[Closed] Am I being a snob?

Which part of that do you fail to understand?

OK, don't have a cow. My mistake, thought you were having a pop at an already undervalued proffesion.

Sorry just had a cow. Literally.

jonb - not gonna respond to how more money might benefit comprehensives eh? 😉

I don't think private schools exacerbate divisions in society - historically we have had a seriously crazy class society and I think a lot of that will always be ingrained. I don't agree with it but at the same time it is hard not to see it in society.

I also don't think that putting more money in state schools will work - as many posters have said there are disruptive influences in schools which stop teachers teaching. What you need is a method of dividing up children into people who want to learn and people who don't...

"What does the extra money provide? In many cases private schools offer a selection procedure based on "academic ability"

I had that in a state school in N.Ireland. Debate the merits of selection.

"What would giving more money to a comprehensive change that would make it a better school?"

Well here's a suggestion...

"(I) had things like mocroscopes [i](sic)[/i] and chemistry sets to play with. Learning was just fun/interesting for me. "

One between thirty students in my state comp.

Are you any closer to an understanding now?

I was really wondering if it is purely money that makes the difference?

My parents bought me the microscope. It was a while ago and it was no means a top of the range affair, they're about £20 in argos now [url= http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Search?storeId=10001&catalogId=1500001501&langId=-1&searchTerms=microscope&Submit=GO+%3E ]link[/url]
so not going to break the bank of anyone on this forum I assume. I do appreciate that proper research ones can cost a little bit more than that!

there are disruptive influences in schools which stop teachers teaching.

What if those disruptive influences could all be given appropriate 1-2-1 support if/when they needed it?

What you need is a method of dividing up children into people who want to learn and people who don't...

I don't agree with that at all - what is really needed is finding the right things/approaches that will stimulate different people. We are starting to get much better at this I think but there is a long way to go.

Does anyone have a reliable source as to what the government spends on education per child? The current fees for where I went are (a lot more than they used to be) £8000 per year assuming you don't get any sort of help.

"I was really wondering if it is purely money that makes the difference?"

Well, please share your opinion on whether [b]it may help[/b], in a school environment.

Did you read the whab waving post a few weeks back regarding incomes? If you did you would know that the income of many that post on this forum is not very representative of the median income in the uk.

And regardless of that fact, wouldn't you say that all children should be given an [b]equal chance in life[/b], to succeed or fail, regardless of their parental income?

I agree on the 1-2-1 - but the point I was trying to make was that it isn't just down to money - it is about the community and until you get the support of the pupils and their parents - teaching is going to be a tough job and results will not be as good as they could - Its a team effort and everyone needs to push in the right direction but a lot of places people aren't focused on education and achieving the results.

My other comment was slightly taking the michael as currently the way of dividing them up is to either leave the people who are disruptive in low ability classes and penalise them academically or take the people who want to learn out of states schools and put them in to private schools.

However I agree - you need to find things to stimulate them into learning but its not that easy. I personally was not a great student and only left school with 5 GCSEs at A-C. That was nothing to do with the teachers or the type of school I went to or how much money any of my schools had but my focus on education at the time.

Being a slack bugger there were many points during my school days when I didn't want to learn, especially in my "bad" subjects. It wouldn't have done me any good at all if I had been separated off from the pro learners.

Just to throw my hat into this decidedly British debate; I went to a decent comprehensive, with it's fair share of dodgy kids and large class sizes, but the teaching staff were great and the policies far sighted enough to give priority to activities that encouraged social integration and fun like music, drama etc. This did come at the expense of sport though; I don't think I played more than a couple of games of team sports whilst I was there.

Those children at fee paying schools who I knew at the time (family friends etc) seemed like they thought rather more of themselves than my mates, although in retrospect it was more likely due to them having more in common with the other kids at these gatherings (lame summer parties etc) as they were also from independent schools, than them being toffs.

