Private education

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/aug/15/a-level-results-private-schools

Now once again, people coming out of private schools are getting better grades. I personally think that it is a sorry state of affairs when you can waltz your way through social mobility and get a better start in life simply because you have the cash. Everyone should have the same equal opportunities in life, and at the moment it really isn't happening. Results every year are just one example. Anyone else here think it is unfair you can pay your way to a better education?

Not always as simple as that, thankfully. The social mix of universities like mine suggests you might actually be better off (apart from financially!) sending a gifted child to state school.

Absolutely agree. It's no wonder people don't understand each others' problems and achievements if they're separated at a young age as far as education is concerned.

I'm a great believer in people's freedom to spend their cash as they wish but I don't believe that any one person deserves to have better access to good health, good education, good legal advice than anyone else.

We chose to send our children to state schools - they did just fine and are all successful in their chosen fields. It goes against my principles to 'buy' advantages.

Nope.

Simple economics - you'd know that if you went to a decent school

Private education pays better money, so attracts the better teachers, just like Chelsea and Manure pay better money and can attract better players. Therefore more money = better education.

Why should we restrict the education opportunities for people who can afford it - we don't live in 1960s Russia do we?

Why should everyone have 'equal opportunities' [to me that phrase is ridiculously out of context]? It's like saying everybody should have to drive a 1 litre Renault 5 whether they can afford a Bugati or a Porsche or whatever, just so the 'rich' people don't gain an advantage.

Nope.

 

Simple economics - you'd know that if you went to a decent school

 

Private education pays better money, so attracts the better teachers, just like Chelsea and Manure pay better money and can attract better players. Therefore more money = better education.

 

Why should we restrict the education opportunities for people who can afford it - we don't live in 1960s Russia do we?

 

Why should everyone have 'equal opportunities' [to me that phrase is ridiculously out of context]? It's like saying everybody should have to drive a 1 litre Renault 5 whether they can afford a Bugati or a Porsche or whatever, just so the 'rich' people don't gain an advantage.

That's not really the point I was trying to make. What I'm trying to say is that everyone should have the same opportunity to prosper fully, those who get a better education simply because of parents wealth get a foot up in life. Obviously though who then waste that opportunity shouldn't be given a foot up or vice versa??? If you get what I mean...

Because, WSS, it perpetuates the divide in our society.

And what possible 'advantage' can having a Bugatti or a Porsche bring over a 1 litre Renault 5 - what actual advantage in any attempt to improve your lot in life?

We arrive on this planet in the same way and depart this mortal coil in the same way. Why shouldn't we all have the same opportunities? It's then up to the individual as to whether s/he wants to take advantage of those opportunities.

The 'better' teachers don't necessarily gravitate to fee-paying schools. I would say the BEST teachers are those devoted to teaching in the state sector because they're doing what their vocation demands of them - enabling children from all walks of life to achieve their potential.

That's not really the point I was trying to make. What I'm trying to say is that everyone should have the same opportunity to prosper fully, those who get a better education simply because of parents wealth get a foot up in life. Obviously though who then waste that opportunity shouldn't be given a foot up or vice versa??? If you get what I mean...

I get what you're saying.

People who have lots of money shouldn't be able to buy an education for their kids, and they should have to go to the same schools and receive the same education as everyone else.

I just don't agree with what you're saying!

The principle behind your argument isn't even a sound one. Just look at communist Russia - where you appear to be getting your principles from - and tell me that the rulers of the country and party officials sent their kids to the same schools as the prols. Did they fook!

I get what you're saying.

 

People who have lots of money shouldn't be able to buy an education for their kids, and they should have to go to the same schools and receive the same education as everyone else.

 

I just don't agree with what you're saying!

 

The principle behind your argument isn't even a sound one. Just look at communist Russia - where you appear to be getting your principles from - and tell me that the rulers of the country and party officials sent their kids to the same schools as the prols. Did they fook!

Dude, if I was communist would I be saying that once people get the equal opportunity if they **** it up they shouldn't still be maintained at the top? I'm talking about proper social mobility and proper meritocracy.

Nope.

 

 

Private education pays better money, so attracts the better teachers,

Simply not true - there are plenty of duff teachers in private education and also plenty of good ones who could be better if they had greater access to career development. From my limited experience of private schools they are not paid more either (but I don't know about all of the private schools).

The parents who can afford to send their children to private schools have usually done well in life due to their intelligence and usually manage to produce intelligent children - perhaps that's why children at private schools tend to do better?

