[Time Tourist]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
*

Ask yourself a different question; Labour told us that they were the champions of education: Tony Blair... "Education, Education, Education"... remember all that?

So why, after 13 years of Labour, is the state education system in a state of near collapse? Why is the system in meltdown, with children leaving these schools effectively illiterate? And it's not for lack of 'investment', go into these schools and there's no shortage of books or computers, yet the children can't read or write.

So why then are state schools so ****? Why are there no decent ones.

Why won't Labour ministers send their own children to the schools they expect the people they 'serve' to send their children to?

It's not the private schools that are the problem.

[Vernish]

You do get people getting 12*s at state schools and private schools, you get motivated, motivating teachers at state schools and private schools. I'd be prepared to bet you get seriously uninspiring teachers at both. The standard of teaching is going to vary so much I'm really not sure you can generalize.

But for the amount of private school fees paid, education could be improved for everybody. Already underpriviledged children wouldn't remain so.

And also, I do not think that private schools give you a full sense of, for want of a better phrase, real life. At a state school, you're mixing with people from different social classes, groups, beliefs. Fine, there are girls getting pregnant and people doing drugs behind the swimming pool - but I would rather learn in that environment than in one where all students come from priviledged backgrounds (I know there are degrees of this in private schools, as of course there are everywhere, but no matter how many "sacrifices" parents have made, they've still been able to make those sacrifices when many families couldn't: that's priviledged.)

[Zenomorph]

(Original post by gorton_k)
Yes, but how do you tackle those deep problems? I would suggest a common education is a very good place to start...

Yeah, no home schooling either. If the parents force them through extra hours of tuition, the important thing, the lasting thing, is that all of the kids are together... if you see what I mean... and there are only so many hours in the day, the majority of their education will be from the state. The advantage they gain will not be as great as that from going to a private school.

Hi, sorry for late reply.
Well, I think you would agree with me that these problems are basically connected someway to that unique UK institution - ' class '.

Where I differ from you is on the role of education as the complete answer, my take was simply on how to improve the state system and I thought part of it may lie in involving the private sector in a part private/ public education partnership.

I read somewhere, correct me if I am wrong, that the cost to the taxpayer per child is 9000 a year, that's steep price for something that hasn't worked well.

At these sort of rates, I don't see why we couldn't get private schools to be a shareholder in state schools, run the place with the public sector, impose their system to an extent and get fees in return. 9000 a year is more than the price of some 2nd tier privates.

The real obstacle to this is the NUT I think, they will see this as a takeover of their turf and will fight tooth and nail to stop it even if the public, the politicians, the academics want it.

Your model sounds like you want the current state system but beefed up with more resources, and with compulsory attendance without choice. I'm not sure how this going to get the wealthy to have a stake in our society, this might cause even more resentment, especially if you also ban tuition and will force anyone who wants extra tutoring, to do it at school.

It's beginning to sound more like a prison than a school and that scares me.

Also what's to stop the privates from setting up in neighbouring countries ? it'd hardly be any different boarding in Galway or Gloucester. If push came to shove I'm sure our US ' friends' would be MORE than willing to house the Etons and the Harrows of this world. What's a couple of LDN - NY tickets to the rich; small beer.

So in the end, it might be a case of throwing everything out with the bath water.

[riotgrrl]

I think a question on the flipside is- isn't it fair that richer people should be able to spend their money on improving their children's education if they want to, regardless of whether you are able to or not? Coming from someone who was state schooled (in seven different schools of... variable quality, shall we say xD), did pretty well, and is now at Oxford surrounded by people who went to private school, I think the solution is to bring the standard of state schools up, rather than get rid of the private ones. It would be of little benefit to me if these people hadn't had some of the wonderful educations that they had, what WOULD have been of benefit is if my teachers had some knowledge about the Oxbridge application process, if we'd had smaller class sizes, more books, more of a culture of learning.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
But everyone DOESN'T agree it's not fair, actually. That's quite a bit of the problem at the moment. So many people have this self-deserving attitude.

Your right, but it's those amongst the underclass.

(Original post by Fatfis)
The culture of private education sees a large group of students from rich families being spoon fed in passing exams but there seems to be a lack of interest in the subjects themselves, less passion


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

haha! Do you have any facts to back up your assertion? Have you ever been to a private school? That takes the cookie, for the most ridiculous thing I have heard this week.

