Forum menu
Unfair Kerley. The wealthy are looking for the best education not an advantage over others so they will become a huge asset to the state schools that their kids now visit.
Maybe? :o)
Okay nobody has pulled TJ up on this glittering pile of bollocks yet:
Most importantly to me tho you remove role models and committed parents from the state system which entrenches the difference between state and private education.
So what you (and at least one other) are saying here is that only middle class and above parents are capable of being role models or being committed to the education of their child. That without these "role models" working or benefits class kids are totally incapable of doing well or fostering the ambition to do well. That it's not the teachers and teaching environment (lack of disruption, well resourced) that counts but who the parents of your cohorts are?
Sorry but that is utter pish. And ironic given your counter to elitism seems to be that the notion that the middle classes and above are just "better".
And it goes both ways, the amount of shit I got for going to boarding school was unreal. Suddenly I was a toff, posh or whatever because I was given an opportunity to get away from a toxic environment for less money than folk spend on a piss up to Benidorm every year.
So what you (and at least one other) are saying here is
Not what you wrote!
That's what TJ wrote, in as many words. If that's not what you meant (assuming you are the other I referenced, I honestly can't remember who it was) then that was how it came across.
My point is that mixing does nothing as it is, those who are nurtured will develop and those who are left to rot will continue to do so. Class has nothing to do with it, it's just the lazy work shy progeny of the rich may have an additional safety net to fall back on. I can remember the classes at school that were disrupted by a handful of or a dedicated solo prat(s). Smaller or "better" classes don't change that.
This policy, as people are taking at face value, does nothing to address equality of opportunity and instead only serves to affect the equality of outcome by reducing the top to the lowest common denominator. The net effect of this isn't going to be the top tier in shit schools, its going to be offshore boarding for the top % and everyone else dealing with the same broken system. Oxbridge isn't going to care whether an entrant has A levels or a baccalaureate.
That’s what TJ wrote, in as many words.
So its not what he wrote then? It either is what he wrote or isnt what he wrote. If you need a caveat then it isnt.
I can remember the classes at school that were disrupted by a handful of or a dedicated solo prat(s). Smaller or “better” classes don’t change that.
I can remember the lessons I taught for the last 15 years and am sure smaller classes help a great deal as does having supporting staff outside the room to deal with issues, these cost money. I agree though that ditching fee paying schools alone wont help this but imagine the dilution effect would. The opposite is true in grammar school areas. Grammars do slightly better with the few but the rest do worse with the majority. I would expect the reverse may be true more role models, more possibility to see a real life investment banker etc may raise ambition generally.
AA I quoted TJ, how you choose to interpret that is up to you but that's how I see it. I could wade through 8 pages of this to grab every quote but frankly I have better things to do and bigger things to worry about.
I agree that smaller classes are better as a whole, I'm not going to argue about your personal experience in the matter. What I will say is that anecdote is not necessarily fact. I have seen first hand what effect a disruptive pupil can have on a class and the learning experience as a whole. Smaller classes mean nothing when a teacher is focused on one pupil or a group thereof.
The wealthy are looking for the best education not an advantage over others
That’s a tad naive. Gaining an education which is ‘better’ than that available to others is an advantage. Thats is what the majority of public schools market themselves on (Getting kids through exams who wouldn’t otherwise pass them). The ‘top’ public schools market themselves on buying into a network of friends from families who run/own the country (It's not what you know, it's who you know).
Smaller classes mean nothing when a teacher is focused on one pupil or a group thereof.
Smaller classes where the parents have bought into the system are far easier than ones where some of the parents have no interest in the system.
What I will say is that anecdote is not necessarily fact.
True but I would suggest 15 years experience has given more than a few anecdotes
I have seen first hand what effect a disruptive pupil can have on a class and the learning experience as a whole. Smaller classes mean nothing when a teacher is focused on one pupil or a group thereof.
Nice anecdote!
As I said given appropriate funding a disruptive pupil can be easily removed from the situation as other staff and rooms would be available.
AA I quoted TJ,
You did and then said something like, so what you are basically saying is and then said something he didnt say.
People who pay for private sector education know they're buying advantage for their kids. That's why they spend their money. Me I chose the most expensive postcode going to be able to pretend to myself l wasn't doing very similar. But still, comprehensive to me means that all the kids from a locale go there. A mix is a good thing.
Anyway re
doctors generally come out of university having funded their own education through loans
It costs north of £225k to train a doctor to F1. Typically up to a scary £65k will be borne by the student/their family meaning the state contributes £160k from the taxpayer. Private sector contributes nowt. I could Google this for teachers to find similar but less so I d guess.