That's not really the point I was trying to make. What I'm trying to say is that everyone should have the same opportunity to prosper fully, those who get a better education simply because of parents wealth get a foot up in life. Obviously though who then waste that opportunity shouldn't be given a foot up or vice versa??? If you get what I mean...

So what are you suggesting? Banning private education?

Simply not true - there are plenty of duff teachers in private education and also plenty of good ones who could be better if they had greater access to career development. From my limited experience of private schools they are not paid more either (but I don't know about all of the private schools).

 

The parents who can afford to send their children to private schools have usually done well in life due to their intelligence and usually manage to produce intelligent children - perhaps that's why children at private schools tend to do better?

Smaller class sizes make a massive difference.

Dude, if I was communist would I be saying that once people get the equal opportunity if they **** it up they should still be maintained at the top? I'm talking about proper social mobility and proper meritocracy.

So, what you're advocating is that everyone starts on an equal footing.

Then, some people will move on at a faster pace than others - Human Nature, not Nurture - and will do well for themselves. They will then earn more money than some other people by applying their skills and education. Then they will have children of their own, who you would like to see start right at the bottom of the pile, just because otherwise it would be 'unfair'.

So, what exactly is the point of 'social mobility' if it doesn't gain you any advantage?

Because, WSS, it perpetuates the divide in our society.

 

And what possible 'advantage' can having a Bugatti or a Porsche bring over a 1 litre Renault 5 - what actual advantage in any attempt to improve your lot in life?

 

We arrive on this planet in the same way and depart this mortal coil in the same way. Why shouldn't we all have the same opportunities? It's then up to the individual as to whether s/he wants to take advantage of those opportunities.

 

The 'better' teachers don't necessarily gravitate to fee-paying schools. I would say the BEST teachers are those devoted to teaching in the state sector because they're doing what their vocation demands of them - enabling children from all walks of life to achieve their potential.

Talking of schools that create divides and should be banned, schools of any religious kind should not be allowed, can't believe they are still in this day and age really.

I think, as the economic outlook turns increasingly gloomy, more and more parents will withdraw their children from fee-paying schools and send them to state schools. In fact, I'm sure I read somewhere that this is already happening.

It will / already has put enormous pressure on some state schools to provide these unexpected places.

Sadly though, even in the state sector, some parents 'buy' advantage by moving to catchment areas of 'good' schools. That's their right and I wouldn't deny them that right (to move house, that is). But it's a shame that, even in the state sector, some schools are perceived to be better than others.

So, what you're advocating is that everyone starts on an equal footing.

 

Then, some people will move on at a faster pace than others - Human Nature, not Nurture - and will do well for themselves. They will then earn more money than some other people by applying their skills and education. Then they will have children of their own, who you would like to see start right at the bottom of the pile, just because otherwise it would be 'unfair'.

 

So, what exactly is the point of 'social mobility' if it doesn't gain you any advantage?

You shouldn't be able to just thrust yourself to the top on the back of your wealth.

Talking of schools that create divides and should be banned, schools of any religious kind should not be allowed, can't believe they are still in this day and age really.

I couldn't agree more. Education should be secular. Full stop.

So what are you suggesting? Banning private education?

No, not at all, I'm just saying state schools should offer the same opportunities that private schools do.

I believe if you have done well in life, you deserve to be able to do thing like buy a big house, buy a nice car and yes, send your children to a good school.

Private schools are not all about the actual teachers (although a large percentage is) but also the pupils that go there. The children tend to be in a different mindset when going to school and are there to learn.

No, not at all, I'm just saying state schools should offer the same opportunities that private schools do.

Impossible I'm afraid, would cost an absolute fortune. Also, all that would happen is that private schools would then improve accordingly to retain their competitive advantage and that of their pupils.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/aug/15/a-level-results-private-schools

 

Now once again, people coming out of private schools are getting better grades. I personally think that it is a sorry state of affairs when you can waltz your way through social mobility and get a better start in life simply because you have the cash. Everyone should have the same equal opportunities in life, and at the moment it really isn't happening. Results every year are just one example. Anyone else here think it is unfair you can pay your way to a better education?

You don't have to pay your way into a better education, my mum doesn't even earn how much it costs me annually to go to King Edward VI School, in a year; but I still get the better education because I have earned it through a scholarship and bursary. If you are clever enough you can still go to private schools without "paying your way through education" as you so nicely put it.

