Discrimination against public schools Watch

This discussion is closed.
DonnaB041986
Badges: 0
#101
Report 14 years ago
#101
(Original post by fishpaste)
Think about the different teachers you've had. I don't know if you've ever had a bad one. I know what a difference a good teacher makes when I'm learning. I think for me it's the difference between two grades, my very good economics teacher left recently, and now I'm stuck with somebody who has no idea how to teach. I've gone from a high A to a low C. And so I think the main problem for schools is not trying to get another 10 000 people through teacher training, but keeping the best skills and experience in the state sector. (this is combined with a general shortage, and stupid red tape).

My experience of the organisation of schools is not what you recall. I found in my high school that the best teachers were all heads of departments, and soon senior staff. Whilst the ineffective ones remained at a basic level or left.
We had a brilliant mechanics teacher last year for as. She had taught at our school before, left to go to the local private school and came back about 3 years later becasue she prefered the challenge at a state school. She left at the end of last year and now we have a really bad teacher. Ok, he is a cambridge graduate and knows his stuff, but he just doesnt know how to explain the work to us. 2 people out of the class of 14 have had to get a private tutor this year (which is great if you can afford it, which most of the rest of the class can't), none of the yr 13s had to have a tutor last year with the old teacher.
just because he has the knowledge doesn't mean that hes a good teacher.

Donna
-x-
0
RedCat6
Badges: 0
#102
Report 14 years ago
#102
This is a very interesting thread and I have a few points to make.
I am a teacher, my husband is a teacher. As such we are committed to quality education whether we are working in the private or state sector. We have worked in both.
Equality is an interesting issue. Frankly, equality is simply not a possibility. There are too many factors involved, included socio/cultural considerations, economic considerations, inate ability etc. The drive for 'true equality' within the education system is merely leading us towards mediocrity. This comes back to the point that someone made earlier in the thread about the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Equality of outcome is only possible if we lower the standards of the higher achievers to meet those of the lowest common denominator. Low ability cannot be raised to the level of high ability. Equality of opportunity, should, within the state system, be the goal. However, this would not include pushing everyone towards the same outcome. Equality of opportunity should be about access to the resources that would best serve the individual. For some, this means access to vocational opportunities, which would better prepare them for life, than pushing them towards impossible academic goals. The state system is to an extent prepared for special needs students, low ability levels are well catered for as has been pointed out by a previous poster. However, the state system does not currently, by and large, cater for gifted pupils, so an inequality of provision has arisen due to the drive towards mediocrity. Therefore, where does a brighter student turn for equality of opportunity? The Private Sector is for a large number of children the only area within education that is prepared to cater for specific needs in terms of children with special talents. I would of course be happier if the State system made this provision, but it is the very argument of equality for all that has negated its ability to do so.
The next point that I would like to make is that there is a general inequality of opportunity within the State sector in terms of good, less good and bad schools. This in equality does not just exist between the State and Private sectors. Parents often do not have a choice about which State school they can send their child to. They may be allocated a school by their LEA at which they feel their child will not thrive, and at which in some cases they may not be safe. Another State school may exist in their area to which they would be happy to send their child, but if they are denied the right to send them there, is it then any wonder that if they are remotely able to afford it they will make sacrifices to afford a private school which meets their child's needs instead? While should their child suffer because of some political platform demanding 'equality'.
As a teacher, as I have stated, I am committed to the ideal of the best possible education for all, and I always teach to the top of my ability (which is considerable). However, as a teacher, I also have the right to choose the environment within which I teach, and although there are many state schools that I would be happy to work at, there are many that I would not. I also reserve the right as a professional to market my skills with the Private sector if I see fit, just as any other professional person can. I have my own agenda in terms of my happiness and my career.
In addition to being a teacher, I am a parent and though I strive towards high standards for all professionally, as a parent I am determined to secure high standards for my own child. My husband and I are moving sonn for him to take up a new position (in the State sector). The allocation of schools that I have been offered for my daughter by the LEA is unsatisfactory, none of them come close to meeting her needs. Therefore I will be paying for a private education for my daughter. My husband and I are not rich, but we are hard working and earn good money. We pay high taxes, which go to pay for many things in the public sector for those who are less well off. What we do with the rest is our choice. If we choose to use that money to provide our daughter with an appropriate education in a safe environment, then we are entitled to do so. We work very hard towards a good standard of education for other people's children, why should we do any less for our own child.