(Original post by Vernish)
And also, I do not think that private schools give you a full sense of, for want of a better phrase, real life. At a state school, you're mixing with people from different social classes, groups, beliefs. Fine, there are girls getting pregnant and people doing drugs behind the swimming pool - but I would rather learn in that environment than in one where all students come from priviledged backgrounds (I know there are degrees of this in private schools, as of course there are everywhere, but no matter how many "sacrifices" parents have made, they've still been able to make those sacrifices when many families couldn't: that's priviledged.)

Why doesn't it give you a better sense of real life? I will spend my life around people similar to those I went to school with. Not saying it's right, but I will largely mix with those of the same social status as myself. You still mix with people from other beliefs at private schools. It isn't only white people who can be rich. I'm not likely to ever spend much time with the sorts of people you mentioned above, so why is it better for me to go to school with them?

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
Your right, but it's those amongst the underclass.

Some of the working class do, yes. But I completely disagree that it is mainly them.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Some of the working class do, yes. But I completely disagree that it is mainly them.

The attitude amongst the poor is worse than that amongst the rich. Whether it be believing they are entitled to benefits or a job or even blaming society for their failures in life.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
The attitude amongst the poor is worse than that amongst the rich. Whether it be believing they are entitled to benefits or a job or even blaming society for their failures in life.

Are you going to give proof or examples of this? Becuase so far you have simply stated an opinion.
The way our society works DOES hinder those from the working class; if you are born into the working class, you are far more likely to stay that way and not progress, and this is largely due to society. Of course, everyone is responsible for their own decisions as adults, but if you've had a childhood that has hindered you so greatly, it's a hard obsticle to overcome.

Many attitudes I have come accross from the rich is that they believe they deserve to be rich, whether they earned it or not, and they are better than others because of it. I'm not saying they all think this way, because you can't generalise about an entire group of people, but there certainly are some terrible attitudes in this area of our society too, just as many as in others.

[concubine]

I went to a really ****ty school, got the best grades of any guy in my year, and only got 2 A*s and 3 As.


woe is me.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Are you going to give proof or examples of this? Becuase so far you have simply stated an opinion.
The way our society works DOES hinder those from the working class; if you are born into the working class, you are far more likely to stay that way and not progress, and this is largely due to society. Of course, everyone is responsible for their own decisions as adults, but if you've had a childhood that has hindered you so greatly, it's a hard obsticle to overcome.

Tell me how society has failed them? They have had an education and free healthcare funded by me, my parents their friends etc. It isn't the best education but it can't be blamed for their failures in life. People get good grades at state schools, not everyone who goes there is doomed. If you really wanted to progress in life then you would work for it. Get the good GCSEs and A levels you need to get into a good uni, work hard in uni and work hard to get a job.

I may not have any statistics to back this up, but I bet you that the people who stay in the working class are not the ones who bust their ass off at school they'll be the ones doing **** all and preventing everyone else from learning.

Many attitudes I have come accross from the rich is that they believe they deserve to be rich, whether they earned it or not

Well if they did earn it then I don't see the problem. What would be an example of someone who didn't earn their money, and don't just say bankers.

and they are better than others because of it. I'm not saying they all think this way, because you can't generalise about an entire group of people, but there certainly are some terrible attitudes in this area of our society too, just as many as in others.

Better? No. More useful and productive members of society? Yes. In very general terms, the rich give and the poor take.

[ThisIsTheLife]

(Original post by Miracle Day)
I've put up some statistics from the BBC which obviously shows that people do better in Private schools, doesn't matter if you tell me I should have done tried harder or I should have done better the bottom line is people have an advantage if they go to them.

Those statistics don't make that indication directly.

It COULD be, for example, that parents of children who go to private school put much more pressure on them to work hard because they know they've put so much money on the line for their education. So the fact that they actually attend private school didn't have a direct effect on their success in terms of quality of education, but the pressures that come from your family and from the school itself when you attend private school are higher.

That's just one of many possible explanations for the statistics. Things aren't always as black and white as media statistics like to make it out to be.

In any case, I was born into a working class family where the almost everybody in my family (inc. extended) left school aged 16 or before with little or no qualifications (a few average grade O-levels at best) and went on to become mechanics or van drivers. I then went through state education in a school in one of the poorest areas of Glasgow, where the vast majority of people leave school after the age of 16 with few qualifications to their name, and end up jobless, jailed, dead, or took a poorly paid apprenticeship to enter into a poorly paid industry, or became bog-standard office nobodies.

