Private Schools Ought to be Abolished Watch

34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#141
Report 9 years ago
#141
(Original post by 35mm_)
No they would not. If school A gets better funding, the quality of teaching/resources/etc would eventually rise. Therefore, in turn, the aspirations and ambitions of the children would too (or, I suppose what you'd call "the quality" of the child would rise).

I hope that answers your question.
This is untrue. Academys prove this. I live next to a state of the art academy school that is a brand new building with new books and tons of computers all over the place. Their GCSE pass rate is currently at 20%. Like I said before my school was fortunate enough to get a maths teacher of private school quality, we had all the text books, but we still got a 70% lower pass rate at gcse than her previous school. How do you explain that?

Also, look at this academy in Sheffield:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Springs_Academy


It cost £30 million to build, and has the second worst attendance rates and GCSEs in the country. This is a clear indication that throwing money at this problem will solve absolutely nothing. If you can show me a school in which throwing money and teachers at the problem has made a school universally better I would like to see it.
0
reply
headunderwater
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#142
Report 9 years ago
#142
(Original post by Elipsis)
I'm not saying they should go to hell in a hand basket. I think there should be grammar schools still, so the good can be filtered from the bad early on. At the moment we just do it at a-level/university level, so what's the difference? O and had to endure their living and education conditions? I lived on a scummy estate and went to a crap school. The endurance that took!:rolleyes:
Wtf, man. I actually can't believe you think that children can be somehow filtered from "good" to "bad" by the schooling system. If being born into a family who are on benefits, or being a ******* (literal meaning), makes you "bad", then we'd lose a hell of a lot of potential intelligence. Children's minds need to be cultivated, not just immediately disregarded because they're not born into the "right" type of family.

Every some childen matters.
0
reply
Turdburger
Badges: 14
#143
Report 9 years ago
#143
(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
Even if you were in a grammar area, you would still have had far less of a chance to go to a grammar school. If grammar education worked like that, then I wouldn't object to it so much. But it doesn't, its little better than a free private school. Not to mention, changing the university system would give people in your area better aspirations, making the school overall a lot better.

Check out the free school meals stats if you don't believe me.
Do you think that a poor parent is more likely to have a stupid child as a rich person or not? (purely on natural talent before any educational effects take place)
0
reply
gm15
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#144
Report 9 years ago
#144
(Original post by moneyballs2)
If you scrap private schools you then get a sudden influx of students that would've went to a private school in the state schools. As it is state schools are underfunded. Do you really want to underfund them more by them having more demand?

That's my arguement. I think that if somebody can afford a private education, they should be allowed to take it, the same with health care.
THIS.
And remember parents of private school students still pay the exact same amount of taxes as they would if they'd not sent their kids to private school. If you banned private schools the government would have the same amount of money to pay for state education but would have thousands more students to pay for. So less money would be spent per head and the schools would be worse. You'd be making everybody's education worse.

Private education takes a lot of strain off the state system.
0
reply
DougieG
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#145
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#145
(Original post by Turdburger)
Dougie, given that you have cash. Assuming you aren't in power, and private schools are still around, Would you send your child to a private school and why?
It depends on a lot of factors. I would choose to live ideally in an area with grammar schools, and I would want my child to get into one of them. If they didn't, I would send them to the best comprehensive in the area. However, if I lived in an area where all the nearby comprehensives were dire then I probably would until the current dire system was fixed.
0
reply
JW92
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#146
Report 9 years ago
#146
(Original post by Bismarck)
Are you claiming that private school pupils are better pupils and are better behaved? You still provide no reason why a "good teacher" would prefer a private school to a public if they don't care about money (unless you actually are claiming that poor students are objectively worse to work with).
I am claiming that private schools get better grades and have less problems with discipline.

I'm sure I just provided a few reasons. The best teachers wouldn't go to schools where they spend the entire day enforcing discipline, making do with precious few resources etc. Poor students are often harder to work with. Particularly the very disadvantaged who may have come from homes with problems with drugs, alcohol or violence. I'm not going to dodge around that fact.

(Original post by Bismarck)
No, but the next generation of potential teachers will simply not bother to get qualifications for being a teacher. If wages go down, so will the supply of teachers.
I also addressed that before. The state should invest in education adequately to avoid this happening.
0
reply
headunderwater
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#147
Report 9 years ago
#147
(Original post by Boy with The Arab Strap)
But I haven't seen evidence of that 'old school' snobbery from anyone on this thread.
So equating the working-class as "scum" isn't snobbery?

I think so.
0
reply
Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#148
Report 9 years ago
#148
(Original post by Turdburger)
Do you think that a poor parent is more likely to have a stupid child as a rich person or not?
Honestly, having visited a "challenging" school I don't see masses of difference, tbh. There were plenty of bright kids there, just with less of a chance.

Certainly top universities having over 40% of their intake from private schools is absolute nonsense.
0
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#149
Report 9 years ago
#149
(Original post by 35mm_)
Wtf, man. I actually can't believe you think that children can be somehow filtered from "good" to "bad" by the schooling system. If being born into a family who are on benefits, or being a ******* (literal meaning), makes you "bad", then we'd lose a hell of a lot of potential intelligence. Children's minds need to be cultivated, not just immediately disregarded because they're not born into the "right" type of family.

