[lottie44442]

(Original post by im so academic)
What if the father is a banker and the mother used to be a teacher but quit after she had her children? (Now her children are ready to be educated, she will educate them).



How on earth will you ban that if no money is exchanged?

Remember, there are educated grandparents, aunties, uncles, other adults with spare time.

Money exchanging hands, good point, and if that is how a private school is determined legally, which isn't unlikely, then ok.

But the proportion of children whos father is a banker and mother is a teacher, and has enough willing grandparents, aunties, uncles, etc is tiny!

In terms of other parents contributing to and sending there children to this 'school'....I'm not sure the majority would be happy to do so. They'd be no way of assuring quality - what if parent A didn't like parent Bs teaching? They can't complain, as you said, there is no money exchanging hands, it's not a business. Therefore the parents who are so concerned with their childrens education are putting it in the hands of 'that other kids grandad', for example.

It may work, but I think only on a very small scale, one that would hardly make a dent in the system as a whole.

Though it reminds me of the new 'free school' system, though that is handled in the state sector.

[LETSJaM]

(Original post by exe)
No it isn't fair, and you may not necessarily have gotten better grades if you went to a private school, plenty of people who do get bad grades. That said - it's definitely an enviornment that's better for learning. You can't exactly blame private school students or their parents though, they're just trying to make the best for themselves/their kids. Bring back grammar schools, I say

This. 100%

<3 x

[XYZstar]

O've personally never been in a private school but my boyfriend and several good friends are. I think private schools do put people at a huge advantage, not only do you get smaller, more focused classes and specialist teachers and just all round more opportunities you also get the atmosphere of competitiveness and a strong work ethic.

I did well at GCSE with 2A*, 2Bs and 7As this was really good for my school but my friend who got identical grades to me was considered average. What's even more shocking for me was my boyfriend who got 11A* and 1A wasn't really that unusual. I think this is even more apparent at A level though, my friend with the same grades as me is confident he's got As at AS and will be able to get A* overall for A level as he's done a huge amount of work and got so much support. I on the other hand am worried I've got Cs or Ds in some subjects as I really get very little support outsied of lessons from the school. What pisses me off even more is that I do similar amounts of work to him, which is a lot of work 3 or 4 hours a night from easter until exams and at least 2 hours a night before that, this is where the work ethic thing comes into it as that wasn't that unusual for their school but for mine it's almost unheard of.

Looking at my experience private schools can give people a huge advantage. The school I'm talking about in particular though is incredibly good so some private schools may not have the same standard (I don't know). Clearly people going there are at a huge advantage, they also get way more help with university preperation and work experience too. I'm actually really against private schools becuase I feel that i'm competing on a completely un-level playing field, however it will never really be fair as even without private schools there will always be very good schools and very bad ones. I honestly just feel kind of upset that others get this amazing bebefit that I can never have simply because of money, I guess that's just life though.
This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my SK17i

[lottie44442]

(Original post by Deep456)
Everything has a flaw depending on how one looks at it, it is a subjective matter. Absolutely ridiculous thing to say as if you have done something that no one could have thought of.

So you think our school system is flawless?
What have I done that I think no one could have thought of?! Eh?!

(Original post by Deep456)
Bottom line is grammar schools are much better than anything you could think of, and yes, even at age 11, you can separate gifted students from not so gifted ones.

Grammar schools are fine IF the alternative is good as well. Just because a child performs poorly in one test, does not mean their future education should be poor!

(Original post by Deep456)
What people spend their money on is none of anyone else's business.

Cool, so tomorrow I'm spending my money on a couple of slaves, some firearms and a fist full of drugs.

(Original post by Deep456)
Especially seeing as though it helps the nation as a whole making its children more able and receptive about what is going on.

Well it hasn't made you very receptive about what's going on, has it now?

[Chazmarsh]

Although 50% of people from Oxbridge went to private schools the statistic that is missed out is how many private school people applied to Oxbridge, it's about 45% of all applicants, which doesn't make it seem so as shocking as saying compared to 8% of people who went to private school.

[Deep456]

(Original post by lottie44442)
So you think our school system is flawless?
What have I done that I think no one could have thought of?! Eh?!