However, I must admit, the entrance exam pass threshold for fee paying students, is lower than the barrier for scholars/bursary receiving students.

My point is the OP has jumped to conclusions and your point is invalid, if you deserve a better education you will get it. Even if you have to go out of your way to get it.

I believe if you have done well in life, you deserve to be able to do thing like buy a big house, buy a nice car and yes, send your children to a good school.

 

Private schools are not all about the actual teachers (although a large percentage is) but also the pupils that go there. The children tend to be in a different mindset when going to school and are there to learn.

Oh yea, I forgot that everyone who goes to state schools is 'different' and has a stupid attitude. In fact, I have a brilliant idea, let's just separate everyone permanently by wealth because the rich kids are just better. Great idea

I believe if you have done well in life, you deserve to be able to do thing like buy a big house, buy a nice car and yes, send your children to a good school.

 

Private schools are not all about the actual teachers (although a large percentage is) but also the pupils that go there. The children tend to be in a different mindset when going to school and are there to learn.

This man makes a very good point regarding mindsets.

You don't have to pay your way into a better education, my mum doesn't even earn how much it costs me annually to go to King Edward VI School, in a year; but I still get the better education because I have earned it through a scholarship and bursary. If you are clever enough you can still go to private schools without "paying your way through education" as you so nicely put it.

 

However, I must admit, the entrance exam pass threshold for fee paying students, is lower than the barrier for scholars/bursary receiving students.

 

 

 

My point is the OP has jumped to conclusions and your point is invalid, if you deserve a better education you will get it. Even if you have to go out of your way to get it.

Rubbish, not everyone got access to the excellent opportunity which you obviously had and seized.

Rubbish, not everyone got access to the excellent opportunity which you obviously had and seized.

My last post of the day, but yes, yes they do.

King Edward's openly advertise their bursaries and scholarships and the entrance exam is widely advertised on Buses, in leaflets and I have even seen it advertised in match day programmes.

They are always advertising them, they have to because to keep the charitable status that most private schools have, it has to "give away" 10 bursaries and X-amount of scholarships a year. So in answer to you, yes everyone does have the access, their isn't any "fit and proper test" or anything, the only barrier of entry is your own intelligence.

My last post of the day, but yes, yes they do.

 

King Edward's openly advertise their bursaries and scholarships and the entrance exam is widely advertised on Buses, in leaflets and I have even seen it advertised in match day programmes.

 

They are always advertising them, they have to because to keep the charitable status that most private schools have, it has to "give away" 10 bursaries and X-amount of scholarships a year. So in answer to you, yes everyone does have the access, their isn't any "fit and proper test" or anything, the only barrier of entry is your own intelligence.

Really, I'll think you'll find not everyone who 'deserves' it does get in. Anyway, that really isn't my point, my point is that school should not even be able to give people who are lucky enough a better education. The scholarship part is a glorified grammar school which I also disagree with.

I thought King Edwards was a Grant Maintained school? It used to be a state grammar school IIRC.

GM schools are obliged to offer scholarships and bursaries. Unfortunately not every town in the UK has such schools.

I think they should put a an extra tax on the private schools to help bring the rest of the education up to scratch. At the moment the gap is way to big.

It would also help the country as the best people would get the best jobs, not just a bunch of posh f@ckwits on daddy's gravy train.

Oh yea, I forgot that everyone who goes to state schools is 'different' and has a stupid attitude. In fact, I have a brilliant idea, let's just separate everyone permanently by wealth because the rich kids are just better. Great idea

Yes, thats exactly what I said. Whether you like it or not, private schools have students who are less likely to **** about in class, play truant and/or distract others. If I was in a position to send my kids to a private school, I would do it. They would be less likely to fall into the wrong crowd and more likely to get better grades. Unfortunately it's unlikely I will be able to afford that.

You and I know that there are children at state schools who have a wonderful attitude and come out with fantastic grades. It's just there is a lower percentage.

Bill Clinton had it spot on "its not ability which is unevenly distributed in society, its opportunity".

We arrive on this planet in the same way and depart this mortal coil in the same way. Why shouldn't we all have the same opportunities? It's then up to the individual as to whether s/he wants to take advantage of those opportunities.

But when peope take advantage of these opportunities, they wouldn't be allowed to invest in their children according to you, so what's the point?

It will / already has put enormous pressure on some state schools to provide these unexpected places.