Anyway, we can afford to educate our kids in the UK. We choose to go about it in a way that divides our country. It needn't be a zero sum game, but the haves know full well that mobility means down as well as up. And who wants that?
If it's all the same I'll leave TJ to defend his words rather than arguing with someone else trying to do it for him.
Smaller classes where the parents have bought into the system are far easier than ones where some of the parents have no interest in the system.
Absolutely, which is why the present system of pushing for proscribed results instead of nurturing talent sucks. At all levels. Getting rid of one tier isn't going to fix that. Schools shouldn't be about getting everyone A's, it should be about putting people on a route that works for them. Obviously results are great if you are in that percentile (of ability) but there is a lot more to life.
It costs north of £225k to train a doctor to F1. Typically up to a scary £65k will be borne by the student/their family meaning the state contributes £160k from the taxpayer
Doubt teachers cost that much but once you have a degree the state pays for you to do the PGCE in a great many cases
So what you (and at least one other) are saying here is that only middle class and above parents are capable of being role models or being committed to the education of their child.
it’s just the lazy work shy progeny of the rich may have an additional safety net to fall back on
So you criticise someone for apparently stereotyping and then do exactly the same yourself in reverse a few posts later.
I'm not a big fan of private schools personally, but they appear to work well for some kids. I've known families who have split their kids between private and state education simply to suit the individual child's needs. To me it's all about finding the best match for your children. For some that may well be a good state school, a grammar school or a private school (if you can afford that option)
So you criticise someone for apparently stereotyping and then do exactly the same yourself in reverse a few posts later.
Or he says anecdote is not evidence and then backs up his point with a lovely anecdote!
For some that may well be a good state school, a grammar school or a private school (if you can afford that option)
For the very few who can afford the fees or the coaching for the 11+.
squirrelking - the beneficial effect of having a broad range of pupils backgrounds and abilities in the one school is well documented, its my own personal experience and its the view of several senor educational professionals I know. Did you bother to read the big post I wrote about my school? One of the best schools in the area when truely comprehensive. Once all the middle class kids deserted it under the tory choice agenda it turned into a sink school.
The best education from a population perspective is a truely comprehensive one
AA an experienced teacher also agreed with the point.
the faults with state school are not because they are mixed ability, its because they are underfunded
All classes are mixed ability and ability is not a constant. I was at a grammar school that became comprehensive and a good number of kids who came in from the secondary modern school got into serious universities, that would not have happened without the comprehensive system.
Bear in mind it's not uncommon for 'Outstanding' schools and colleges to achieve their status by chucking out anyone they consider to be wavering at Yrs 11 and 12, I've seen lives wrecked by that plus it puts unnecessary pressure and fear on all the kids.
Being able to sit an AS exam and re-sit it was a good way of getting struggling kids up to standard. Gove abolished the AS feeding into A2 but allowed it to continue with the Cambridge International exams which only private schools are allowed to administer. The overall effect of Gove's changes has meant, given that A level grades are norm-referenced, a reduction in the level of achievement at A level as well as grade inflation. All he did was damage.
tj
the beneficial effect of having a broad range of pupils backgrounds and abilities in the one school is well documented, its my own personal experience and its the view of several senor educational professionals I know
Benefit for whom?
john
People who pay for private sector education know they’re buying advantage for their kids. That’s why they spend their money.
Me I chose the most expensive postcode going to be able to pretend to myself l wasn’t doing very similar.
You can look at this entirely differently ... you are trying to buy the least dis-advantage.
I'm in the process of applying for the secondary school now...
Talking with other parents from the large primary I'm dismayed by the numbers that don't actually care about the schools results or classroom environment...
steve - for the population as a whole. Its no detriment to the smart kids bar in my case I was limited to 5 highers not 6 as the private schools did
Its of benefit to the middle and lower ability to pupils.
the better educated the population as a whole is the better for the country
another aspect to this is that kids who would be in the middle of the ability range in a comprehensive school system would be at the bottom of the range in a selective school - they actually do worse in a selective school system because they either struggle to keep up in the grammer / private school or are in a secondary modern where there is no 6th form
again I am looking at populations not individuals. There is no doubt that across the population as a whole comprehensive systems give a better education.
The faults of comprehensive schools are down to underfunding not anything innate.
Benefit for whom?
The vast majority
I’m dismayed by the numbers that don’t actually care about the schools results or classroom environment…
We had open evening at my secondary school last week, I got asked 2 questions all night!
For the very few who can afford the fees or the coaching for the 11+.
What's the 11 plus got to do with private schools?
They are all afraid of you?
They are all afraid of you?
I did set a load on fire!!
There are several different issues being conflated here. Selection in schools and private education and boarding schools.
Its the selection thats an issue and that applies equally to grammar schools and private schools. Selection in schools damages educational attainment across the population
I did set a load on fire!!
