Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Right, ok! I think i need to step in because some of these posts are getting very intimate and attacking (well, i can't really speak...look at the 'irreruptable subjects' thread, and you'll see what i mean!) I go to an all boys private school in bedford and it is, of course, a good school but has many qualities of a bad state school. There is lots of bullying, smoking, disobedience, drug-taking, racism and many people have been suspended or expelled. And what i'm saying that all these qualities will exist in ALL schools! Whether, they be public or comprhensive, good or bad, they will all exist, and so saying that private schhols are better than state schools is not necessarily true! Our school is a very small school with very limited facilities and resources, where as there is a state school in our area which has the highest amount of facilities you could imagine...it even has its tv room with all the failities that the BBC use - it is truly marvellous, and scores outstanding GCSE and A-level results better than our school, and yet our school is private and theirs is comprehensive.
    So, all in all saying that private schools are better than comprehensive is not true - you would think it would be, but just look at the case i've just written!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HEAD BOY)
    Right, ok! I think i need to step in because some of these posts are getting very intimate and attacking (well, i can't really speak...look at the 'irreruptable subjects' thread, and you'll see what i mean!) I go to an all boys private school in bedford and it is, of course, a good school but has many qualities of a bad state school. There is lots of bullying, smoking, disobedience, drug-taking, racism and many people have been suspended or expelled. And what i'm saying that all these qualities will exist in ALL schools! Whether, they be public or comprhensive, good or bad, they will all exist, and so saying that private schhols are better than state schools is not necessarily true! Our school is a very small school with very limited facilities and resources, where as there is a state school in our area which has the highest amount of facilities you could imagine...it even has its tv room with all the failities that the BBC use - it is truly marvellous, and scores outstanding GCSE and A-level results better than our school, and yet our school is private and theirs is comprehensive.
    So, all in all saying that private schools are better than comprehensive is not true - you would think it would be, but just look at the case i've just written!
    I try to use the word generally as much as possible when I argue the case for private schools and I genuinely mean it - you are right of course that there are great state schools and crap private schools but overall facilities and teaching quality is better in more private schools than state schools
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    ==> A school should aim to provide as rounded an education as possible, which is what private schools are in a better position to do. Of course the state system has advantages, after all it is free and so easily accessible to all, and yes you can yourself provide just as rounded an education for your kids by enrolling them in art classes or whatever outside of school time and no, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with going to state school, but if you have the money to comfortably afford it, I cannot see why you are still arguing you'd rather send your kid to a state school anyday over a private school, even though there are so many more advantages to private schools in comparison with state schools. Again services - the more you pay, the better you get.
    Massive over-generalisation. There are many brilliant state schools and many poor private schools. In education the mantra is "caveat emptor", paying more does not mean getting more.

    I went to a fantastic state grammar school we had many extra-curricular activities and the vast (I mean all but 1 person in my year) majority went to a top-half university. My education was totally free.

    Essentially parents have to look at the schools in their local area as it just isn't as simple as private/public is better than state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HEAD BOY)
    Right, ok! I think i need to step in because some of these posts are getting very intimate and attacking (well, i can't really speak...look at the 'irreruptable subjects' thread, and you'll see what i mean!) I go to an all boys private school in bedford and it is, of course, a good school but has many qualities of a bad state school. There is lots of bullying, smoking, disobedience, drug-taking, racism and many people have been suspended or expelled. And what i'm saying that all these qualities will exist in ALL schools! Whether, they be public or comprhensive, good or bad, they will all exist, and so saying that private schhols are better than state schools is not necessarily true! Our school is a very small school with very limited facilities and resources, where as there is a state school in our area which has the highest amount of facilities you could imagine...it even has its tv room with all the failities that the BBC use - it is truly marvellous, and scores outstanding GCSE and A-level results better than our school, and yet our school is private and theirs is comprehensive.
    So, all in all saying that private schools are better than comprehensive is not true - you would think it would be, but just look at the case i've just written!
    and yet... people still don't seem to be able to grasp this.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Massive over-generalisation. There are many brilliant state schools and many poor private schools. In education the mantra is "caveat emptor", paying more does not mean getting more.

    I went to a fantastic state grammar school we had many extra-curricular activities and the vast (I mean all but 1 person in my year) majority went to a top-half university. My education was totally free.