So you at least agree that private education takes pressure off of the system in the good times.

I think they should put a an extra tax on the private schools to help bring the rest of the education up to scratch. At the moment the gap is way to big.

But those parents sending their kids to private school are already paying income tax which goes towards funding education and by then paying for private education are effectively paying twice, some of which is going to help the more needy.

It is worth pointing out that not all parents are rich as is often assumed. A mate of mine is a mechanic who lives in a complete **** hole, but spends every penny of his to put his boy through private education, to give him the best chances in life. If you choose to **** it up the wall and have fancy holidays, why should he not be allowed to invest it in his kid?

Private schools should be allowed to exist, they just shouldn't offer better opportunities.

I get what you're saying.

 

People who have lots of money shouldn't be able to buy an education for their kids, and they should have to go to the same schools and receive the same education as everyone else.

 

I just don't agree with what you're saying!

 

The principle behind your argument isn't even a sound one. Just look at communist Russia - where you appear to be getting your principles from - and tell me that the rulers of the country and party officials sent their kids to the same schools as the prols. Did they fook!

That's not right.

I've taught in both private and state schools. I'd say if anything the harder working, more talented and more dedicated teachers were in the state system. There were more lazy and uninvolved teachers in the private system, but generally they're pretty similar. The difference is more as a result of class size, funds and parental involvement. Parents who are paying tend to follow things up a lot more at home.

Private schools should be allowed to exist, they just shouldn't offer better opportunities.

That's like saying, Sainsbury's should be allowed to make "taste the difference" and Tesco's shoud be allowed to have "Tesco's Finest", but they should not be allowed to be better than the value brands.

That's like saying, Sainsbury's should be allowed to make "taste the difference" and Tesco's shoud be allowed to have "Tesco's Finest", but they should not be allowed to be better than the value brands.

No it isn't, we are talking about children's education which will decide how the whole of their life turns out. Children's education is very different to food.

No it isn't, we are talking about children's education which will decide how the whole of their life turns out. Children's education is very different to food.

all things being equal does not work......the shining examples of course..North Korea and communist russia...

yeah, lets do that

That's not right.

 

I've taught in both private and state schools. I'd say if anything the harder working, more talented and more dedicated teachers were in the state system.

I have experience of both and would agree with this totally.

It's always happend and always will. There's no getting away from it, some rich kids are real mongs and haven't a frigging clue but get there by virute of wealth and connections, conversley poor kids with intellegence and drive can be extremely successfull and well connected. Human nature has got us here and you ain't never gonna changw that and the alternative would be even less pretty if you had a all controlling government

I recently had a client that is an exclusive private school in Surrey and I was so shocked at the difference between that school and the state **** hole I went to. It was a million miles better and I think it's a crying shame that so many talented youngsters wont ever get to experience anything that even relates to the education the posh kids at this place get.

It HAS to benefit the country to get the best kids in the best places, not just those lucky enough to be born into wealth.

No it isn't, we are talking about children's education which will decide how the whole of their life turns out. Children's education is very different to food.

In a roundabout way, I suppose I was hinting at the fact that private schools being the same as state schools would be completely pointless (as would taste the difference = value brand). If they were the same, then why would anyone pay to send their kids to them?

all things being equal does not work......the shining examples of course..North Korea and communist russia...

 

yeah, lets do that

As I have said before, I don't want all things equal. No-one can read on this forum I swear. I just want everyone to have an equally good education. Communism has never been implemented properly anyways(not that I like communism, just saying).

In a roundabout way, I suppose I was hinting at the fact that private schools being the same as state schools would be completely pointless (as would taste the difference = value brand). If they were the same, then why would anyone pay to send their kids to them?

Exactly. Why would anyone pay? I reckon some would to separate themselves from the 'wrong kind of people'. The point is though everyone would be able to get the same standard of education.

Exactly. Why would anyone pay? I reckon some would to separate themselves from the 'wrong kind of people'. The point is though everyone would be able to get the same standard of education.

But you still wouldn't get equality. If all the kids from affluent areas went to a school offering the same service as the poorer area, they would still achieve over and above the poorer area. The kid from the affluent area would have the parents to help with homework, whilst the poorer kid would have to cook dinner for the crackhead mother. With the education standards being the same, the more affluent kid would still have more opportunity on average.

One solution would be for the state to confiscate all children, put them through education, then give them back to the parents when they are done. Alternatively, it would be much easier to scrap education altogether and give everyone the same qualification, perhaps 10 A grade GCSE's each?

