successful men are just hanging around, waiting to marry a state educated girl as soon as she finishes highschool. There is never a time she will need to support herself, support loved ones – or God forbid, actually have dreams & ambition in life!

    I read your article in Tatler. It was the most sexist piece of trash I’ve seen since we had to read a ‘housewive’s handguide’ from the 1950’s in my history class at school.

    Thank you for making me value my father (who worked to give me opportunities in life) a lot more.

  6. James Delingpole says:7th April 2011 at 11:30 amThanks “Felicity”. Until I read your comment I was all ready to bankrupt myself sending Girl to private school. But now I see that even when you do send a young lady to private school she still emerges bitter, angry, wedded to the kind of self-destructive feminist outlook which one might have hoped had died in the Seventies, and sends pseudonymous hate messages to people she doesn’t know based on one article she only half-understood in Tatler, well, maybe I’d be better leaving her at the local comp.
  7. JimmyGiro says:7th April 2011 at 3:14 pmHehehe… outch!
  8. Felicity says:10th April 2011 at 12:14 pmI wished my parents had sent me to the local state school along with my primary school friends at the time – but now that I’m older I’ve realised how low the rates of University admittence were, as well as how high the rates of teen pregnancy were. I’m sure I would have done just as well academically – but I would have been exposed to a lot of things I wouldn’t want my kids to be exposed to.

    You’re more than happy to bankrupt yourself for the sake of your son – why not send them both to a cheaper private school if money is a problem?

    As for being bitter and angry – well I do believe that this is the pot calling the kettle black in this scenario. I am right to be angry when people treat children unfairly – but this blog spews outrage over even seemingly trivial topics.

    Whilst I don’t believe you intend to cause your kids any harm, I do believe you’re setting your daughter up for a lifetime of self-doubt and resentment if you offer her sibling more privilege than you do her.

    I have very different values to you – yes I do believe in gender equality, I worry about the environment, I believe gay people should have the same rights and I’m strongly against racism. I do however, believe we both care for children – so I think you should reconsider how your decision will affect your kids emotionally.

  9. Felicity says:10th April 2011 at 12:16 pmOh and Felicity is my real name.
  10. Nige Cook says:10th April 2011 at 3:36 pmIf you will read James Delingpole’s book How to be Right, you’ll find he argues for all the liberal equality values that you claim to be differences. What you call “seemingly trivial topics” concern the continued wasting of billions which actually sent this country into serious financial and moral bankrupcy, led to a culture of lying for Marxist ideology (the EU financial corruption is worse than that of USSR), and reduced individual freedoms.

    Oh and Felicity is my real name.

    How appropriate, the derivative of a Roman goddess! Did your privileged girls education include the etiquette of snobbery?

  11. Felicity says:19th April 2011 at 10:57 amIt was a co-ed private school and not that privileged. I don’t believe state school education is bad overall. Some are great, some are terrible – the one in our local area just happened to be the former.

    The problem I have is that one child is being afforded more privilege than the other and that the author seemingly planned to give his daughter just one option for her future – marrying a rich man.

    It’s unfair and completely unrealistic in this day and age – what if marries late in life or not all? What if she gets divorced? What if she falls in love with someone with little money?

Comments are closed.

Post navigation

Liked it? Take a second to support James on Patreon!