    Essentially parents have to look at the schools in their local area as it just isn't as simple as private/public is better than state.
    Yep sorry for the generalisation - kellywood's point was that it doesn't matter how bad a state school is you should still send your child to it and save the money (for the reasons she mentions earlier) and my point was that *generally* (i forgot this) the more you pay for the better you get (in terms of facilities and teaching quality), and surely she can see this - see the couple of pages before if you don't believe me :P
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I would have thought that generally public and grammar schools offer a better education and more oppurtunities than a typical non grammar state school, though there is the occasional exception to the rule.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Ace is Back)
    kellywood's point was that it doesn't matter how bad a state school is you should still send your child to it and save the money
    Unlike objectivism, who seems to believe parents who have the money to send their kids to private schools but choose not to are bad parents, I'm not saying anyone 'should' do anything, I'm just giving my personal opinions and saying what I would do if I had children.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Stereotypes wouldnt be stereotypes if they were unfounded.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    true, but these stereotypes are often taken from single extreme incidents which more than likely don't reflect the true advantages/disadvantages of a state or private school.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gaz031)
    I would have thought that generally public and grammar schools offer a better education and more oppurtunities than a typical non grammar state school, though there is the occasional exception to the rule.
    Why would a state grammar provide a better education and more oppportunities than a state comprehensive?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amie)
    Why would a state grammar provide a better education and more oppportunities than a state comprehensive?
    Well, because of their selective nature, students tend to be stretched more and teachers have higher expectations. Also, students in the same set in a grammar school would be more similar in terms of ability than students in the same set in a comprehensive school; for example, in most grammar schools, all the students in a top set would be aiming for A*s and As, whereas in my comprehensive school top sets most students were aiming for Bs and Cs, with some A*s, some As and the ocassional D. Work ethic and behaviour are generally better than in a comprehensive and there tend to be more extra-curricular activities.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kellywood_5)
    Well, because of their selective nature, students tend to be stretched more and teachers have higher expectations. Also, students in the same set in a grammar school would be more similar in terms of ability than students in the same set in a comprehensive school; for example, in most grammar schools, all the students in a top set would be aiming for A*s and As, whereas in my comprehensive school top sets most students were aiming for Bs and Cs, with some A*s, some As and the ocassional D. Work ethic and behaviour are generally better than in a comprehensive and there tend to be more extra-curricular activities.
    Grammar schools often have higher budgets too. They can pay teachers more.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I went to both a secondary modern and a grammar school, and all I can say is that I noticed no difference between the opportunities offered and standard of education received. There is a considerable difference between the grades achieved and the standard of education, in my opinion, and just because a school has more students achieving A*'s, it doesn't necessarily mean that the teaching and opportunities are better. Its just because its selective, not because it has more resources or whatever.

    Having said that, I found that the academic difference between the students at the grammar school and those in the top set at the secondary modern wasn't very large at all. Also, I noticed that in my secondary modern, there were more clubs and societies, and opportunities for trips aboard, which were much more inclusive.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    This is quite a pompus and ignorant question, but whats the deal vis a vis the funding of school trips (especially foreign ones) at state school?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    we pay. usually a fair amount. i think departments can use money they get from the govt, but i'm not sure how much that is. for example, to go to france by coach with a group of yr7 kids, for 4/5 days, each kid paid approx. £170. that was including meals i think though. when i went to germany with school (bear in mind this was 6 years ago) i paid about £200 for 5 days, again, by coach, and meals inclusive.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amie)
    I went to both a secondary modern and a grammar school, and all I can say is that I noticed no difference between the opportunities offered and standard of education received. There is a considerable difference between the grades achieved and the standard of education, in my opinion, and just because a school has more students achieving A*'s, it doesn't necessarily mean that the teaching and opportunities are better. Its just because its selective, not because it has more resources or whatever.

    Having said that, I found that the academic difference between the students at the grammar school and those in the top set at the secondary modern wasn't very large at all. Also, I noticed that in my secondary modern, there were more clubs and societies, and opportunities for trips aboard, which were much more inclusive.
    that might just be the nature of the secondary modern you went to though, it doesn't seem to be a reflection on the rest of them, from what i've seen.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kellywood_5)
    in most grammar schools, all the students in a top set would be aiming for A*s and As, whereas in my comprehensive school top sets most students were aiming for Bs and Cs, with some A*s, some As and the ocassional D.
    Hmm....I'm not saying I disagree with you but at my (state) school people in the top sets always aim for As and A*s - but probably as we're a large school. We have 260 people in our year group so the top set is about the top 8%, so you can see why As are expected. Maybe your school is smaller?

    MissSurfer
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    There's always going to be disparity amongst schools. IMHO thats another barrier in solving the problems in our education system.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MissSurfer)
    Hmm....I'm not saying I disagree with you but at my (state) school people in the top sets always aim for As and A*s - but probably as we're a large school. We have 260 people in our year group so the top set is about the top 8%, so you can see why As are expected. Maybe your school is smaller?

    MissSurfer
    Only slightly- there were about 250 people in my year. Maybe your school's just better.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kellywood_5)
    Unlike objectivism, who seems to believe parents who have the money to send their kids to private schools but choose not to are bad parents, I'm not saying anyone 'should' do anything, I'm just giving my personal opinions and saying what I would do if I had children.
    Kellywood - it seems like you and me will never see eye to eye on some things oh well.. anyway I'm just finally gonna say that *I* (even if no-one else does :P) think objectivism has a point, if you had a choice of a good private school and a poor state school, and you could comfortably afford a private school, even if you were politically opposed to private schools (for example, you might not agree that children should be priviliged simply because their parents are rich) you should still send your child to the private school to offer them a better chance and better opportunities - this isn't being hypocritcal, this is putting your child first. I'm afraid I don't understand why you would rather send your child to a state school any day, (seemingly) however bad it is, just to save money (because you argue that if the child his hard-working he/she can do well wherever he/she goes to school) and because often at private school there is a tendency to get lazy because of the spoon-feeding - personally, if the private school had better facilities etc and I could afford it, there would be no contest.

    Now I know you disagree ok, and I accept that, but that's just what I think and unfortunately there's no way I'd ever think otherwise. However, I think this argument/debate is pretty much over, and seemingly a stalemate :p: Unless anyone can think of any other points to bring up..
 
 
 

University open days

  • University of East Anglia
    All Departments Open 13:00-17:00. Find out more about our diverse range of subject areas and career progression in the Arts & Humanities, Social Sciences, Medicine & Health Sciences, and the Sciences. Postgraduate
    Wed, 30 Jan '19
  • Solent University
    Careers in maritime Undergraduate
    Sat, 2 Feb '19
  • Sheffield Hallam University
    City and Collegiate Campus Undergraduate
    Sun, 3 Feb '19
Poll
The new Gillette ad. Is it:

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.