RedCat
0
Hoofbeat
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#103
Report 14 years ago
#103
(Original post by RedCat6)
This is a very interesting thread and I have a few points to make.
I am a teacher, my husband is a teacher. As such we are committed to quality education whether we are working in the private or state sector. We have worked in both.
Equality is an interesting issue. Frankly, equality is simply not a possibility. There are too many factors involved, included socio/cultural considerations, economic considerations, inate ability etc. The drive for 'true equality' within the education system is merely leading us towards mediocrity. This comes back to the point that someone made earlier in the thread about the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Equality of outcome is only possible if we lower the standards of the higher achievers to meet those of the lowest common denominator. Low ability cannot be raised to the level of high ability. Equality of opportunity, should, within the state system, be the goal. However, this would not include pushing everyone towards the same outcome. Equality of opportunity should be about access to the resources that would best serve the individual. For some, this means access to vocational opportunities, which would better prepare them for life, than pushing them towards impossible academic goals. The state system is to an extent prepared for special needs students, low ability levels are well catered for as has been pointed out by a previous poster. However, the state system does not currently, by and large, cater for gifted pupils, so an inequality of provision has arisen due to the drive towards mediocrity. Therefore, where does a brighter student turn for equality of opportunity? The Private Sector is for a large number of children the only area within education that is prepared to cater for specific needs in terms of children with special talents. I would of course be happier if the State system made this provision, but it is the very argument of equality for all that has negated its ability to do so.
The next point that I would like to make is that there is a general inequality of opportunity within the State sector in terms of good, less good and bad schools. This in equality does not just exist between the State and Private sectors. Parents often do not have a choice about which State school they can send their child to. They may be allocated a school by their LEA at which they feel their child will not thrive, and at which in some cases they may not be safe. Another State school may exist in their area to which they would be happy to send their child, but if they are denied the right to send them there, is it then any wonder that if they are remotely able to afford it they will make sacrifices to afford a private school which meets their child's needs instead? While should their child suffer because of some political platform demanding 'equality'.
As a teacher, as I have stated, I am committed to the ideal of the best possible education for all, and I always teach to the top of my ability (which is considerable). However, as a teacher, I also have the right to choose the environment within which I teach, and although there are many state schools that I would be happy to work at, there are many that I would not. I also reserve the right as a professional to market my skills with the Private sector if I see fit, just as any other professional person can. I have my own agenda in terms of my happiness and my career.
In addition to being a teacher, I am a parent and though I strive towards high standards for all professionally, as a parent I am determined to secure high standards for my own child. My husband and I are moving sonn for him to take up a new position (in the State sector). The allocation of schools that I have been offered for my daughter by the LEA is unsatisfactory, none of them come close to meeting her needs. Therefore I will be paying for a private education for my daughter. My husband and I are not rich, but we are hard working and earn good money. We pay high taxes, which go to pay for many things in the public sector for those who are less well off. What we do with the rest is our choice. If we choose to use that money to provide our daughter with an appropriate education in a safe environment, then we are entitled to do so. We work very hard towards a good standard of education for other people's children, why should we do any less for our own child.

RedCat
Hear hear, excatly what I think! People are NEVER always going to be equal so stop trying to make them! Generally pupils from private schools will be more academic than state pupils (i'm onyl generalising) as most private schools are selective and have only bright children there! Private schools are businesses and although most are "charitable" they are run to make a profit (admitedly to go back into the school) so of course they will pick the brightest stars -> highest marks ->good reputation ->more people pay for their kids to go there ->more money ->better facilities etc etc in a round circle.

So ppl shouldn't be against public/private schools and nor should we necessarily try and reduce no. of privately educated ppl getting into top unis instead of favouring state school kids as GENERALLY (I'm generalising) children from MOST (not all) private schools are academically superior!

Once again, I'd like to stress that it is not just academic results that parents look for when choosing their kids to go to private schools - I know my school (private) has amazing sports facilities which swayed a lot of parents, including mine, and it was the extra-circular facilities as well as the top-makr A-Level and GCSE results.
0
Mysticmin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#104
Report 14 years ago
#104
I think people here have ignored the fact that a private school social surrounding is more benevolent and the pastoral care is better. I got bullied badly at many of the state schools I attended, and had no friends. Kids teased me because I was 'clever' and also because I wasn't english.

I was much happier in my private school because I was around people who didn't consider above average intelligence a bad thing. I fitted in a lot better, and the money issue wasn't a problem because no one at my school was a snob in my experience.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#105
Report 14 years ago
#105
(Original post by Mysticmin)
I think people here have ignored the fact that a private school social surrounding is more benevolent and the pastoral care is better. I got bullied badly at many of the state schools I attended, and had no friends. Kids teased me because I was 'clever' and also because I wasn't english.