There you go then.
TJ you are at risk of recommending that people disadvantage their children so others can benefit. As someone up top mentioned perhaps all kids could be taken away from Mums and Dads at birth and trained equally in sterile institutions so no parental advantage can be bestowed upon them? You can be minister for education in this fascist utopia.
No 5plus 8 - read what I wrote - the disadvantage to the top pupils is minimal, the advantages to everyone else including those who just pass the 11 plus or go to selective schools to sit at the bottom of ability there is large.
so a small detriment perhaps to the top pupils in academic results combined with a large improvement in wider education ( and its also proven that with the same school exam results state school pupils do better at university than selective school pupils so that slight disadvantage is not long lasting ie the post university results are the same)
Those in the middle and bottom have only advantages from comprehensive education.
so no - your point is completely invalid
also as I kept on emphasizing I am looking at populations - over the population comprehensive schools have a beneficial effect.
Its good for the country to have a well educated population. So comprehensive education is good for the country.
For the very few who can afford the fees or the coaching for the 11+.
Yeah I already mentioned the fees for the private option. Abolishing private schools simply on the basis that it isn't fair for those who cannot afford it would be a bit like banning large houses, expensive cars or even private healthcare. Unless you want to live in a socialist state then money will always give you additional options in life. That's the whole point in earning money, so you can live better and have more choices. State schools are what you get for free and some of them are actually very good, although I do realise that depends on where you live (again a life choice)
For the grammar school option, expensive 11+ coaching is not really required. You can do it yourself quite effectively. Maybe borderline students might have a slightly better chance of scraping through with a dedicated tutor, but then they might well struggle once at the school. I know one mother (a tutor herself) who actually took her son out of grammar school because he was struggling with the pace and he did much better in the local state school. His sister on the other hand thrived at the grammar school. Grammar schools are definitely not for everyone who can pass the 11+
For the grammar school option, expensive 11+ coaching is not really required. You can do it yourself quite effectively.
I could yes and I expect you could too but this sentence shows a massive black hole in you understanding of what life is like for a huge number of children. But then reading things like this helps me understand why some people have the views they do.
Grammar schools are definitely not for everyone who can pass the 11+
This is true on a very basic level as our local boys and girls grammar selects from such a massive catchment that you have to do much, much more than pass it to get a place.
You said:
so a small detriment perhaps to the top pupils in academic results combined with a large improvement in wider education
Which is exactly my point, followed by you telling me:
so no – your point is completely invalid
I think I have learned an important lesson here.
yes - try reading and being honest rather than partial quoting.- the disadvantage is small and fleeting - ie it does not impact in any way on future chances. So overall their is no detriment. You might drop a grade or two in school - but you will do as well if not better at university
so its clear - to give a tiny and short lasting advantage to a few of the richest, most advantaged and most academic pupils you are happy to throw the rest under a bus to the detriment of society as a whole.
Admit it - you want to retain as much privilege as you can to those already privileged. To those who have, give more that is taken from those who have not.
greatest good of the greatest number? Or retain the privilege for the few?
An extra grade at school for a few or a well educated country?
The other point you miss 5plus8 is that I am not advocating parents taking their children out of private schools as individuals. I am proposing that we need a proper comprehensive education system for the simple reason that gives us as a whole a better educated population and this is good for everyone. enlightened self interest rather than selfishness. Equality of opportunity rather than entrenching wealth and privilege
I'll bite once, then you carry on and do what you like.
I've been reading the thread with interest, I am open minded about the solutions to the countries education issues (though I still argue that all that this is irrelevant if all the big companies and individuals paid their tax, the solution would be found in the vast sums of money for all public services) .
However, and I am sorry that I feel the need to say this, but reading all of your responses it appears that nobody can have a discussion with you TJ. You just pick up on any disagreement with your position and argue black is white until everyone gets tired. Its boring. There is no give and take, you never concede anything of substance, I think you have an issue with needing to be seen to be correct, and have zero self awareness. Or at least convincing yourself you are right and deluding yourself that everyone else can see how right you are. I have realised this evening that I do not want to engage with you. You are a bully. Say what you like, I won't respond I am afraid.
Being wealthy has nothing to do with class. Plenty of wealthy people are from working class backgrounds.
It’s the usual Labour lefty bolax frankly and is insulting to private schools that provide balanced education and support large numbers of bursary pupils.
Sorry you feel like that 5 plus 8. I get very angry at being called totalitarian and with being grossly misquoted
Nothing yo have said counters the points I have made - only the ones you want me to have made.!