Fact is that I got credit grades in all my Scottish standard grades, AAAAB in my Scottish highers, went on to do Aeronautical Engineering at a highly respected university and finished with the top first class degree in my year (only two other first class degrees that year - one of them went to my friend who also went to the same high school as me), and now I'm doing a PhD in Space Science at another highly respected university with my supervisor being one of the most renowned professors in the field (my friend is now doing a PhD in aerospace too).

So I really can't empathise with anybody who says that they are overly disadvantaged by their educational circumstances or the social class that they came from - especially as my attendance in the last years of high school and throughout university were very low, some years as low as about 10-15%. Which means that I really wasn't getting ANY education at all, and was largely self-taught.

Even if that did disadvantage me, I just worked that extra bit harder to overcome it, and throughout most of my education career, I have surpassed the efforts of my peers who came from private education.

So stop whining and go study.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
Tell me how society has failed them? They have had an education and free healthcare funded by me, my parents their friends etc. It isn't the best education but it can't be blamed for their failures in life. People get good grades at state schools, not everyone who goes there is doomed. If you really wanted to progress in life then you would work for it. Get the good GCSEs and A levels you need to get into a good uni, work hard in uni and work hard to get a job.

I may not have any statistics to back this up, but I bet you that the people who stay in the working class are not the ones who bust their ass off at school they'll be the ones doing **** all and preventing everyone else from learning.



Well if they did earn it then I don't see the problem. What would be an example of someone who didn't earn their money, and don't just say bankers.



Better? No. More useful and productive members of society? Yes. In very general terms, the rich give and the poor take.

Society fails them plenty (and their parents, largely, whom are also products of society and not the children's fault).
Often their parents have bad attitudes to authority, meaning they pass it onto the children and they misbehave in school. This starts way before they are old enough to understand the consequences. This stops them from learning as well as they should.
If their parents don't have much money, they may well be wearing hand-me-downs, and so are bullied and judged based on their clothes throughout their education. There have been studies proving that teachers treat them differently, even if unintentionally.

Just having a bad start like this, and improving as they get older (which doesn't always happen) means that they are behind, and struggle to catch up. They don't get the grades they need.
Many of them don't get to study further or higher education for largely financial reasons. Often parents tell them to get jobs as soon as compulsory education is finished, to pay their way because they can't afford to support them.

All children may get an education, but they don't get the same quality of opportunities.
Also your comments about a free healthcare YOU provide? Their families pay taxes too. Healthcare isn't part of my point.

Many rich people DIDN'T work their way there through hard work. It is often handed to them on a platter because they have family ties, or they have inherited money/business from family, etc. They have better opportunities because of the luck of where they were born, not through their own hard work.
Obviously, this doesn't apply to all wealthy people at all. But some, certainly, and those ones always seem to think they somehow deserve it more than working class people, who simple didn't have the same opportunity as them.

[ThisIsTheLife]

(Original post by Fatfis)
The culture of private education sees a large group of students from rich families being spoon fed in passing exams but there seems to be a lack of interest in the subjects themselves, less passion

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

Private school students sit the same exam papers, under the same exam conditions, using the same materials and resources in the exam, on the same day and at the same time as any state school student.

For that reason, it is ridiculous for you to say that their improved results are due to spoon-feeding.

I, personally, am not sure what the reason is for statistically increased success amongst private school students. I have a number of hypotheses, but am not willing to select one to posit in a definitive manner. But what I can say is that, owing to the fact that the students are examined in the same manner, I can only surmise that the private school students spent more time and put more effort into learning their subject.

Nobody can learn for you. You can't pay money and have some private school take the burden of having to learn off of you - it's always there. Yes, better teachers can explain things in a manner which is clear to the student, doesn't confuse them, and perhaps use examples and mannerisms which the student can use as memory aids. But that will only help to a certain extent in a limited way.

The student still has to learn and study independently, and that's what determines their results.

[Zenomorph]

(Original post by riotgrrl)
I think a question on the flipside is- isn't it fair that richer people should be able to spend their money on improving their children's education if they want to, regardless of whether you are able to or not? Coming from someone who was state schooled (in seven different schools of... variable quality, shall we say xD), did pretty well, and is now at Oxford surrounded by people who went to private school, I think the solution is to bring the standard of state schools up, rather than get rid of the private ones. It would be of little benefit to me if these people hadn't had some of the wonderful educations that they had, what WOULD have been of benefit is if my teachers had some knowledge about the Oxbridge application process, if we'd had smaller class sizes, more books, more of a culture of learning.

Yep, Improve the overall system rather than degrade it.