I recently had a client that is an exclusive private school in Surrey and I was so shocked at the difference between that school and the state **** hole I went to. It was a million miles better and I think it's a crying shame that so many talented youngsters wont ever get to experience anything that even relates to the education the posh kids at this place get.

 

It HAS to benefit the country to get the best kids in the best places, not just those lucky enough to be born into wealth.

Fine, but how you going to achieve that?

But you still wouldn't get equality. If all the kids from affluent areas went to a school offering the same service as the poorer area, they would still achieve over and above the poorer area. The kid from the affluent area would have the parents to help with homework, whilst the poorer kid would have to cook dinner for the crackhead mother. With the education standards being the same, the more affluent kid would still have more opportunity on average.

 

One solution would be for the state to confiscate all children, put them through education, then give them back to the parents when they are done. Alternatively, it would be much easier to scrap education altogether and give everyone the same qualification, perhaps 10 A grade GCSE's each?

No, people would still fail and pass, just everyone got the same opportunity and standard of education in order to make of it what they can. Everyone fulfils their potential in a fair environment.

all things being equal does not work......the shining examples of course..North Korea and communist russia...

 

yeah, lets do that

But no-one's asking for everyone to be equal. Unless you're Stu, who wants everyone to be an infantry man because nothing else is worthwhile, we are all different, thank goodness.

All is being discussed is equality of opportunity, not equality per se.

No, people would still fail and pass, just everyone got the same opportunity and standard of education in order to make of it what they can. Everyone fulfils their potential in a fair environment.

But there wouldn't be equality outside school time. Those kids growing up in single parent families or seriously deprived areas would still have a harder time to achieve than those from middle class areas. The kid with two layabout benefit claimant parents is less likely to achieve than the kid with parents in good hard working employment. On balance, education is important, but so is parenting and the nurture argument.

But there wouldn't be equality outside school time. Those kids growing up in single parent families or seriously deprived areas would still have a harder time to achieve than those from middle class areas. The kid with two layabout benefit claimant parents is less likely to achieve than the kid with parents in good hard working employment. On balance, education is important, but so is parenting and the nurture argument.

So your argument is because people are richer and will have a better homelife, we shouldn't try and help the poorest who don't have those privileges get on an even footing education wise?

I disagree in the main with private schooling but I have to admit it is easier to have principles about private/state education when you don't have kids. Secondary school is a long way off for my two but was discussing this the other day with my wife and we came to the conclusion that we wouldn't want them to attend any of the local state schools - it would either be pay for private or move somewhere else. Obviously I'd rather not pay and I'd hate them to become snobs etc but you want your kids to thrive and the local state schools are simply too rough.

So your argument is because people are richer and will have a better homelife, we shouldn't try and help the poorest who don't have those privileges get on an even footing education wise?

Not at all, but even if you reach your educational utopia and all kids are sent to the same school, you can't stop better off parents hiring private tutors in the evenings and weekends to give their kids an advantage. I could argue that you are against parents wanting to give their kids the best chances in life.

At the end of the day, I would argue that it is better to keep private schools and pour more resourses into the underperforming schools (especially in deprived areas) as the best way of improving things. I think it is better to raise the bar (in terms of improving schools) in worse off areas, rather than lowering the bar (in terms of worsening schools) in better off areas.

At the end of the day, I want the same (in terms of the best possible education for everyone), but my approach would be better for all, rather than worse for all (as would be yours).

Not at all, but even if you reach your educational utopia and all kids are sent to the same school, you can't stop better off parents hiring private tutors in the evenings and weekends to give their kids an advantage. I could argue that you are against parents wanting to give their kids the best chances in life.

 

At the end of the day, I would argue that it is better to keep private schools and pour more resourses into the underperforming schools (especially in deprived areas) as the best way of improving things. I think it is better to raise the bar (in terms of improving schools) in worse off areas, rather than lowering the bar (in terms of worsening schools) in better off areas.

 

At the end of the day, I want the same (in terms of the best possible education for everyone), but my approach would be better for all, rather than worse for all (as would be yours).

No, I just want everyone to have the same opportunity. It's not a coincidence that a disproportionate amount of the better jobs go to those from private schools. It's not fair. In a way though, I think going to a state school with some 'bad people' and 'bad teachers' is a good thing, helps you to learn how to cope and deal with all sorts of situations and people.