Private Schools Ought to be Abolished Watch

billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#541
Report 9 years ago
#541
(Original post by ~~~MrsCellophane~~~)
I agree totally. I went to a state comprehensive, and again I would have done so much better if I had been at a private school. I now attend a private college, and i'm already predicted an A for my exams in January. Thing is, I don't pay for this education, neither do my parents. Social Services does: meaning the tax payers. Basically the taxpayers are paying for my education, because i worked hard enough to get there. If all kids were like this, then there would't be arguments about this because no one would have a problem about people going to a school they pay for, and probably would be happier, because they weren't paying for an education that is dependent on how hard you work. That's what the education system is: you work hard you get far. Doesn't matter if you pay or not.
Oh so its ok for you to attend a private school (which you dont pay for), but its wrong for people to attend grammar schools?

Jesus!
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#542
Report 9 years ago
#542
(Original post by yawn)
Government Assisted Places were phased out from 1998.
Yawn is correct here, the Labour party don't like supporting the brightest pupils from poor backgrounds remember!
0
reply
The_Octopus
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#543
Report 9 years ago
#543
People need to bear in mind that when rich families send their kids to private schools, they are benefiting poor kids at state schools as well, since the rich parents are still paying taxes (more taxes even) which go towards the state schools, and those state schools don't have as many kids in them since they are at a private school instead. If you send your kids to private schools you are paying for their education twice! If you ban it, even the state schools will be worse off.
0
reply
Ultimate1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#544
Report 9 years ago
#544
No I think the main problem i the children. Bring back canes and whips and that will put the naughty children back to their place. Then they'll think twice before getting rude to teachers etc. This is however not a problem in private school because everyone thta goes there nows some basic manners whereas in state/public school anyone can go there and hence people will little to no manners or care go there.
0
reply
Komakino
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#545
Report 9 years ago
#545
Just to point out I went to a state school and I'm arguing from principle alone. Why should private schools be abolished and bring the level of education down altogether, why not alternatively improve the state school system. One thing that needs reforming nationwide is the method of grading, it's probably not incidental that in Finland the grading system is verbal only (not exam based) for the first 13 years of school, and Finland has one of the highest education rates in Europe. Exams are a measure of good memory and fail to account for wider aspects of personal progress, those without a good memory suffer severely for it (myself included). They also limit the curriculum in my opinion, as you're always working towards an exam paper with limited topics of study. I'm not sure what I think about Finland's division between vocational or academic students however, I'm undecided on whether that's right. Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educati...inland#Grading
0
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#546
Report 9 years ago
#546
(Original post by billydisco)
Yawn is correct here, the Labour party don't like supporting the brightest pupils from poor backgrounds remember!
It has long been evidenced that the 'bright but poor' do not attend grammar schools in any comparable numbers to their statistical existence in the population. Hence the reason why grammar schools are no longer 'fit for purpose' as espoused in their reasons for existence way back in the 1940's.

Moving on...the Labour Government of 1997 decided that the best way to use resources that were being misused by those who had the societal advantage was to ensure that all children at primary level benefitted from smaller class sizes...bringing them down from an average of 38 to 30. The way to fund this was to re-direct educational financial resources from the few to the majority.

Justice in action...
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#547
Report 9 years ago
#547
(Original post by Komakino)
Just to point out I went to a state school and I'm arguing from principle alone. Why should private schools be abolished and bring the level of education down altogether, why not alternatively improve the state school system. One thing that needs reforming nationwide is the method of grading, it's probably not incidental that in Finland the grading system is verbal only (not exam based) for the first 13 years of school, and Finland has one of the highest education rates in Europe. Exams are a measure of good memory and fail to account for wider aspects of personal progress, those without a good memory suffer severely for it (myself included). They also limit the curriculum in my opinion, as you're always working towards an exam paper with limited topics of study. I'm not sure what I think about Finland's division between vocational or academic students however, I'm undecided on whether that's right. Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educati...inland#Grading
Finland has the most successful education system in the world in terms of those who go on to Higher Education. The reason is that they have a comprehensive system of education...absolutely no academic selection at all. See Pisa reports.

The biggest problem with private education, imo, is not the fact that there is the choice on how to spend one's money. That is the crux of choice as far as I'm concerned. If one has sufficient money to spare apart from living life from day-to-day, one should be able to spend it as one wishes...provided it is legal.

However, we cannot overlook the fact that many parents are actually throwing good money after bad. The reason being that many private schools are mediocre at best and an appalling waste of money (in terms of providing a superior academic education) at worst.