[RoryRorrzShikari]

(Original post by alexandraa)
Yeah I agree there is some advantages but what it boils down to is the actual exams at the end of the day. I still have to revise and sit the exams- the school don't do it for me. And it irritates me when people disregard my hard work as my parents "bought" my education and so there fore its meaningless. At the end of the day my school costs, and I know there are people who can't afford that and therefore maybe do suffer a poorer education. But you could turn this argument around and say for example it's unfair that private healthcare is available? It's irrelevant but yes I do believe private schools have better teaching, better working environments and more opportunities. But anyone can get good grades and go to a good uni wherever they go to school


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

Yes I'm not disputing that private schooled students have to work hard- that is still obvious and I wouldn't disregard their grades just because they went to a private school.
However as you stated private schooled pupils enjoy 'better teaching, better working environments and more opportunities' which in my opinion does make it is easier to achieve those high grades and is unfair.
Yes, it is true that you can achieve high grades wherever you go to school but in my opinion it is much harder in state education as schools have less resources, less extra curriculur activities and as you stated poorer working enviroments. I just find it hard to see why children should recieve a second class eduaction because of how much money their parents have. It seems fairer that all children, regardless of their backgrounds should be given a more equal start in life and success should only come down to their efforts. Obvioulsy it is innaccurate to say that it is possible to give all children an exactly equal start in life as there are good state schools and bad ones and some get more encouragement from home than others. However I just private education makes the whole thing much worse.

[Vernish]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
Why doesn't it give you a better sense of real life? I will spend my life around people similar to those I went to school with. Not saying it's right, but I will largely mix with those of the same social status as myself. You still mix with people from other beliefs at private schools. It isn't only white people who can be rich. I'm not likely to ever spend much time with the sorts of people you mentioned above, so why is it better for me to go to school with them?

I suppose that, yes, "real life" is subjective. You can choose to only mix with people from the right background and pretend that the problems of poverty, teenage pregnancy, drugs et cetera et cetera don't apply to your "real life", only someone else's.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear with "beliefs" - of course it's not only "white people you can be rich." I meant more along the lines of philosophies, outlooks.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by RoryRorrzShikari)
Yes I'm not disputing that private schooled students have to work hard- that is still obvious and I wouldn't disregard their grades just because they went to a private school.
However as you stated private schooled pupils enjoy 'better teaching, better working environments and more opportunities' which in my opinion does make it is easier to achieve those high grades and is unfair.
Yes, it is true that you can achieve high grades wherever you go to school but in my opinion it is much harder in state education as schools have less resources, less extra curriculur activities and as you stated poorer working enviroments. I just find it hard to see why children should recieve a second class eduaction because of how much money their parents have. It seems fairer that all children, regardless of their backgrounds should be given a more equal start in life and success should only come down to their efforts. Obvioulsy it is innaccurate to say that it is possible to give all children an exactly equal start in life as there are good state schools and bad ones and some get more encouragement from home than others. However I just private education makes the whole thing much worse.

Second class education? More like second class motivation.

In case you didn't realise, plenty of people succeed and go to university from state schools, something which has little to do with the quality of their education and everything to do with their motivation.

Hard work is sufficient to achieve basic qualifications and even a degree for most aptitudes.

And if it is a second class education, your solution is to take away private schooling and give everyone that second class education? Cognitive dissonance is running rampant throughout this thread.

Parents who educate their children privately pay twice. Once for their children to be educated, and in the vast majority of cases, being more well off, pay more in taxes towards the education than the parents of those going to state schools.

You aren't even claiming that scrapping private schools would make state school education any better. Instead it is based on the principle of jealousy - taking away from others what you don't have and dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator in the name of equality.

Lets try and apply your argument in a broader sense.

Why is it fair that you live in a brick house, have electricity and gas, hot and cold water on tap, television, internet access and a computer when there are people in Africa who live in mud huts (if they are lucky) on less than a dollar a day.

But any notion of redressing the balance in the name of 'equality' that would mean you losing all these things so that Africans would be a little better off and I wonder why you aren't in favour of that kind of 'equality'.

Many of those who don't have private education and complain that they would wish it taken away for the rest are just envious, pure and simple.

They would scream bloody murder if you try to take away anything they have because not everyone is as fortunate as they are.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Society fails them plenty (and their parents, largely, whom are also products of society and not the children's fault).
Often their parents have bad attitudes to authority, meaning they pass it onto the children and they misbehave in school. This starts way before they are old enough to understand the consequences. This stops them from learning as well as they should.
If their parents don't have much money, they may well be wearing hand-me-downs, and so are bullied and judged based on their clothes throughout their education. There have been studies proving that teachers treat them differently, even if unintentionally.

