Labour has voted to get rid of private schools

It is not always a question of money or not getting exam tuition.
Some of the worst school bullies I went to school with had millionaire parents and trust funds, they still failed to get into grammar school and were expelled from state schools by the age of 13.
Very fortunate for the grammar and state students, the thugs ruled the school for years and tyrannised everyone before they were finally expelled before a levels.

Reply 81

username1539513

21

Original post by londonmyst

It is not always a question of money or not getting exam tuition.
Some of the worst school bullies I went to school with had millionaire parents and trust funds, they still failed to get into grammar school and were expelled from state schools by the age of 13.
Very fortunate for the grammar and state students, the thugs ruled the school for years and tyrannised everyone before they were finally expelled before a levels.

I’m sorry that you to had to deal with bullies in school; as a relatively affluent (in north western English terms) pupil that went to a school in a deprived area I found that the poorer kids were the worst bullies by far. All the more affluent kids focused on knuckling down and cared about their grades.

Reply 82

username4920716

7

Has it occurred to you that sometimes it's nothing to do with money? Some people are just a bit thick.

Reply 83

username4929556

12

Creating more grammar schools would only work if every child sat 11+ (whatever it's called these days). Unless that happens, all you're doing is lowering the entry requirement for every extra grammar school place....

Reply 84

username1539513

21

Original post by James23121

Has it occurred to you that sometimes it's nothing to do with money? Some people are just a bit thick.

Opposing grammar schools whilst dismantling private schools works counter intuitively to solving the problem of social mobility, it just drags everyone down to the same base level.

If you’re referring to the difficulty of the 11 plus, I highly doubt any 11 year old could not pass it given appropriate time to prepare and appropriate tuition

Reply 85

username4929556

12

It is alleged that the more recent strain of 11+ isn't as easily coached as previous version. Obviously, teaching 10 years about timings is possible, and answering lots of questions is. 11+ "pass" varies anyway! Grammar schools have various scoring systems and various 'pass' levels. Where there is only one grammar in an area, the pass is likely to be much higher than where there are six.....

Reply 86

harrysbar

21

What about the ones with special educational needs? Some of the pupils I work with won't be able to pass any GCSEs despite intensive support throughout their school years.

And they wouldn't have been able to pass any kind of selective exam at 10/11 because when they joined secondary school they could barely read or write.

Reply 87

username1539513

21

Original post by Dexter321

It is alleged that the more recent strain of 11+ isn't as easily coached as previous version. Obviously, teaching 10 years about timings is possible, and answering lots of questions is. 11+ "pass" varies anyway! Grammar schools have various scoring systems and various 'pass' levels. Where there is only one grammar in an area, the pass is likely to be much higher than where there are six.....

Hence my point about increasing grammar school numbers and funding for state schools; So then rather than being forced to choose between a rubbish comprehensive and trying to get into a strict grammar school if you can’t afford independent school you have more choice of grammar schools and if worst comes to worst and you can’t get in either then going to a state won’t be as bad

Original post by harrysbar

What about the ones with special educational needs? Some of the pupils I work with won't be able to pass any GCSEs despite intensive support throughout their school years.

And they wouldn't have been able to pass any kind of selective exam at 10/11 because when they joined secondary school they could barely read or write.

My reply above is relevant to this issue also

Reply 88

Anon0601

6

Original post by Fruli

I'm a commoner that intends to prioritise private school education for my kids.

Why would you feel the need to prioritise this for your children? My assumption is that you feel it is inherently better than State Education which is the nub of the issue.

There are hundreds of thousands of parents who could never afford to send their children to private schools even if they prioritised this above everything else. In 2018 the average private school fees were £17k pa whilst average wage was £28k pa. Therefore it would be impossible for anyone on the average wage to send their child to the 'average' private school.

You are thus excluding the majority of the population from the opportunity to have a 'better' education purely on the basis of their family being relatively poorer.

Reply 89

Stiff Little Fingers

21

Original post by Oxford Mum

Just to say that I am a single parent and my kids were on free school meals at primary school, however they won scholarships and bursaries from a private school. There are no grammar schools in our area either, so they were lucky. Now this opportunity for social mobility will be lost, if Corbyn has his way. But if there is a demand for private schools and parents can and want to pay, I can't see how they can stop them.

But non state schools don't provide a form of social mobility, they entrench class divisions by reserving most of their spots for the children of the rich, not necessarily those who are academically capable.

Reply 90

username4929556

12

Sorry, but you've lost me. How is increasing grammar school numbers doing anything other than lowering their entry requirements? The only way to negate increased grammar school places reducing entry requirements is to make every pupil sit 11+. Increasing grammar school places and making no other change will simply lower entry requirements.

Reply 91

Sinnoh

22

Original post by Guru Jason

I'd be all for getting rid of them. They serve no wider purpose than to line the pockets of the already rich. I'd rather the best teachers that get attracted by money, teach in state schools where everybody gets a chance to be taught by the best rather than just a small percent of a privileged few.

Bahaha yeah nothing lines your pockets like spending £20k a year with no real returns

Reply 92

Guru Jason

21

Original post by Sinnoh

Bahaha yeah nothing lines your pockets like spending £20k a year with no real returns

I was talking about the owners of the school.

Reply 93

username1539513

21

Original post by Dexter321

Sorry, but you've lost me. How is increasing grammar school numbers doing anything other than lowering their entry requirements? The only way to negate increased grammar school places reducing entry requirements is to make every pupil sit 11+. Increasing grammar school places and making no other change will simply lower entry requirements.

It would make grammar school more accessible to normal people (I.e ones who can’t afford to send their children to private school) whilst increasing social mobility due to the higher teaching standards grammar school offers. There is no need to lower entry requirements either as those who lack the intelligence to pass the entry exam will still be benefitting from better funded state schools. It wouldn’t solve the problem of social mobility disparity altogether but it would remove the unfair privileges those with parents rich enough to afford private school benefit from

Reply 94

z-hog

13

Here's the irony: the people wanting to close down Private are the same ones who make State schools ****e in the first place.

Reply 95

Fruli

OP

21

Original post by __itertools__

Smug! How is asking a humble question being foolish?

In fairness, all you needed to do is just google.

Reply 96

Anon0601

6

Original post by z-hog

Here's the irony: the people wanting to close down Private are the same ones who make State schools ****e in the first place.

And there I was thinking that the Tories who have driven the state school system into the ground with their austerity measures actually favoured private education.

Reply 97

z-hog

13

Original post by Anon0601

And there I was thinking that the Tories who have driven the state school system into the ground with their austerity measures actually favoured private education.

Well, you were wrong.

Reply 98

Fruli

OP

21

Original post by mathspaperfree

y

yes it will, the average state school kid doesn't care about school, gets mostly Ds and Cs at GCSE.
The opposite is true for kids who go to private schools.

Clearly you can't face the fact that private school children are on average smarter than state school children, (and it isn't about the quality of teaching or sizes of classes).

It starts from birth, even before that

I could go on for ages, but i haven't got all day to waste

It's not because they are smarter. It's because they have the right resources and the write environment, that is conducive to them getting those top grades. I know this because I got to experience both private and state school.

It's not even just about grades, it's also about the connections and networks that you make in that type of school.

Reply 99

Fullofsurprises

20

Original post by Nununu

The more destructive police is abolishing Ofsted

I'm not sure I agree with this. I've met teachers from different schools and talked with them about how Ofsted works in practise. It seems to veer between random (and often highly personalised and distorted prejudices of the inspectors) and maniacal box-ticking. It's created massive extra workloads on teaching staff, of which only a small percentage appears useful.

Labour has voted to get rid of private schools

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you