Grammar schools are fine IF the alternative is good as well. Just because a child performs poorly in one test, does not mean their future education should be poor!



Cool, so tomorrow I'm spending my money on a couple of slaves, some firearms and a fist full of drugs.



Well it hasn't made you very receptive about what's going on, has it now?

Putting 2+2 together to get 5 in every point of yours, classic.

I think the likes of Ed Miliband, Boris Johnson, David Cameron and even Nick Clegg can rest easy tonight.

[freedomyak]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
-

I have a simple answer to your question and it is because LIFE IS TOUGH.
I for one wish I had the privilege of private education however I've acknowledged it's not financially viable for myself or my family and personally think that the 'downsides' of state education have made me a more whole-rounded and 'street-wise' individual if you can put it that way.

[Torpedo Fish]

(Original post by Ocassus)
Parents are quite capable of enrolling their kids in clubs and activities outside of school that encourage these things.

I don't think an hour or so of netball practice a week is going to be an adequate compensation for missing out on a full-time communal education.

(Original post by Ocassus)
The extreme wealthy are capable of sending their children abroad to other schools. You honestly have no idea what length people will go to do achieve what a Private school has to offer.

The extremely wealthy can do what they please, but the vast majority of those who send their children to private schools are not extremely wealthy. They are typically hard working middle-class families, many of whom make substantial sacrifices in order to be able to afford the independent school fees. These kinds of families will do what they can to give their children the best opportunities they can, but most would not be willing or able to just up sticks to another country to send their kids to a private school.

(Original post by Ocassus)
Something I have already debunked. Parents ARE selfishly interested in their own children, and their capital spending is their prerogative. All that would happen is rich parents would congregate around schools with other rich parents, producing another two tiered system with state funding thrown in on top. One of the reasons these schools are desired so much is social segregation in learning, and rightly so. Surely the better alternative to outright infringing on the liberty of the parents and producing a flawed system is to improve on the state sector so that Private schools are no longer needed?

Of course parents are selfishly interested in their own children, that's why I proposed a system in which a proportion of donations are compulsorily placed into a national education trust, which would subsequently distribute its funds according to NEED. Schools in deprived areas would thereby be able to improve using this funding. Through this system parents would only not only be able to satisfy their self-interest to see their own children receive a good standard of education, but in the process would also improve the educational prospects of less privileged kids.

(Original post by Ocassus)
Want to know why Private schools are so good? I've already elaborated on this but I'll explain it again.
-Competition
-Ethos
-Discipline
-Tradition
-Atmosphere

Are you genuinely claiming that funding has no impact whatsoever? If it was as simple as just copying the private school dynamic, it would have been done decades ago. The unimpeachable difference between state and private schools is funding, the rest is relatively easy to emulate.

(Original post by Ocassus)
Private schools don't do well because they have the 'best teachers' - The teachers are qualified from the same Universities with PGCEs all the same. The ability to teach is not a quantifiable measure, a 'good' teacher might be good at teaching a certain group of people and not another. You simply cannot standardise teaching ability and then 'compete' for the best teachers. Many teachers go to Private and Grammar schools because it is easier to teach there, there is less focus on disruption and more focus on the actual process of learning. There is no rigid curriculum, less bureaucracy, everything just works. The pay grades are actually not that different, with a standard averaged salary going from 21,000 up to 60,000 a year, not that different from State sector counterparts. Especially considering the 25% boost in paygrade that is being considered for teachers at challenging schools.

This article, as well as Janet Walker, school bursar at Eton College, would appear to suggest otherwise: “Eton College seeks to employ the very best teachers and has a remuneration structure designed to attract and retain them.” Why so, you might ask, if private schools do not do well because of their teaching staff?

Having gone to both a private and state schools myself, I have witnessed first hand the difference between the two. Whilst it is undoubtedly true that ethos, discipline and competition comprise a substantial part of the difference between the performance of the two education sectors, it is equally clear that quality of teaching has a massive impact. The passion my physics teacher had for the subject at my private school, for example, was contagious and made such a difference to my attention span and enthusiasm for the subject.

