Thankyou thm for your, er, thanks. Some other folk on here past and present, left and righty, would have acknowledged such a 'comedy dismount' as mine by posting a gif of a boxer knocking someone out, or something equally "booom!/kapow!". Or that bleddy star trek double facepalm photo. so cheers.
On topic now, in terms of op's "worth it" question, do we know if and by how much school fees have risen relative to disposable income or I suppose average salary? ie is it improving because more money is being spent or money spent more wisely? And how much is it like bikes: law of dimishing returns?
Don't have exact stats, but picture is easy. Real incomes flat to down, real fees up every year 🙁 can't quantify exactly without too much effort. But trend is clear.
Don't know, don't know
Anecdotally, there seems to be some frivolous expenditure among the sensible stuff. Increased competition of facilities that can only be described as (unnecessary) luxuries/follies. One friend has her daughter's horse stabled at school - I kid you not!!!!
You'd hope that the more sensible parents would be sold on class sizes or smaller houses/better pastoral care than a stabling/livery facility! A cbeebies puppet opened my kids' refurbished school library which also features an indoor treehouse, but i don't think that was quite as much of an 'investment' as stables...
To add to the shock factor
The facilities comprise:
• Stabling for 53 horses combining accommodation in American style barns and traditional stables.
• Indoor arena 55m x 25m.
• All weather outdoor arena 50m x 70m and a new outdoor arena 35m x 50m.
• 2 sets of BSJA standard show jumps and portable X-C jumps.
• Cross-country schooling fences and Derby jumping course.
• Off road canter track and access to gallops.
• All weather horse walker and round pen.
• Polo pitch.
• Resident yard staff.
The mind boggles!!! I won't mention the school concerned, but with SPORTS (hint) facilities like this, it is not hard to narrow down.
[img] 
[/img]
In thm's favourite currency 😀
Blimey, its another world! I would at least be insisting the kids worked the yard themselves not the live-in yard staff (as is the way at nearby Duchy and Bicton colleges, where the horses are for learning not for fun. Having done equine/businessy things at Duchy, my sister worked near Chequers in a high end similarly specced stable as live-in yard manager. The fees just for the horse livery were huge, never mind what it would have been for keeping your child there too!
It's not Staines Grammar (above), but doing triathlons at Dorney Lake and realising that it's a school facility and an Olympic venue takes your breath away!
Nice mirrors on the € note there deadly, just missing the smoke!!!
I dont doubt they would rather learn this than the causes of WW1 I am questioning whether it is
1) Really that useful to wider society or them
2) Leads to anything much useful as an outcome
3) I would be surprised, given the low numbers of jobs in this industry
How many people learning the cause of WWI will then go on to use that knowledge in their career? Both my history-studying uni friends went on to work in banking.
My guess would be Millfield for the over the top stables, it's got a reputation for that kind of thing. The pupils were always so arrogant about their wealth when we played them. That's kind of interesting in itself looking back and considering the snobberies between such schools when they're all privileged.
How many people learning the cause of WWI will then go on to use that knowledge in their career? Both my history-studying uni friends went on to work in banking.
WWI goes to explaining why Germany and France are so heavily invested in everyone being in the Euro when economic logic suggests they might walk away or kick others out. WW1 means Versailles means reparations means 1930s Germany means rise of fascism means WW2 means Marshall plan means Coal and Steel treaty means EEC means EU means ECU means Euro.
Understanding the causes of WWI also means you have to engage with complex, overlapping and contentious issues.
Private schools are unfair, but life is unfair, some people just get born into richer families.
I think it'd be foolish to lower the average standard of education by getting rid of them, and much more worthwhile making them redundant by improving the standard of state education.
Much better to bring the bar up, then down if you want social equality.
I was privately educated at a prep school, then moved onto a grammar and loved both!
It really annoys me when people are judged by their education.
Why are the politically influential going to bother raising the bar for other people's kids when their own kids are well educated?