I was much happier in my private school because I was around people who didn't consider above average intelligence a bad thing. I fitted in a lot better, and the money issue wasn't a problem because no one at my school was a snob in my experience.
That sort of stinks of "I can't let my poor baby be exposed to the real world."
0
Nima
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#106
Report 14 years ago
#106
(Original post by fishpaste)
That sort of stinks of "I can't let my poor baby be exposed to the real world."
I think comprehensives let you experience some things that you just wouldn't experience in a private/grammar school.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#107
Report 14 years ago
#107
(Original post by bono)
I think comprehensives let you experience some things that you just wouldn't experience in a private/grammar school.
Yes, it's an issue which often pops into my head. Is it better to be permanently deviated from reality, or have to suffer it? I think I came to the conclusion that I don't really care and am happy being in whatever position I am now.
0
theone
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#108
Report 14 years ago
#108
(Original post by fishpaste)
Yes, it's an issue which often pops into my head. Is it better to be permanently deviated from reality, or have to suffer it? I think I came to the conclusion that I don't really care and am happy being in whatever position I am now.
It's different for everyone, it depends whether you can handle all the social pressure, and if you want your personality to be affected partly by the peer pressure and expectations in state schools, which it invariably is. For most people, this works out fine, but for some it doesn't, and of course, you can't compare it to what you might have been like if you had gone to a private school.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#109
Report 14 years ago
#109
(Original post by theone)
It's different for everyone, it depends whether you can handle all the social pressure, and if you want your personality to be affected partly by the peer pressure and expectations in state schools, which it invariably is. For most people, this works out fine, but for some it doesn't, and of course, you can't compare it to what you might have been like if you had gone to a private school.
100% agree. Though I do regard the ability to get on with people without resorting to conversations about GCSE Geography, or your UCAS application.
0
RedCat6
Badges: 0
#110
Report 14 years ago
#110
As a teacher, I hear the argument about the 'real world' a lot. Frankly, it doesn't hold water. The real world is the one that you live in. What is real for you, may not be real for me. 'Real' is not defined in terms of state sector education any more than it is defined by private sector education. All experiences are as real and as valid as each other. However, we, as human beings, do have the right to choose what sort of experiences we have. As adults we choose who are friends are and who we mix with. The desire to be with like minded company is inherent within all of us.
I hear more claims about 'living in the real world' from people who are more deprived than I do from those who are privileged. But those who are less privileged do not have the monopoly on experience or what is real. It is not true to say that claiming income support is a more valid experience or more real than becoming a doctor, lawyer or teacher. It is certainly not true to say that sending your child to a school where they are more likely to come up against violence, bullying and drugs is a more valid experience than sending them to one that will nurture their abilities and provide them with exemplary pastoral care. As I have already stated, choosing a school for your child is not about making a political statement, it is about doing what is in the best interests of the child.
All people are real. All places are real. Private schools are therefore just as 'real' as state schools. Going to a private school as opposed to a state school does not negate reality.
The most 'real' thing that we can ever teach our children is that there are choices in life. The freedom to choose is an important part of our humanity. Societies in which there are no choices are generally totalitarian dictatorships within which no one can be fulfilled.

RedCat
0
Mysticmin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#111
Report 14 years ago
#111
(Original post by fishpaste)
That sort of stinks of "I can't let my poor baby be exposed to the real world."
I put up with the bullying for 5 years Funny how the teachers could never be arsed to sort it out. So you would let your child be exposed to that? I would in the short term, but my sister's going through it now and she's not happy, she feels alienated. I would never leave my child in that system for the whole of their primary school life.

I don't understand why kids of six would develop racist mannerisms, in one case it was ironically a malaysian boy. The racism was infrequent when I lived up north, because there were plenty of asian people. But when I moved down to Sussex I was the only foreign girl in my year.

But I have never experienced racism at my private school, people seem to be more accepting of different backgrounds. I'm not saying every single state school kid is racist :rolleyes: the majority are not, i just happened to encounter them.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#112
Report 14 years ago
#112
(Original post by RedCat6)
As a teacher, I hear the argument about the 'real world' a lot. Frankly, it doesn't hold water. The real world is the one that you live in. What is real for you, may not be real for me. 'Real' is not defined in terms of state sector education any more than it is defined by private sector education. All experiences are as real and as valid as each other. However, we, as human beings, do have the right to choose what sort of experiences we have. As adults we choose who are friends are and who we mix with. The desire to be with like minded company is inherent within all of us.
I hear more claims about 'living in the real world' from people who are more deprived than I do from those who are privileged. But those who are less privileged do not have the monopoly on experience or what is real. It is not true to say that claiming income support is a more valid experience or more real than becoming a doctor, lawyer or teacher. It is certainly not true to say that sending your child to a school where they are more likely to come up against violence, bullying and drugs is a more valid experience than sending them to one that will nurture their abilities and provide them with exemplary pastoral care. As I have already stated, choosing a school for your child is not about making a political statement, it is about doing what is in the best interests of the child.
All people are real. All places are real. Private schools are therefore just as 'real' as state schools. Going to a private school as opposed to a state school does not negate reality.
The most 'real' thing that we can ever teach our children is that there are choices in life. The freedom to choose is an important part of our humanity. Societies in which there are no choices are generally totalitarian dictatorships within which no one can be fulfilled.