It was amusing at uni, where there really were some poshos, to confuse those who had never met anyone from a comp who was not serving them in some way. The stories I heard from many of my friends at that time convinced me that a comprehensive education was the way forward.

For my own children we recently moved to an area where the local school has a decent rep but I don't think my principles on the matter would stand up if I didn't have that option. Lord knows how we would afford it though! One of my friends in particular is changing, with regard to his views on schooling, from being a rabid socialist through pragmatism to a pro fee paying school, sad really as he did so well from his own comprehensive education (and that was at a much rougher school than mine).

What they need to deal with the disruptive students is a different kind of syllabus, clearly they do not get on the current sit on the chair and write stuff syllabus.

If they had a more parctical or vocaltional type of subject with English, Maths and a bit Science built in then you would find a lot of the trouble goes away. Where they get to build and learn other skills. But the education department have yet to realise this and instead they think every child has to sit on a chair and learn dates. A little more diversity in education wouldn't go a miss and you can do this while including a bit of the subjets above.

Yes money would help, although I think the childs ability has something to do with it. E.g. No matter how much money you spend on me I will never make it as a good musician. The thing that would be needed to be done would be to find the childs talents and interests and nuture it. Still money cannot cure all problems, a large part of a childs education is (should be) done at home, schools can't be there all the time. I know from experience that even at my private school there were issues, not with violence to the level of knife crime but things weren't always rosy.

All children should be given a equal start in life, but they're not and as some people have said above, no one want to sacrifice their child to fight to get this so will do the best they can. Even those sending their children/or wanting to send their children to comprehensives were doing it because they thought it would give a better rounded education not through some political ideal. Or at least that was my understanding.

"historically we have had a seriously crazy class society and I think a lot of that will always be ingrained. I don't agree with it but at the same time it is hard not to see it in society."

Christ, reading that is depressing. Are all Brits who recognise this equally exhausted and willing to "accept" the inequalities of the "class society"?

probably on the wrong forum for that question though, eh? 😀

None of the proponents of public schools seem to be mentioning the other apparent benefit of them - the 'old boys network'. Is that not another consideration when deciding where to send your kids? Or does that not exist any more?

"I was really wondering if it is purely money that makes the difference?"

(29mins pass...)

"Yes money would help,"

You answered your own question in the space of 30 mins. You don't have a clue about the state school versus privately funded issue, do you?

"All children should be given a equal start in life, but they're not "

Ever wondered why?

One of the problems with 'disruptive' kids is that many of them come from backgrounds where their parents are very poorly educated, and therefore may not see the need/be able to instill in their children, the importance of education. And there are some children who just aren't receiving the right kind of attention and support at home, due to their families' apathy, lack of self esteem and the inability to organise their lives in a manner conducive to providing a stable home environment. A lot of this, I have to say, is the continued lack of investment in [i]people[/i], by our society. If you can't sort yourself out, no-one cares, you will get very little support. Some of the most needy people are actually getting the least amount of care and support, from our society. Who's to blame? We all are. It's [i]our[/i] society. Like a communal garden; if everyone chips in, it can be a wonderful thing, for all to enjoy. Sadly, we are all too selfish and greedy, for such a utopia to exist.

What's mine is mine; what's ours is nobodies.

Only a considerable and determined effort and investment in education will enable our society to climb out from the mire in which it wallows. This does of course mean that the wealthy would have to subsidise the less well-off, but where's the real problem in that? Is it not a good thing, to want to help one another?

Personally, I would rather send any children of mine to a state school, and use any money I may have spent on private education, to chip into their school so that all the children there could benefit. And if others did the same, think of the benefits.

Less selfishness is what's needed, not more division.

wouldn't you say that all children should be given an equal chance in life, to succeed or fail, regardless of their parental income?

Hell yes. That shouldn't even be a question.

Since no one as yet has answered my question regarding state funded grammar schools, and selection on academic ability, i'll pose this question...are you of the opinion that streaming is a good idea in state schools, and for that matter, corporal punishment? I am.

Being poorly educated doesn't mean "doesn't care". Personal responsibility and responsibility for our children is where it's at.

Hmm, streaming would seem like a good idea, for those that are high achievers, but what about the thicko* kids? What about their confidence and self-esteem?

I certainly don't think kids should be segregated according to ability until they are a good bit older; maybe at 14 like you spoke of earlier, in your post about the grammar school thing.

Extra-curricular classes might be an option, with bright kids 'encouraged' (bribed??!?) to take them up. There certainly wasn't the scope for that, when I was at school.

*Kids with lesser academic ability. Just using playground vernacular.

sodafarls - Member

"I was really wondering if it is purely money that makes the difference?"

(29mins pass...)

"Yes money would help,"
[b]
You answered your own question in the space of 30 mins. You don't have a clue about the state school versus privately funded issue, do you?[/b]

"All children should be given a equal start in life, but they're not "

Ever wondered why?

You've lost me now... 😕

I was trying to stimulate debate about what the differences are between the two types of education. IMO it is funding and the ability to select pupils that makes the main difference between the two. Funding is pretty easy, generally more money will make a better school for the reasons discussed like class sizes etc. But this doesn't account for all the difference in schools as some state schools are better than others and some better than private. But then it depends on what you class as a good education, purely a good set of GCSEs, A levels and entry to university? The chance to do extra curricular stuff or the educational experience in the broader sense which includes mixing various different sections of society like Tarquin and Trinity 😉

Am I being a snob?

Have you made up your mind yet?

Streaming in the same school will be difficult. Again no real experience but generally I get the impression that at most schools it is not cool to be clever so being seen as a geek/nerd leads to bullying. Again less of an issue at (my) private school as things were often a bit competitive, people wanted to be top of the class as it was something to be proud of not ashamed. How would this issue be overcome?

Just to help...

snob
? ?/sn?b/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [snob] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who imitates, cultivates, or slavishly admires social superiors and is condescending or overbearing to others.

2. a person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field: a musical snob.

[i]Hmm, streaming would seem like a good idea, for those that are high achievers, but what about the thicko* kids? What about their confidence and self-esteem?[/i]

Thing is, even if you stream, everything always finds a level and you'll end up with the same ones at the top of the class every term and the same at the bottom....so what about the confidence and self-esteem of the ones at the bottom every term?

My mum was so chuffed when I got into the A stream but I hated it as I was always in the bottom few every term; I'd have felt a lot better being higher up but in the middle class

"You've lost me now... [:?] "

Yes, it does appear that way.

Private v's state. I'd like to think that every child regardless of it's parents abilities should have an equal chance in life. Nobody would argue with that.

Private v's state re funding. More money equals more facilities etc. That's quite straightforward. More facilities tends to correlate with better results at school and in later life, would'nt you say?

Regarding streaming. Now I know the system that I experienced in N.Ireland is not one that became available in Britain. Simply speaking, I went to St Pauls comprehensive in a town by the name of Lurgan. StPauls was situated by an estate called Taghnevan, and that's where most of its's pupils came from...that and Kilwilke. Google both. Considering this was the early and mid 80's, I doubt that many of the regular posters on this forum would be very impressed with the "pedigree" of my schoolmates, considering a fair percentage of their fathers had spent time at the Maze for being considered "enemies of the state" (remind me, who's state?). And eventually released without charge after months of torture, as usual....but don't let that bother you , i'm just illustrating the OP's point.

The educational system was apparently an experimental one...stay at the state comp, do ok, and sit an exam for the local state grammar.No fees or nothing.

Now since this was back in the day of almost daily handstrapping, there was very little bollox in class. There was some of course, it's natural after all for young men to act up a little, but nothing like what is apparently acceptable now. It's not a zero sum game my liberal friends. Anyway, if you did ok , you could go to a streamed system in the state grammar. It was mixed by the way, girls etcs. So you tried. When you went there, it was kids from the same families, no-one could pay to put their kids there, and we all had passed the quite simple requirements to get in. Everybody, wealthy or poor. And we all had the same daytime teaching in the years prior to that. Of course we all did not have the same situations outside of school hours though, that would be nonsense. While streaming did me a favour by letting the teacher educate me and my classmates, streaming didn't hold anybody back, the situation they came from may have. Don't confuse the two.