Many parents like to think that seeing their little daughters dressed in panama hats in summer and their sons wearing old-fashioned school caps somehow makes the parents look socially superior. But if they've got money to waste, let them think this way.
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#548
Report 9 years ago
#548
(Original post by yawn)
It has long been evidenced that the 'bright but poor' do not attend grammar schools in any comparable numbers to their statistical existence in the population. Hence the reason why grammar schools are no longer 'fit for purpose' as espoused in their reasons for existence way back in the 1940's
Considering most grammar schools are found in middle-class areas, what statistical amount of poor pupils did you expect to find in a grammar?
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#549
Report 9 years ago
#549
(Original post by yawn)
Finland has the most successful education system in the world in terms of those who go on to Higher Education. The reason is that they have a comprehensive system of education...absolutely no academic selection at all. See Pisa reports.
It probably has more to do with the fact that they don't have half of the country living off of benefits but still producing offspring whom they do not care for.

eg social demographic problems which the UK has aplenty....
0
reply
Teaddict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#550
Report 9 years ago
#550
(Original post by billydisco)
It probably has more to do with the fact that they don't have half of the country living off of benefits but still producing offspring whom they do not care for.

eg social demographic problems which the UK has aplenty....
I agree.
Different attitudes.

I will give another example.
In Germany, they have no problems with litter, because people just wouldn't think to litter - They would think to put it in the bin.

In the UK we have a litter problem.
To resolve our problems, we must change the views of people. The best construct for this is the family.

(Original post by yawn)
I find it very hard to believe that Social Services would fund a private education for a child who's parents are on benefits simply because their parents wanted a private education for their child, particulary since attendance at FE colleges is not compulsory as schooling is from 5 - 16.

Of course, there may be extenuating circumstances that you are not divulging but the public purse does not fund private education any longer. Government Assisted Places were phased out from 1998.
Labour removed a system which helped the poor. How ironic.

The fact is, if a child excels at education, the Government should give more resources to that child. If that resource is private education then so be it.
0
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#551
Report 9 years ago
#551
(Original post by Teaddict)



Labour removed a system which helped the poor. How ironic.

The fact is, if a child excels at education, the Government should give more resources to that child. If that resource is private education then so be it.
The Assisted Places scheme which, like the academically selective scheme, succumbed to the manipulations of the middle-classes and was overwhelmed with children who came from socio-economically advantaged backgrounds rather that those who the schemes were designed to help.

Additionally, by directing the resources saved to primary education, more children were helped from an early age by way of smaller classes...which is one of the benefits which makes private education attractive to parents.

I am of the belief that children with additional special needs [AEN] should receive greater resources than those with no such needs. And AEN applies equally to those at both ends of the academic spectrum. I would not deny the more able extra resources, anymore than I would deny the least able extra resources.
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#552
Report 9 years ago
#552
(Original post by yawn)
The.....
Yawn i noticed you never replied to my comment that there are so many middle class pupils in grammar schools because the 160 left are in middle class areas. This was in reply to your "grammar schools are full of middle class pupils".

Just wondered could you comment please?
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#553
Report 9 years ago
#553
(Original post by yawn)
I would not deny the more able extra resources, anymore than I would deny the least able extra resources.
So what is your opposition to grammar schools? :confused:
0
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#554
Report 9 years ago
#554
(Original post by billydisco)
So what is your opposition to grammar schools?
They are an anachronism in this particular day and age. They are not fit for the purpose they were originally instituted since they don't provide an education for the "poor but bright."

Additionally, they separate siblings and friends and neighbours. There is no compelling reason why pupils should be segregated into different buildings purely on academic grounds since "all ability" schools can educate these children in the same buildings albeit in different classes. Thus, siblings friends and neighbour continue their education at the same institution.

And finally, they have been abandoned politically by both right and left of the political spectrum who agree that there is no need for expansion and consequently, they will eventually contract as they become obsolete because of the changes to the 14-19 curriculum.
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#555
Report 9 years ago
#555
(Original post by billydisco)
Yawn i noticed you never replied to my comment that there are so many middle class pupils in grammar schools because the 160 left are in middle class areas. This was in reply to your "grammar schools are full of middle class pupils".

Just wondered could you comment please?
Kent has the highest number of academically selective schools in England...

Kent has large areas of social deprivation...in fact, Thanet is judged to be more socially/economically deprived than Tower Hamlets...and yet has grammar schools that are filled with the children of middle-class parents who are bussed in from those areas in Kent which are very wealthy - West Kent - and don't have enough school seats in their own areas.

Kent has the highest proportion of school judged to be failing...and those that do not achieve more than 30% of pupils attaining the bench mark of 5 A* to C grades at GCSE including English and Maths.

And that is the crux...the children of middle-class parents travel far greater distances to grammar schools than those who travel to comps or secondary moderns.
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#556
Report 9 years ago
#556
(Original post by yawn)
Kent has the highest number of academically selective schools in England...
I would be willing to bet Kent has one of the best social mobility rates because of its grammar schools.

(Original post by yawn)
Kent has large areas of social deprivation...in fact, Thanet is judged to be more socially/economically deprived than Tower Hamlets...and yet has grammar schools that are filled with the children of middle-class parents who are bussed in from those areas in Kent which are very wealthy - West Kent - and don't have enough school seats in their own areas.
That is because grammar schools do not have catchment areas. In addition, the parents of middle class pupils are more likely to encourage their children to succeed (and im not talking about the myth of 11+ tutors). You're never going to stop this, so instead of trying to bring down the middle class you should concentrate on ways to get the lower class to encourage their kids more (eg instead of shacking up with different fellas, put their kids first).