A bully? I am not the one comparing me to totalitarian regime
Calling folk names ad misquoting shows you have lost the argument - and I do have self awareness and believe it or not am aware of my limitations debating by text. I try to overcome this but clearly not to everyones satisfaction or even mine. Believe it or not reaching this sort of point upsets me as well.
What am I supposed to do but argue my position? When shown I am wrong I will happily apologies or change my view - as I did over the tax thing earlier on this very thread. However nothing you have said counters my position here in any way. Is it you do not understand my position or do not agree?
Its not about needing to be seen to be right. Its about wanting to pursuade people of the merits of my view.
This is a topic I feel very strongly about - because I have seen the damage done to the life chances of people by selection in schools
I'll try to sum up my argument briefly - then counter the points if you want.
Comprehensive education improves or has no effect on the life chances of the population
Yes the most academic might end school with a lower grade or two or in my case 5 highers not 6. However this is counterbalanced by the fact that those at the top will do as well at uni as those who went to private school and got higher grades or numbers of exams. So to those at the top it has no effect on their life choices so no detriment post university
For those in the middle ( because they are not struggling at the bottom of the class) they do better in a comprehensive system
#for those at the bottom they do better in a comprehensive system because they have access to the best teachers ( not being creamed off into the private system) and access to mentors and role models that they would not have in a selective system
so for the pupils everyone gains or stays the same bar perhaps a sightly lower set of exam results for the most able which is no detriment to their chances at uni
comprehensive education also is broadening in outlook something many could do with.
So thats from the educational side
My other gripe is that the general taxpayer subsidises private schools and private schools reinforce privilege
I could yes and I expect you could too but this sentence shows a massive black hole in you understanding of what life is like for a huge number of children. But then reading things like this helps me understand why some people have the views they do.
I grew up in Oldham and went to one of the local comps there. So I think I do have a reasonable idea of what life is like for a fairly wide variety of children. But I'm not even sure what your point was in bringing that up?
Being wealthy has nothing to do with class.
Er, er... Nah.
But I’m not even sure what your point was in bringing that up?
Which proves my point.
Many kids have illiterate parents for example, can they help with 11+?
Many have no parents to help at all.
A lot have parents who couldnt give a toss enough to help, a lot of parents may not be educated enough to help.
Interesting article on beeb today apparently 41% of kids in London have extra tutoring outside school.
A lot have parents who couldnt give a toss enough to help, a lot of parents may not be educated enough to help.
You must also have come across some who actively want to **** their kids (and other kids) education up ? I have.
You must also have come across some who actively want to **** their kids (and other kids) education up ? I have.
Nice work. 🙂
I spent 15 mins crafting that prose.
Which proves my point.
Many kids have illiterate parents for example, can they help with 11+?
Many have no parents to help at all.
A lot have parents who couldnt give a toss enough to help, a lot of parents may not be educated enough to help.Interesting article on beeb today apparently 41% of kids in London have extra tutoring outside school.
Of course I understand that not all parents are going to help tutor their kids with the 11+ or be there for them in any way at all. I just wasn't sure how that relates to the cost of 11+ tutoring or the abolition of private schools? It might not be "fair" on the children, but having poor illiterate parents is never going to be a great start to their education under any system short of unlimited budget free state tutoring. I was merely suggesting that you don't have to be super rich to put your kids through the 11+ if they are inherently capable of passing it. And no amount of cash will get them through it anyway if they are below the intelligence threshold required.
It's the definition of middle class which gets me in this debate. I’ve never had illusions that I’m anything other than middle class, although financial my life is simple (Upper rate tax bands, ISAs, and employer contribution pension schemes are something that happen to other people), and yet every time this debate happens I get lumped in with people with family incomes with 1, 2, or 3 more zeros at the end than ours.
I pretty sure my views on public schools does come from envy of people who can afford to believe its a choice. It also comes from having come up against the nepotism that exists in society because of the public school system
You must also have come across some who actively want to **** their kids (and other kids) education up ? I have.
Believe me when I say I've seen some things you wouldnt believe!
Kids who come to parents evening on their own because the parents can't be bothered was a particular lowlight.
For the grammar school option, expensive 11+ coaching is not really required. You can do it yourself quite effectively.
Of course I understand that not all parents are going to help tutor their kids with the 11+
Seem at odds with each other?
I just wasn’t sure how that relates to the cost of 11+ tutoring or the abolition of private schools?
The conversation moved on as grammar school systems are a fairly good way of seeing how selection affects the majority.
I pretty sure my views on public schools does come from envy of people who can afford to believe its a choice.
You dont become blinkered to what lifes like for the majority just because you are rich.
The one that grips my shit is the classic ""my parents worked really hard and gave up a lot to send me to private school". Yes I'm sure they did Tabatha but did they work harder than my mum and give up as much as she did buying my school uniform?