[i]This does of course mean that the wealthy would have to subsidise the less well-off[/i]

What do you define as wealthy? Do you measure wealth on income or assets? What income level equates to wealthy? The true wealthy people of this country have an uncanny knack of avoiding tax - in case you hadn't noticed. And even if you could get some money from these people it would never be enough to fund your little "educational revolution". The significant taxes of this country come from middle-class ordinary Joe Public white collar working Britain.

Sorry. Not fair.

[i]So what's mine is mine; what's ours is nobodies.[/i]

Like many parents on here - I've worked hard longer hours to carve out a career that pays something more. We've never had any state assistance or subsidy. Longer hours - less spent with the family. Selfish as it is (according to you anyway), I've done this so that I can afford more for the children. Extra-curricular activities are not free. My wife is also returning to work, hopefully we can afford more life experiences for the children. I don't subscribe to your hippy commune philosophy.

[i]I certainly don't think kids should be segregated according to ability until they are a good bit older; maybe at 14 like you spoke of earlier, in your post about the grammar school thing.[/i]

14?????
Oh, how little you truly know. Children who are less able are streamed early on for their own benefit. You cannot force a child to learn at a pace beyond their [i]current[/i] ability. Nobody is saying they will not achieve the same goal as other more able children and nobody is saying once measured they cannot move to a more able stream - they achieve it at their own pace because children develop at different rates.

And not all classes are taught in streams of ability so children do mix and network with other children from different streams.

And whilst you have criticized me for wishing my children to attend a school "where the other pupils and their families fit into my idea of respectability" - this is human nature and a parents' prerogative to gain the best they can for their children.

You really must get yourself some children and find out for yourself first-hand the dilemmas of parenthood before pretending to be a Citizen Smith of the mountain biking fraternity.

I've worked hard longer hours to carve out a career that pays something more.

Blah blah blah...

My mum did 14-hour shifts as a nurse, helping treat sick people. For a pittance. Don't think you're so worthy. She spent whatever little extra she could possible get, to make sure I had the best possible start. To have opportunities that others didn't. All of which I'm extremely grateful for.

One thing she did teach me, was to treat all people equally, and with respect. And to not be a snob.

Seems like you might have to pay a bit extra, get someone else to do that bit for you...

Toowundred!

Bugger!

Hmm, streaming would seem like a good idea, for those that are high achievers, but what about the thicko* kids? What about their confidence and self-esteem?

I certainly don't think kids should be segregated according to ability until they are a good bit older; maybe at 14 like you spoke of earlier, in your post about the grammar school thing.

My mother was a nurse too. So what?
Was your daddy a fireman?

to make sure I had the best possible start. To have opportunities that others didn't. All of which I'm extremely grateful.

You're sounding like a complete hypocrite now. What are you being grateful for? You should be resentful of the fact she's deprived you of an equal footing with the less privileged members of society.

With an attitude like yours - looks like you'll never have children.

looks like you'll never have children.

Grammer schools are bad for most kids. /those who don't ps#ass the eleven plus get dumped in sink schools, those who just pass get to struggle at the bottom of the class at the grammer, those at the top do exactly as well as they would in any school. Many kids who could have got A levels didn't because they failed eleven plus. About as divisive and nasty a school system as possible. Imagine how it feels to be told you have no hope at 11. I know one chap who went on to uni and be a headmaster of a school after failing the eleven plus - the grammer school system nearly destroyed his chances of a career.

I do agree with streaming - 300 in my year at school - we had a basic class of 30 of total mixed ability and we were thought in that class for first tywo terms, then streamed into 3 broad streams for maths and English for the third term and second year. 3rd year we went into 3 braod streams for all subjects.