(Original post by yawn)
Kent has the highest proportion of school judged to be failing...and those that do not achieve more than 30% of pupils attaining the bench mark of 5 A* to C grades at GCSE including English and Maths.
I bet Buckinghamshire was close to the top as well! If you put all the clever pupils into a grammar school and have secondary moderns full of C-E grade pupils, of course you will get a large number not achieving! In a comprehensive LEA you are simply hiding the failure of these pupils with would-be-grammar-pupil results.

(Original post by yawn)
And that is the crux...the children of middle-class parents travel far greater distances to grammar schools than those who travel to comps or secondary moderns.
So what are you saying? Middle class people are bad and should not be allowed to attend grammar schools? As far as I'm aware earning 25k is probably considered middle class, yet that doesnt mean they can afford 12k a year private school fees.

As I said before, instead of worrying what the middle class are achieving you should be concentrating on trying to 'raise' the lower class (as opposed to 'lowering' the middle class).


Get rid of the grammar schools and you will have the best comprehensive with a requirement for a 300,000 pound house to be in the catchment area. 300,000 pound house or passing the 11+, which one do you think a poor child has more chance of?
0
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#557
Report 9 years ago
#557
(Original post by billydisco)
I would be willing to bet Kent has one of the best social mobility rates because of its grammar schools.
How much do you want to bet? You'd be a loser.


That is because grammar schools do not have catchment areas.
That contradicts your claim that grammar schools are populated by middle-classes because they are situated in middle-class areas.

Look, billy...we have had this debate innumerable times. You fail to produce corroborative evidence for your flawed claims whilst I have given evidence to support mine. (Anyone who cares to see the evidence I mention can type in terms such as 'grammar schools - yawn' into the TSR search facility to bring it up)

I'm not interested in pursuing...yet again...a fruitless debate with you that does not end in any resolution, nor takes up space in a thread that is about private schools, not state schools.

Have a happy New Year, billy.
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#558
Report 9 years ago
#558
(Original post by yawn)
......
Yawn considering most of this is common sense it worries me how you try to defend it. Oh by the way, nice how you avoid me mentioning the responsibility of the lower class.

Lets take a town, it has 10 schools, all comprehensive. The best school causes the surrounding catchment area to increase in house price.
Fact 1: Poor pupils CANNOT live in that catchment area.


"Kent has the highest proportion of failing schools"
Fact 2: If you take all the clever people from a population and put them in separate schools you will get more %A*-C than the national average in the grammar and less % in the secondary modern. Therefore Kent also will also have a massive number of state schools with 90%+ 5A*-C because of the grammars. Like I keep saying, you're whinging because you want the grammar results to hide the failure of dumber secondary modern students.

Fact 3: Grammar schools are for the middle class as much as they are for the poor. The difference is that the middle class care about their children and the poor generally dont. People like you want to bring the middle class down instead of trying to move the lower class up.


Please tell me Yawn, how does a bright poor pupil get into a good comprehensive when the bright poor pupil cannot afford to live in the catchment area?

You don't have a leg to stand on my dear! All you keep doing is moan about how many middle class are in grammar schools. Firstly so what? They are entitled to attend these as much as any other class! Secondly perhaps the flaw is not in the system, but in the social demographics of the lower class eg not caring about the education of their offspring, just a thought!

No doubt you'll dodge any valid point I make....
0
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#559
Report 9 years ago
#559
First of all...using different fonts of varying sizes and highlighting does not advance your argument. In fact, it speaks volumes of desperation.

And secondly Billy, I'm not dodging anything. Rather, I am trying to remind you that this debate is circuitious and does not resolve the differing opinions of all-ability schools versus those that discriminate in favour of the most socio-economically advantaged families.

The evidence is in my favour. Produce your counter evidence and post it in any of the myriad of threads already dedicated to academically selective education.

Meanwhile...back at the ranch...should private schools by abolished?

No, says I.
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#560
Report 9 years ago
#560
(Original post by yawn)
First of all...using different fonts of varying sizes and highlighting does not advance your argument. In fact, it speaks volumes of desperation.

And secondly Billy, I'm not dodging anything. Rather, I am trying to remind you that this debate is circuitious and does not resolve the differing opinions of all-ability schools versus those that discriminate in favour of the most socio-economically advantaged families.

The evidence is in my favour. Produce your counter evidence and post it in any of the myriad of threads already dedicated to academically selective education.

Meanwhile...back at the ranch...should private schools by abolished?

No, says I.
I would like you to explain to me how can a poor pupil get into the catchment area of a comprehensive where 85%+ of pupils achieve five A*-C grades?

That is all i ask from you...
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (228)
39.31%
No - but I will (40)
6.9%
No - I don't want to (41)
7.07%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (271)
46.72%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise