The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by HearMeRoar
Yes, actually. Almost every department has a trip abroad at least once a year. We have whole year holidays and reward weeks abroad and regular trips to theme parks etc. We have incredibly similar opportunities to the private school in the next town.
Having said that, I am moving schools for sixth form to attend a comprehensive as there is greater support for my future career there. :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile

That's some school you go to...! ,Most schools aren't like yours, though.
Do a lot of people go, given that these trips ar very costly?
Original post by isaaccharles
Private schools are not expected to be exactly the same as comprehensive school, if so private schools wouldn't exist.


???
Why do you want a reinforced class system? It encourages prejudice and inequality.
Original post by yl95
Why doesn't Westminster? I know people from Westminster and SPGS and they are very nice.


A quick Google shows that there is no Winchester Girls' and St Swithun's is the only one that has that rep, so yeah.


Yeah just checked her fb, it was there.

Flashbacks, flashbacks!!!!
Original post by yl95
???
Why do you want a reinforced class system? It encourages prejudice and inequality.
Did I say I want a reinforced class system? :confused:
I went to a state school but a private school is just down the road from me.

My only memory is being at the park after school and these private school kids came down and started playing a football match in their suits with their shirts tucked in.

I felt very uncomfortable.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by yl95
That's some school you go to...! ,Most schools aren't like yours, though.
Do a lot of people go, given that these trips ar very costly?


A lot of the trips are subsidised for people who can't afford it, and not everyone goes, due to lack of interest etc :smile: there's no pressure to go on the trips, but many people do.

My headmaster is rather obsessed with making my school as similar to a private school as possible; it's a little bizarre :3

Posted from TSR Mobile
This argument is ridiculous because it is too subjective, everyone has had their own unique experience and subsequently has their own opinions. You can't change their opinion but telling them you had a different experience - it doesn't work like that.
Original post by will2348
I went to a state school but a private school is just down the road from me.

My only memory is being at the park after school and these private school kids came down and started playing a football match in their suits with their shirts tucked in.

I felt very uncomfortable.

Posted from TSR Mobile
:laugh: Why did you feel uncomfortable
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by isaaccharles
A reinforced class system is disliked?

Do you not dislike being judged in bad way for attending a prestigious public school?
Reply 309
I'm against privately funded schools as it damages social mobility for us ( the 99% ). I would be full for the restatement of grammar schools but that would be in a perfect world, were we are not run by right wing politicians. In my local area there is only one private school and gladly my comprehensive is better.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Marcum
Do you not dislike being judged in bad way for attending a prestigious public school?
In case you're wondering, I didn't say that because of the reinforcement of the class system, I only said it because class has nothing to do with private/ comprehensive schools. And to answer your question, I do
(edited 9 years ago)
What confuses me the most is how people support grammar schools but look down on private schools even though Grammar schools only select children regarding their intelligence.
Original post by isaaccharles
:laugh: Why did you feel uncomfortable


Because me and my friends were all dressed casually for a sunny day and it just felt weird, haha.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by harryhamilton
What confuses me the most is how people support grammar schools but look down on private schools even though Grammar schools only select children regarding their intelligence.


I agree, it confuses me too :laugh:
Reply 314
Original post by harryhamilton
What confuses me the most is how people support grammar schools but look down on private schools even though Grammar schools only select children regarding their intelligence.

I just feel it gives children an equal opportunity for better social mobility. If we were to implement no child left behind, the quality of education that teachers could provide would decrease. This is because children develop there mental capabilities at different ages so it leaves many capable students behind. As the teacher would have to put more time in underachieving pupils, rather than developing the possibilities of more capable students.

Factors that cause less successful students are, environment and inheritance. These factors are beyond the four walls of the class room, so are hard to influence.
(edited 9 years ago)
My school was awful. It struggled to pass Ofsted, most students failed to get 5 A-Cs. If was full of thugs from council estates that would throw rocks at you if you looked a bit different. Horrible place.

Some teachers were decent, the majority weren't. In year 12 I had an argument with one because she tried to get us to finish off a year 9 science experiment on Osmosis that had no relevance to us at all - this was the same day we got results back from a past exam question set where the *whole class* scored zero marks - as she hadn't taught the material because she didn't understand it.

It didn't approach a shouting match, because she didn't have a leg to stand on. Me and the other guy who were best at the subject sat down and worked out what the hell we were supposed to be doing and in the end we had to teach the rest of the class the content.

She cared, but she couldn't admit that the stuff we were learning was beyond her - instead she avoided the issue, forcing me to confront her over it.


I had other similar experiences, like one teacher that wouldn't let us type up/properly research our coursework (had to 'research' before hand, bring it in somehow then write by hand the coursework in two lessons). He was my form tutor, great guy, but I knew every other kid in the country would be writing it on a computer, with access to the internet and spending hours on it.

My 'research' was spending the whole weekend all-nighting it, typing up the best essay I could come up with and bringing it to him, plonking it on the desk and saying "There's my research, do you want me to write it out word for word, or do you just want to accept the typed copy?". He accepted the typed copy.