How many people learning the cause of WWI will then go on to use that knowledge in their career? Both my history-studying uni friends went on to work in banking.
I think a degree shows a higher level of analytical thinking than a level 2 qualification in a practical skill with level 1 or level 2 Key skills - ie below GCSE level [ yes its technically the same though Universities wont accept it for say teaching courses]
My main point was about vocational courses that dont lead to work in that area and give low level skills that are not really going to get you a job. Having a degree, when they were rarer, would get you a multitude of jobs whatever the subject.
but life is unfair,
No one is arguing otherwise - the issue is do you wish to entrench this unfairness by goibing further advantages ot the rich or if you wish to attempt tp level the playing field to give each child an equal opportunity
Given the funding rates per pupil the only way ot bring them up is to massively increase education spending which is highly unlikely to happen and then private schools - for the [s]business [/s] charities would not [s]go out of business[/s] stop helping the unfortunate they would just charge even more and still do more and the [ very or super rich] could still afford it
This advantage cannot be eradicated by improving state education
Levelling the playing field doesn't improve the quality of education for anyone, it just lowers the quality of education for private school pupils, the only advantage is that people who resent private school pupils have peace of mind.
or that all people have an equal chance in life.
If you think that is the only reason can we ask which system schooled you as you seem to lack imagination with your straw man 😛
People are never all going to have an equal chance in life in a capitalist country,sounds like communism, but that doesn't really work very well.
I went to prep school and then grammar, don't have any regrets about not going to a private secondary school at all.
konabunny - Member
Why are the politically influential going to bother raising the bar for other people's kids when their own kids are well educated?
For the obvious reason that, above all else, they crave power. The independent sector represents a tiny proportion of the population. Ignoring the needs of the majority would be political suicide.
PP - you are perfectly correct. Examine the augments against grammar schools - the acknowledged ADVANTAGES of the grammar schools were offset by the disadvantages of the secondary modern. Was the solutions to address the disadvantages? Not it was to take away the bit that was working, albeit only partially.
A bad solution universally applied trumps a good solution partially applied. An odd vision of utopia. In other contexts, that gets referred to as a "race to the bottom."
My main point was about vocational courses that dont lead to work in that area and give low level skills that are not really going to get you a job.
Depends what level of work you're looking for, surely?
Levelling the playing field doesn't improve the quality of education for anyone, it just lowers the quality of education for private school pupils, the only advantage is that people who resent private school pupils have peace of mind.
This works if you assume that private schools provide a better education. This is not necessarily true.
We were all angsty about the PISA league tables the other week. Finland tops those tables, and there are no fee-paying schools.
Private schools, despite their material and educational advantages, don't seem to be able to prevent producing large numbers of complete and utter tw**s with entitlement complexes, no idea how "normal" people live, and a tendency to look down on anyone with an inferior background or level of education. And that appears to continue throughout life it seems, even long after they leave those places. I found it rather amusing to be asked by a clique of these idiots upon starting a new job in IT consulting where I went to school, and I asked "why, does that make a difference as to how you treat me?" by the looks on their faces, the answer was a resounding yes.
The only private schools I've known who don't turn out these a**pipes in spades seem to be the Quaker ones (OK, I'm a Quaker, probably I'm a bit biased) which seem to focus as much on social and emotional education as much as they focus on achievement. And they tend to discourage elitism and being a total wazzock.
As a Quaker you will still, I assume, believe that there is still a God in all these "tw**s" and "a**pipes"?
Imagine that argument the other way round, and someone says that state schools only produce X and Y or heaven forbid that someone is alleged to have called someone a pleb. They might lose their job for that....
Stripped away the veneer is pretty thin - Flashy nailed it early on.
Interesting use of stereotypes in this thread. It seems it's ok to stereotype all ex public school pupils, and their parents as very unpleasant people. In other threads, mention the word chav, and council estates, and you're close to a ban.
^^^^ straw man
Depends what level of work you're looking for, surely?
Depends on whether you can get work in the area you have just studied surely? that is the goal of doing a vocational course.