(Original post by Ocassus)
Make State schools more like Private schools, and you'll be well on the way to removing Private schools in a legitimate fashion. For some reason, I highly doubt you would advocate the school children of Britain walking around in uniforms like those of Eton.

The problem, as I'm sure you know, is that all the whilst private schools exist, the state sector will never be able to afford to be more like private schools. And why on earth would I care what uniforms school children wear? I think you've got me somewhat wrong.

[Torpedo Fish]

(Original post by callum9999)
Well no, because they are not investing in their childs education, they are investing in thousands of children's education. Under the plan you gave, 40% of the money they want to spend on their child gets completely taken away, and the other 60% is split between something like 500 children. So say they donate £1000, only £1.20 of it as a proportion is spent on their child. No parent would ever donate using that system as opposed to sending their child to private school. It makes far more sense to just hire a tutor and send them to Summer school.

Under the system I proposed, private schools would no longer be an option, but sure, people could hirer private tutors, but for reasons I've already outlined, I believe this would be in addition to mainstream schooling rather than in lieu of. In any case there are two flaws in your main argument. Firstly, dividing a donation by the number of pupils is meaningless since in most instances it would not be spent on an individual basis. If for example a donation was used to upgrade the library and I.T facilities, all pupils would receive the full benefit, not 1/500th of it. Secondly, whilst other children would benefit from your donation, your child would also benefit from all other donations. In other words, it works both ways.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
I don't think an hour or so of netball practice a week is going to be an adequate compensation for missing out on a full-time communal education.

Or in my friends case playing for a football team, training 8 hours a week. Knowing people through family connections, etcetera.

The extremely wealthy can do what they please, but the vast majority of those who send their children to private schools are not extremely wealthy. They are typically hard working middle-class families, many of whom make substantial sacrifices in order to be able to afford the independent school fees. These kinds of families will do what they can to give their children the best opportunities they can, but most would not be willing or able to just up sticks to another country to send their kids to a private school.

Right, so you'd deny the largest demographic in the country the OPTION of sacrificing certain things in order to improve their child's education? Sounds awfully authoritarian to me, doesn't sound that fair or that equal either. Let the rich keep their world class education because they have the resources, but dismantle the best educational institutions in the world over some idealised concept of egalitarianism, simultaneously robbing those who have the most to gain from it in the process?

Of course parents are selfishly interested in their own children, that's why I proposed a system in which a proportion of donations are compulsorily placed into a national education trust, which would subsequently distribute its funds according to NEED. Schools in deprived areas would thereby be able to improve using this funding. Through this system parents would only not only be able to satisfy their self-interest to see their own children receive a good standard of education, but in the process would also improve the educational prospects of less privileged kids.

No they wouldn't, their child would get a TINY sum, and therefore no parent would do it. Remember, the parents you are targeting are middle class right? Add these 'donations' to the increased taxes you would have to implement to compensate for the additional 8% of pupils into the state school system plus the nationalisation of certain Private schools, you will end up taking away alot of disposable income. This is something the country does not need in principle, higher taxes.

Are you genuinely claiming that funding has no impact whatsoever? If it was as simple as just copying the private school dynamic, it would have been done decades ago. The unimpeachable difference between state and private schools is funding, the rest is relatively easy to emulate.

Don't be so naive and polarised, of course it is more than funding.

Harrow spent 2 million on a new ICT suite, the comp down the road from me spent over 10 million on a new sports facility.

Grammar schools are able to compete with the very best Private schools, WITHOUT their funding.

As far as quality of teaching goes, cost and funding tends to have little to do with it. What funding does is provide additional opportunities. My school has the only Private Olympic sized pool in the country, and for good reason, we produce some of the most renowned international swimmers in the world. It costs many hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to maintain, our curriculums are specially tailored around our need to train. Because of this cost, the state would never be able to provide similar level facilities. If it did, you would deem it 'unfair', so our parents pay for it. To have first class facilities, you must pay first class. The state cannot facilitate £18,000-£30,000 per year per pupil for every pupil in England, it is an economic fact.
If you took that away from us because you think that it would be unfair that a select few 'elites' could use such an amazing facility, then you destroy one of the pinnacles of excellence in my sport for the sake of some misguided notions of equality.