I couldn't do Maths at Uni. Why? Our school couldn't afford a Maths teacher that was qualified to teach further maths. That even affected my Physics degree, where 95% of the other students had further maths...

I got lucky, on general, with my teachers. Others had A-level teachers not turn up, or quit and not be replaced at all for a year or more, replaced with unqualified 'fillers' who didn't know the content or course. Absolute mess.

The main problem in the earlier years before exams filtered them out was the council estate thugs that had no interest to learn, and didn't have the system that could cope with them - resulting in half the lessons being damage-limitation. Not an ideal learning environment.



So yeah, some state schools can be ****. People who've been to these schools look at private schools and think "Jesus, that kid had it good. No wonder he has those grades, that job, that life."

And then they think: "That's unfair. It shouldn't be that way." And they don't like that guy: Not only does his parents have a bunch of money to start with: He gets better opportunities to make better money himself, because of that money. It sucks, and it breeds resentment.

It's a much more difficult task to bring those awful state schools up to a better standard. Almost impossible, so in the interest of things being *fair*, public schools = bad.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by E-wan
I just feel it gives children an equal opportunity for better social mobility. If we were to implement no child left behind, the quality of education that teachers could provide would decrease. This is because children develop there mental capabilities at different ages so it leaves many capable students behind. As the teacher would have to put more time in underachieving pupils, rather than developing the possibilities of more capable students.
Personally, I think that the way schools are functioning are fine, however the only issue is that some schools need to improve the facilities they provide and the teaching quality. If there was only one kind of school, that would only result in chaos and disagreements.
Original post by harryhamilton
What confuses me the most is how people support grammar schools but look down on private schools even though Grammar schools only select children regarding their intelligence.


Surely segregating children on ability is more reasonable than on the financial situation of their parents?

Putting the most intelligent students with the least intelligent students = the least don't get the attention they need + the most don't get the attention they need.

Putting all the least together = better improvement, as they can have a lesson targeted at their own level.

Putting all the most together = better improvement, as they can have a lesson targeted at their own level

Whereas splitting it up by financial situation doesn't really have any logic behind it. It's a pre-determined factor that just governs that one child will have a good standard of education, another child won't. It's more 'unfair'.
Original post by harryhamilton
What confuses me the most is how people support grammar schools but look down on private schools even though Grammar schools only select children regarding their intelligence.


Uh...people aren't unhappy wth the fact that they select children based on ability - they're unhappy because children whose families have high income get better opportunities...at private schools and that bright children whose families aren't affluent don't get the opportunity.
Original post by Hanvyj
My school was awful. It struggled to pass Ofsted, most students failed to get 5 A-Cs. If was full of thugs from council estates that would throw rocks at you if you looked a bit different. Horrible place.

Some teachers were decent, the majority weren't. In year 12 I had an argument with one because she tried to get us to finish off a year 9 science experiment on Osmosis that had no relevance to us at all - this was the same day we got results back from a past exam question set where the *whole class* scored zero marks - as she hadn't taught the material because she didn't understand it.

It didn't approach a shouting match, because she didn't have a leg to stand on. Me and the other guy who were best at the subject sat down and worked out what the hell we were supposed to be doing and in the end we had to teach the rest of the class the content.

She cared, but she couldn't admit that the stuff we were learning was beyond her - instead she avoided the issue, forcing me to confront her over it.


I had other similar experiences, like one teacher that wouldn't let us type up/properly research our coursework (had to 'research' before hand, bring it in somehow then write by hand the coursework in two lessons). He was my form tutor, great guy, but I knew every other kid in the country would be writing it on a computer, with access to the internet and spending hours on it.

My 'research' was spending the whole weekend all-nighting it, typing up the best essay I could come up with and bringing it to him, plonking it on the desk and saying "There's my research, do you want me to write it out word for word, or do you just want to accept the typed copy?". He accepted the typed copy.

I couldn't do Maths at Uni. Why? Our school couldn't afford a Maths teacher that was qualified to teach further maths. That even affected my Physics degree, where 95% of the other students had further maths...

I got lucky, on general, with my teachers. Others had A-level teachers not turn up, or quit and not be replaced at all for a year or more, replaced with unqualified 'fillers' who didn't know the content or course. Absolute mess.

The main problem in the earlier years before exams filtered them out was the council estate thugs that had no interest to learn, and didn't have the system that could cope with them - resulting in half the lessons being damage-limitation. Not an ideal learning environment.



So yeah, some state schools can be ****. People who've been to these schools look at private schools and think "Jesus, that kid had it good. No wonder he has those grades, that job, that life."

And then they think: "That's unfair. It shouldn't be that way." And they don't like that guy: Not only does his parents have a bunch of money to start with: He gets better opportunities to make better money himself, because of that money. It sucks, and it breeds resentment.

It's a much more difficult task to bring those awful state schools up to a better standard. Almost impossible, so in the interest of things being *fair*, state schools = bad.

Wow schools like that need to work on improving the school as it would only cause people to leave school without any decent grades due to the awful quality of teaching

Latest

Trending

Trending