I dont think you do bricklaying to use your low level key skills as transferable skills for low paid menial work. I doubt it is that successful either even if you do try.
I am not saying all education is useless just that some is money not well spent, raises expectations [ of employment in the sector, and delivers very little in terms of the students ideal outcome at great expense.
Stripped away the veneer is pretty thin
as this as your exclusivity claim for state schools?
as thin as your unevidenced 30 % claim?
Comprehensive schools, despite their free entitlement to education, don't seem to be able to prevent producing large numbers of complete and utter tw**s with entitlement complexes, no idea how "working" people live, and a tendency to hate anyone with an superior background or level of education. And that appears to continue throughout life it seems, even long after they leave those places.
Works both ways, like richmars says.
As a Quaker you will still, I assume, believe that there is still a God in all these "tw**s" and "a**pipes"?
It is much easier to believe that now I no longer have to work with this particular breed of them. I'm a Quaker, but human too, and the way I was treated in my last work place because I didn't fit in with those people made it rather difficult to feel very Quakerly about them. We all have our Achilles heels. Snobbery and elitism make me pretty angry - an unfortunate by-product of a Quaker background, and quite a lot of us struggle with it.
Unfortunately, many private schools encourage elitism and superiority complexes, and this is borne out by people who are educated by them and swallow it all hook line and sinker, going through life thinking they are better than others who didn't have their privileges.
Comprehensive schools, despite their free entitlement to education, don't seem to be able to prevent producing large numbers of complete and utter tw**s with entitlement complexes, no idea how "working" people live, and a tendency to hate anyone with [b]an superior background or level of education[/b].
So you are admitting that you think that a private education is superior to a comprehensive one then - no wonder you don't seem to get on with people who come from comprehensives.
Goodness me, how dare people think they are on a par with their superiors and betters.
It seems it's ok to stereotype all ex public school pupils, and their parents as very unpleasant people.
A fairly large proportion of them do seem to be, and that's unfortunate.
PP - you are perfectly correct. Examine the augments against grammar schools - the acknowledged ADVANTAGES of the grammar schools were offset by the disadvantages of the secondary modern. Was the solutions to address the disadvantages? Not it was to take away the bit that was working, albeit only partially.
I thought you admitted pages ago that grammar school advantages are unproven?
You thought wrong then.
Where you might be confused is the difference between the clear advantages of grammars historically (widely accepted even in the current oft quoted study that people use to say that they didn't promote social mobility) and the present academic performance of the small number that are left. In the latter case, the evidence is mixed. I made both points seperately.
Be a good chap and show me where like for like performance was better in the old Grammars then would you.
oh and maybe you could explain why the remaining Grammars are not clearly better when you clearly seem to think they should be.
Ignoring the needs of the majority would be political suicide.
There haven't been too many education-related political bodies on the floor in the last fifty years. Perhaps that's because the politically influential and well-educated determine the political discourse of the UK.
Be an equally "good chap" AA and read the quotes already given....If they are not good enough, google Joan Bakewell in the guardian circa 2005 as she writes about the same issues better than most. Why her? She was one of the presenters in the BBC program.
So kona, was "education, education, education"a myth then? We have increased spending on education versus national income consistently since the 1960s, so the silent lobby must have mystical powers. Amazing.
"Quotes are not evidence. " anagallis_arvensis 2014
True, but since you are in the profession you will know the academic studies that they come from - as we would say to students, time for some independent research! Given how widely quoted they are, it's not hard.
But IF they did not perform better, you have to wonder what all the fuss was about??? Still it would be odd for critical academics to talk about the unfair "advantages" in that case.......
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/aug/12/schools.uk
this is opinion
I'm a teacher not an educational academic. I dont know of any studies showing Grammar schools being better when compared like for like. You claim they were better but are not now for reasons I cannot understand as yet. Leaving aside your complete lack of evidence base. Why would they have got worse at a rate higher than comps? The ones in Reading thrive, why is it not easy to show they are better than the local comps?