Why is it Grammar schools can compete with Private schools? They have the same funding as state schools? Well... They have competition and selection (Most private schools are selective). So their pupil intake ends up facilitating an atmosphere of positive learning. A friend of mine was bullied at his old school for competing at the Olympics, people threatened to break his legs for money. How the **** is that conducive to an environment for success, especially when the majority of state schoolers simply aren't successful? At school now, he is in an environment with other success stories, and he is just another regular person. A much better environment to learn in.
Grammar schools also foster discipline, have less bureaucracy and focus on success like Private schools. Failure is not mollycoddled, in a state school if you fail you are told that you are still worth something. If you fail in a private school, you're either punished or told why you failed. You do not get better by being told you're great no matter what you do, like you hear with these stories of non competitive sports being introduced into schools because children feel insecure about losing.

This article, as well as Janet Walker, school bursar at Eton College, would appear to suggest otherwise: “Eton College seeks to employ the very best teachers and has a remuneration structure designed to attract and retain them.” Why so, you might ask, if private schools do not do well because of their teaching staff?

You're talking about head teachers, hmm? I'd say they fall out the vicinity of normal teachers, as they rarely teach in class themselves but deal with administrative tasks. Eton college would say that about their recruitment wouldn't they? But if you look at the facts, they have the advantage in employment, not the teachers. Teaching as I said before is NOT quantifiable, some teachers are good at making kids listen but not learn anything and vice versa. some teachers are better qualified but don't get on with kids etc. You have no empirical or scientific proof that suggests that the teachers at Private schools are better beyond 'I think they are paid more', therefore your claim is invalid due to a nonsequitur flaw.

Having gone to both a private and state schools myself, I have witnessed first hand the difference between the two. Whilst it is undoubtedly true that ethos, discipline and competition comprise a substantial part of the difference between the performance of the two education sectors, it is equally clear that quality of teaching has a massive impact. The passion my physics teacher had for the subject at my private school, for example, was contagious and made such a difference to my attention span and enthusiasm for the subject.

And you think that love of Physics was derived from his pay? No, he is a good teachers because he is a good teacher. He could equally have worked in a State school, maybe you should ask him why I chose to work in a Private school, because MANY factors other than pay can be included here.

As I said before, the AVERAGE pay scales of Private school teachers are not far apart from State school teachers, especially in tough areas, which have far more funding thrown at them for new teachers, especially in the coalition government.

The problem, as I'm sure you know, is that all the whilst private schools exist, the state sector will never be able to afford to be more like private schools. And why on earth would I care what uniforms school children wear? I think you've got me somewhat wrong.

The 'uniform' example is to demonstrate whether or not the 'equality' brigade would actually allow a system based off of Private schools. The Eton uniform is a representation of traditional values and ethos, but how many of you would think it would be good to introduce it to all schools in the country?

[James82]

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
Under the system I proposed, private schools would no longer be an option, but sure, people could hirer private tutors, but for reasons I've already outlined, I believe this would be in addition to mainstream schooling rather than in lieu of. In any case there are two flaws in your main argument. Firstly, dividing a donation by the number of pupils is meaningless since in most instances it would not be spent on an individual basis. If for example a donation was used to upgrade the library and I.T facilities, all pupils would receive the full benefit, not 1/500th of it. Secondly, whilst other children would benefit from your donation, your child would also benefit from all other donations. In other words, it works both ways.

It's the most ludicrous proposal I've ever heard, why would anyone willingly donate when they didn't have to and if the money's not going to be spent on their child?

[poony]

This discussion remind me of the following story:

Two men at a bus stop waiting for a bus. A Porsche drove passed, one said 'it's not fair, he should be at the bus stop with us.' The other said, 'one day, I will earn enough and drive the same car.'

Which one of the above are you ? I am not there yet but I know what's like to be at a bus stop but I have no objection to how people spend what their money.

Life is not fair but if we keep on drilling at the unfairness, how can we move on with bitterness. Let's look at it positively, state school do provide good and free education. UK do provide you with opportunities and It's up to the individual if you want to take it.Come on, we are all fighter right, we will get there one day. Trying is not good enough, endeavour is what we must do.