Well then if it is all the parents fault no amount of wealth distribution will make a difference. I don't buy that argument anyway. By the time a child is 15/16 they know full well what is right and what is wrong and that school actually matters. If they aren't clever enough to figure that out then they didn't have much hope regardless of their background.

Just having a bad start like this, and improving as they get older (which doesn't always happen) means that they are behind, and struggle to catch up. They don't get the grades they need.
Many of them don't get to study further or higher education for largely financial reasons. Often parents tell them to get jobs as soon as compulsory education is finished, to pay their way because they can't afford to support them.

Well FE is being solved with the compulsory school age being moved to 18. There is no financial barrier preventing them from moving onto HE. Loans and grants make this possible for people of any background, you don't need your parents to support you.

All children may get an education, but they don't get the same quality of opportunities.

I didn't say that the quality was the same. They have a harder start in life yes, but it shouldn't stop them working hard to get the grades, or even worse, blaming it for their failures. Plenty of people go to university and succeed from state schools, it is a lack of motivation rather than a lack of opportunities. Perhaps they should have a look at Africa or India to see what having no opportunities really looks like.

Also your comments about a free healthcare YOU provide? Their families pay taxes too. Healthcare isn't part of my point.

Barely. My parents probably pay more in one year than they have in their lifetime.

Many rich people DIDN'T work their way there through hard work. It is often handed to them on a platter because they have family ties, or they have inherited money/business from family, etc. They have better opportunities because of the luck of where they were born, not through their own hard work.
Obviously, this doesn't apply to all wealthy people at all. But some, certainly, and those ones always seem to think they somehow deserve it more than working class people, who simple didn't have the same opportunity as them.

It has gone from 'many' rich people to 'some'? How many is it actually?

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Vernish)
I suppose that, yes, "real life" is subjective. You can choose to only mix with people from the right background and pretend that the problems of poverty, teenage pregnancy, drugs et cetera et cetera don't apply to your "real life", only someone else's.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear with "beliefs" - of course it's not only "white people you can be rich." I meant more along the lines of philosophies, outlooks.

But to be frank, the problems of poverty and teenage pregnancy etc don't apply to my life. I don't see any added social benefit from attending a state school.

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
Well then if it is all the parents fault no amount of wealth distribution will make a difference. I don't buy that argument anyway. By the time a child is 15/16 they know full well what is right and what is wrong and that school actually matters. If they aren't clever enough to figure that out then they didn't have much hope regardless of their background.



Well FE is being solved with the compulsory school age being moved to 18. There is no financial barrier preventing them from moving onto HE. Loans and grants make this possible for people of any background, you don't need your parents to support you.



I didn't say that the quality was the same. They have a harder start in life yes, but it shouldn't stop them working hard to get the grades, or even worse, blaming it for their failures. Plenty of people go to university and succeed from state schools, it is a lack of motivation rather than a lack of opportunities. Perhaps they should have a look at Africa or India to see what having no opportunities really looks like.



Barely. My parents probably pay more in one year than they have in their lifetime.



It has gone from 'many' rich people to 'some'? How many is it actually?

You don't seem to understand. Their parents are that way because of how society has shaped them, it's a circle. If we break the cycle, changing the wealth distribution and social mobility, then children would be brought up differently. The way the parents affect them is very much relevent.

It is still not completely possible for everyone to attend university with loans and grants. It makes is much more accessible by most, but not all.

You seem to have ignored my points. It is that "harder start in life", that you have agreed exists, that gives the unequal opportunities. People who don't have all of these challenges will almost certainly be able to attend university and get good jobs if they want to, with far less effort then children who do face these problems.
It is POSSIBLE for working class children to advance, but very often these hurdles get in the way of many of them, and that is not THEIR fault, it is a fault in the system. Those from wealthy backgrounds experience next to none of this.
Don't bring up Africa and India, it is irrelevent. Why should we stop striving to better our country, just because it's already better than somewhere else?

You're making assumptions about the amount that people will pay in taxes. If your parents earn a lot, then they may well pay more, but it's all in moderation to how much they earn. That doesn't mean YOU are paying for the working class's children and their healthcare; their parents still pay the tax, and are still entitled.

Of course I don't have exact numbers, I am talking about my personal experience, and the numbers aren't relevent to my points.