Every some childen matters.
Where did I say that being from a benefits family or a single parent family or both should instantly disqualify an intelligent well behaved child from getting the very best education? I didn't. In fact private schools already have a system in which the very best children from the very worst environments can be educated for free.
0
reply
DougieG
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#150
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#150
(Original post by gm15)
THIS.
And remember parents of private school students still pay the exact same amount of taxes as they would if they'd not sent their kids to private school. If you banned private schools the government would have the same amount of money to pay for state education but would have thousands more students to pay for. So less money would be spent per head and the schools would be worse. You'd be making everybody's education worse.

Private education takes a lot of strain off the state system.
No. Why can't people read?
0
reply
Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#151
Report 9 years ago
#151
(Original post by Elipsis)
This is untrue. Academys prove this. I live next to a state of the art academy school that is a brand new building with new books and tons of computers all over the place. Their GCSE pass rate is currently at 20%. Like I said before my school was fortunate enough to get a maths teacher of private school quality, we had all the text books, but we still got a 70% lower pass rate at gcse than her previous school. How do you explain that?

Also, look at this academy in Sheffield:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Springs_Academy


It cost £30 million to build, and has the second worst attendance rates and GCSEs in the country. This is a clear indication that throwing money at this problem will solve absolutely nothing. If you can show me a school in which throwing money and teachers at the problem has made a school universally better I would like to see it.
Poor management basically.
0
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#152
Report 9 years ago
#152
(Original post by 35mm_)
So equating the working-class as "scum" isn't snobbery?

I think so.
How many times do I have to say that I am not saying working class = scum. That isn't the case. The only thing hindering some families from becoming middle class from working class is the scum that surrounds them, it's a sad fact of life.
0
reply
Turdburger
Badges: 14
#153
Report 9 years ago
#153
(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
Honestly, having visited a "challenging" school I don't see masses of difference, tbh. There were plenty of bright kids there, just with less of a chance.

Certainly top universities having over 40% of their intake from private schools is absolute nonsense.
I agree with the 40% statistic being unfair. Its the fault of poor schooling rather than the universitys fault.
0
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#154
Report 9 years ago
#154
(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
Poor management basically.
I don't think good management will solve the social problems of its catchment area, do you? If that exact same school with the exact same staff was in Chester for instance, it would be a walk in the park to manage it would it not? I'm sure it would have near 100% pass rates as well...
0
reply
Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#155
Report 9 years ago
#155
(Original post by Turdburger)
I agree with the 40% statistic being unfair. Its the fault of poor schooling rather than the universitys fault.
If the Universities made the working classes believe they had a chance, then I feel very confident things would change. There are plenty of examples in my memory, from school visits.
0
reply
gm15
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#156
Report 9 years ago
#156
Certainly top universities having over 40% of their intake from private schools is absolute nonsense
Only if they are doing it simply because the students are from private school.
If they are doing it because of the students having the grades what difference does it make.
0
reply
DougieG
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#157
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#157
(Original post by Turdburger)
I agree with the 40% statistic being unfair. Its the fault of poor schooling rather than the universitys fault.
I agree, by the time that it comes to university admissions the damage has been done. Its counter-productive to influence those decisions because the private school kids who get in are genuinely better educated and will probably do better at university. That's why I want to overhaul the state school system rather than change admissions to rectify the problem.
0
reply
dschna
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#158
Report 9 years ago
#158
(Original post by DougieG)
...but the fact remains that the only real entry requirement to a private school is to have rich parents (or at least moderately wealthy ones)...
You have mixed up your terms. Regarding pure wealth as the only entrance requirement, this applies to 'Public Schools'. Independent Schools (where has the term 'private' come from?) get applicants to sit entrance exams and aptitude tests. Wealth is only a factor once you have gained a place.
0
reply
Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#159
Report 9 years ago
#159
(Original post by Elipsis)
I don't think good management will solve the social problems of its catchment area, do you? If that exact same school with the exact same staff was in Chester for instance, it would be a walk in the park to manage it would it not? I'm sure it would have near 100% pass rates as well...
Good discipline and having the teachers properly backed up is always a very good start. In some of these areas the schools have been really turned around. But you need a really good and committed leader to do that.
0
reply
username261813
Badges: 0
#160
Report 9 years ago
#160
I went to a private school. It was only partly selective. I had poor performance earlier on, but my results got better as I got older. I wouldn't have been able to get into Grammar school at 11, but I caught up with the grammar school types as the years went by and now I am about to go to a top university. My school gave me the opportunity to develop and achieve my potential.

My parents chose private school because of the disruptive behaviour and lack of respect at my local comprehensive school.

I think it would be great if no parent thought there was a need for private schooling. That would be because the state was providing good quality education, in a safe, caring environment, with well behaved, motivated pupils. We are nowhere near that at present.
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! (502)
37.86%
No - but I will (101)
7.62%
No - I don't want to (91)
6.86%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (632)
47.66%

Watched Threads

View All