Why not improve the state schools instead of banning something that's good simply because we can't afford it.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[lottie44442]

(Original post by Ocassus)
What funding does is provide additional opportunities. My school has the only Private Olympic sized pool in the country, and for good reason, we produce some of the most renowned international swimmers in the world. It costs many hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to maintain, our curriculums are specially tailored around our need to train. Because of this cost, the state would never be able to provide similar level facilities. If it did, you would deem it 'unfair', so our parents pay for it. To have first class facilities, you must pay first class. The state cannot facilitate £18,000-£30,000 per year per pupil for every pupil in England, it is an economic fact.
If you took that away from us because you think that it would be unfair that a select few 'elites' could use such an amazing facility, then you destroy one of the pinnacles of excellence in my sport for the sake of some misguided notions of equality.

So purely on principles here, and not on the practicalities of funding + implementing, if you were a swimmer who simply couldn't afford to go to your school, do you feel as though it is appropriate that others would get this amazing facility and you couldn't, purely based on your parents job? Perhaps your school gives scholarships for such people, but it can't be very many, so say you missed out on one. Why is it appropriate that just because someone elses parents have more money than your own, suddenly you are unable to become an 'elite'?

(Original post by Ocassus)
At school now, he is in an environment with other success stories, and he is just another regular person. A much better environment to learn in.

On an separate note, Your friend is in a better enviroment due to the people he is surrounded by, correct? So private and grammar school pull away the more 'hard working' children from state schools, leaving behind a worse environment at state schools, and thus less learning. Therefore the very existance of private and grammar schools reduce the quality of state schools? At least to a certain extent. You may not agree that it is significant, but do you agree this occurs at all?

[Mister Dead]

(Original post by poony)
Let's look at it positively, state school do provide good education

No, they don't. A few do. This is the main reason that the majority of those is positions to dictate how this country is run come from a small number of schools. And repeatedly painting those that highlight this injustice as bitter or lazy or whatever is just ridiculous. The system we have fails to mine talent from the vast majority. It teaches academic failure moreorless from the get go.

The Porsche story is hilarious. And don't attempt to paint me as bitter. The majority of my family is wealthy and will inherit and will send their children to public school. I just believe we have a responsibility to start children on as level a playing field as possible when it comes to daytime education.

[lottie44442]

(Original post by Mister Dead)
No, they don't. A few do. This is the main reason that the majority of those is positions to dictate how this country is run come from a small number of schools. And repeatedly painting those that highlight this injustice as bitter or lazy or whatever is just ridiculous. The system we have fails to mine talent from the vast majority. It teaches academic failure moreorless from the get go.

The Porsche story is hilarious. And don't attempt to paint me as bitter. The majority of my family is wealthy and will inherit and will send their children to public school. I just believe we have a responsibility to start children on as level a playing field as possible when it comes to daytime education.

Yes yes yes yes and yes!

I dislike the accusation of being bitter also, personally I have done well out of the state system, but most don't therefore something is clearly going wrong. At the end of the day, every child should have a good start in life, regardless of who their parents are.

[callum9999]

(Original post by Torpedo Fish)
Under the system I proposed, private schools would no longer be an option, but sure, people could hirer private tutors, but for reasons I've already outlined, I believe this would be in addition to mainstream schooling rather than in lieu of. In any case there are two flaws in your main argument. Firstly, dividing a donation by the number of pupils is meaningless since in most instances it would not be spent on an individual basis. If for example a donation was used to upgrade the library and I.T facilities, all pupils would receive the full benefit, not 1/500th of it. Secondly, whilst other children would benefit from your donation, your child would also benefit from all other donations. In other words, it works both ways.

The point being, why spend £1000 upgrading the IT suite - which as you pointed out is shared between hundreds so may not even benefit your child when they want to use it - when you can buy your child a top-of-the-range ultrabook to carry with them or use at home? Why spend £1000 upgrading the library when you can just buy your child any book they want to keep?