The whole time tho we had sports and gudance { the equivalent of assembly} in total mixed ability groups

And I still can't spell!

"Hmm, streaming would seem like a good idea, for those that are high achievers, but what about the thicko* kids? What about their confidence and self-esteem? "

I'd say that they and I would be a hell of a lot happier and profitable in life if genuine modern apprenticeships had been available as an option. But instead we were all chapparalled into tertiary education in order to fill the coffers of student loan companies marketing jobs that the govt(s) knew would not exist. And some people profited from cheap overseas labour, and called it socialism.

HTTP; I can't be bothered arguing with you any more. You're a snob- end of.

aracer- my objection to streaming is that it can create rifts and resentment between kids, which is not something that I think should be done. I will agree that there is perhaps scope for limited forms of streaming, just not with very young kids. Let them grow up together, with others who are different to them; learn about how to live in a diverse society. Young kids will develop their own skills and talents, and of course they should be encouraged; I just don't think they should be pushed too much, until they are old enough to cope with the emotional impact of possible failure/disappointment.

With an attitude like yours - looks like you'll never have children.

What a lovely thing to say. Thank you. I love you too.

Personally, I would rather send any children of mine to a state school, and use any money I may have spent on private education, to chip into their school so that all the children there could benefit. And if others did the same, think of the benefit

Why wait until you have children before donating? In fact, think of the contribution you would make if you decided not to have children at all? Both to society and the PTA.

It costs £6-9K per annum for junior. And £12K per annum for secondary. I somehow doubt you'll be there with your cheque book at the school with this kind of money the day your child walks through those school gates. Why write such utter pish?

You're forum persona is one of a hypocrite. In real-life you're probably something else.

power to the people 😀

Re 11plus, and then streaming.

I went to a state primary, sat the 11 plus (hated the pressure then, and would never put my children through it at that age)

Pased with an A, and went to the local comp, along with all the other children from the local schools .At 14 passed entrance exams to the local state grammar.

Having a system were you can prove your academic ability a bit later when you may have a grasp on the concept is important. And a big "wise up!" to all that bollocks about everybody being entitled to great self esteem and confidence.Who is entitled to that in adulthood? School is education, in an ideal world it's about finding a child skills and abilities and providing them with the best possibilities and options correllating to their abilities or interests at that time. It's not about blowing air up a kids ass, filling his head with shite and neglecting to give him any skills to make a living. That would be neglect. Of course , it would be nice for all children to have similar choices and options, but that costs money...eh?

think of the contribution you would make if you decided not to have children at all? Both to society and...

Nice. Really nice. Classy, in fact.

No, go on; say what you REALLY think!

I still love you... 😳

I went to a school with no streaming. My class contained the whole spectrum of academic ability, ranging from 'very bright' through to borderline LD. I don't think this 'held me back' in any way (not from an academic point of view, at least) and I think it helped me to become a more 'rounded' person in terms of relating to other people.

From what I can tell, the education system in this Country is far too focused on exams & testing. If kids were taught how to think/reason/research/debate in real-life situations a little more, we might be better off as a society.

HTTP404, no need for ad hominen nonsense. You do seem to live in a rarified world to be honest judging from some of your posts. The funny thing is that should my partner and I pull our curtains apart, sneer, and make assumptions regarding your worthiness re our next dinner party, you would appear rather unworthy. We should move upmarket etc...

Do you get the hypocrisy?

Steelfreak,
It may not have held you back, but it may have held others back. I pity the "very bright child" who was inhibited from learning at his/her own speed as much as the child with learning difficulties who was not given as much attention as he may/she may have been were their situation accepted and facilitated. But that costs money... And more money for poor folk is money down the drain, etc.

sodafarls, what you say may be true with 'chalk 'n' talk' teaching, but if you teach people how to learn then there's nothing to hold the brighter ones back.

I should perhaps add that class sizes were small...