Short of philanthropy, there is absolutely no reason for any parent to donate a large sum to a state school to benefit their child.

[im so academic]

(Original post by lottie44442)
So purely on principles here, and not on the practicalities of funding + implementing, if you were a swimmer who simply couldn't afford to go to your school, do you feel as though it is appropriate that others would get this amazing facility and you couldn't, purely based on your parents job? Perhaps your school gives scholarships for such people, but it can't be very many, so say you missed out on one. Why is it appropriate that just because someone elses parents have more money than your own, suddenly you are unable to become an 'elite'?

So because only a few can get it, it means that no one should get it instead?

On an separate note, Your friend is in a better enviroment due to the people he is surrounded by, correct? So private and grammar school pull away the more 'hard working' children from state schools, leaving behind a worse environment at state schools, and thus less learning. Therefore the very existance of private and grammar schools reduce the quality of state schools? At least to a certain extent. You may not agree that it is significant, but do you agree this occurs at all?

If all schools were comprehensive schools then all the higher-ability students would be in that position.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by lottie44442)
So purely on principles here, and not on the practicalities of funding + implementing, if you were a swimmer who simply couldn't afford to go to your school (I get a hefty 25% scholarship, people from poor backgrounds can get 100% bursaries if they show the ability. If you achieve the requisite times, you get your school fees paid in relation to your parents income.), do you feel as though it is appropriate that others would get this amazing facility and you couldn't, purely based on your parents job? Perhaps your school gives scholarships for such people, but it can't be very many, so say you missed out on one. Why is it appropriate that just because someone elses parents have more money than your own, suddenly you are unable to become an 'elite'?

Bolded, so untrue. We want world class people, we don't care about the background, but in order to get the funding for the facilities we require the parents who can afford it to pay the money needed for its upkeep. (Approximately 50% of our students pay full price, 20% are on full bursaries and 30% are on scholarships.) In order to compensate for this, the charges for the school are very high.

On an separate note, Your friend is in a better enviroment due to the people he is surrounded by, correct? So private and grammar school pull away the more 'hard working' children from state schools, leaving behind a worse environment at state schools, and thus less learning. Therefore the very existance of private and grammar schools reduce the quality of state schools? At least to a certain extent. You may not agree that it is significant, but do you agree this occurs at all?

It reduces their 'quality' insofar as there are less bright pupils yes. However, one hard working child in a large group of children who don't work hard is going to be more adversely effected whereas the positive effect will be negligible. The people who WANT to work hard must be in the majority for a positive atmosphere to be created, so the social status quo is too look down on those who fail, not to cheer them on and berate those who succeed. Said friend might not be competing in the Olympics at 2012 if he hadn't moved to Private school, the bullying could have created a scenario where he simply did not want to continue because of the stigma attached. What a loss for the country. This is why grammar schools do well, the MAJORITY of them are used to and promote success, they work hard for it. One of the major problems in State schools is on the student level, the culture is simply abominable in many places.

If you removed Private and grammar schools, all that would occur is the standard of education would go DOWN in the country, there would be NO net increase in the other direction, because of the phenomena I have just explained.

[lottie44442]

(Original post by im so academic)
So because only a few can get it, it means that no one should get it instead?

You didn't actually answer my question!
If the state were to aquire your school (not easy, I know!) and run it as a comprehensive, then anyone with a talent in swimming could be awarded a place regardless of their parents income. The cost could be offset via opening the facility to the public when the school isn't using it (again not easy, but still do-able!).

(Original post by im so academic)
If all schools were comprehensive schools then all the higher-ability students would be in that position.

This may occur, but with determination, the same ethos and enviroment from private schools could continue, therefore improving things for education as a whole.

[Ocassus]

(Original post by lottie44442)
You didn't actually answer my question!
If the state were to aquire your school (not easy, I know!) and run it as a comprehensive, then anyone with a talent in swimming could be awarded a place regardless of their parents income. The cost could be offset via opening the facility to the public when the school isn't using it (again not easy, but still do-able!).

It is in the school grounds, that throws up quite a few problems in a BOARDING school. Security etcetera.

Furthermore, we pay for it to be Private, why should it not belong to those who pay for it?