RedCat
I did write a big reply involving lots of metaphorical 'sides of the fence' and 'levels of existance.' But it got a bit ridiculous so I abandoned it.

Put simply, I think if you want to limit yourself to the world of private education, and not expose yourself to or acknowledge 90% of the population, then that's fine. Though it's probably in your interest to consciously diversify your interests beyond your UCAS application and knowledge of Monty Pyton. It doesn't seem to be a problem for those in the state sector, they are naturally exposed to all sorts of different ideas, and attitudes, and interests, and they still get to enjoy the academic world if they're bright.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#113
Report 14 years ago
#113
(Original post by Mysticmin)
I put up with the bullying for 5 years Funnny how the teachers could never be arsed to sort it out. So you would let your child be exposed to that? I don't understand why kids of six would develop racist mannerisms, in one case it was ironically a malaysian boy.
Not that I think anybody should suffer bullying, but it's the wrong message to be giving that if you have a problem with other people, you just tug on daddy's arm and he'll pay to have it all taken away.

The truth is 90% of people are from that kind of upbringing, and learning to function, or get on with the majority of society is an important skill which you can't get elsewhere.

What are you going to do later in life, when you're not surrounded by the people you know how to get on with?
0
Mysticmin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#114
Report 14 years ago
#114
(Original post by fishpaste)
Not that I think anybody should suffer bullying, but it's the wrong message to be giving that if you have a problem with other people, you just tug on daddy's arm and he'll pay to have it all taken away.

The truth is 90% of people are from that kind of upbringing, and learning to function, or get on with the majority of society is an important skill which you can't get elsewhere.

What are you going to do later in life, when you're not surrounded by the people you know how to get on with?
I get on with the majority of people. I'd be happy to go to a state sixth form now because the atmosphere is vastly different. Students are much older and able to think for themselves instead of having an insulating attitude. Right now I have more of an english attitude than any other culture because the majority of my friends are english, I wouldn't have a problem fitting in

I didn't tug on daddy's arm to be honest, i was silly and kept it to myself for a long time. And he couldn't afford to pay the fees so I had to get an assisted place.

But I understand what you are implying, it is important to be exposed to all kinds of people. Luckily I do stuff out of school, and have a part time job.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#115
Report 14 years ago
#115
(Original post by Mysticmin)
I get on with the majority of people. I'd be happy to go to a state sixth form now because the atmosphere is vastly different. Students are much older and able to think for themselves instead of having an insulating attitude. Right now I have more of an english attitude than any other culture because the majority of my friends are english, I wouldn't have a problem fitting in

I didn't tug on daddy's arm to be honest, i was silly and kept it to myself for a long time. And he couldn't afford to pay the fees so I had to get an assisted place.

But I understand what you are implying, it is important to be exposed to all kinds of people. Luckily I do stuff out of school, and have a part time job.
I don't mean to be rude, but I think about 50% of the population you would have trouble getting on with, the reason I feel I can make such a blunt statement is not that I am confident I know what type of person you are, but because I am confident I know what they of people they are. They would be rude and cause friction. It's not your fault that they would be like that, but they would.

In regard to everything you've said, the truth is of course I'm blatantly exaggerating, in reality, mechanisms exist so that regardless of background, people can get on, at least on a formal basis.
0
RedCat6
Badges: 0
#116
Report 14 years ago
#116
Fishpaste,

Your virulent dislike of one section of society is a form of bigotry. Bigotry of any kind is reprehensible. You hold unsubstantiated opinions about the broadness of others interests and seem to think that the only value within education is your imagined and exclusively 'real' world of state school education. Would you extend your argument to include all higher education as being elite and not 'real' I wonder, after all, not everyone takes advantage of the opportunity to take a degree and it costs money. I have come across people who have this attitude and who see advanced education and a well paying job as some sort of luck, when in reality these things are a testament to hard work. Hard work reaps its own rewards and one of these is more choice, including the choice to send your children to any school you see fit.
You make sweeping statements and are presumptuous about people you clearly know nothing about. Your statement about people only being interested in UCAS forms is laughable.
I went through the state system and I worked hard and created my own opportunities. I have worked in both the state and the private sector, so I am in a position to know what I am talking about. Also, I am not a little girl with a huge chip on my shoulder. I, like many people, have worked hard for what I have, and I do not need to make any apologies for it.
As for the earlier comments about state schools bringing children into contact with a wider section of society... in the area to which I am moving the demographic of all the state schools is 99% white, C of E. The private schools on the other hand are proud of the fact that they represent a number of cultures and races within their student body. By sending my daughter to a private school I will be exposing her to a diverse student population which will be to her advantage.

RedCat
0
Mysticmin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#117
Report 14 years ago
#117
(Original post by fishpaste)
I don't mean to be rude, but I think about 50% of the population you would have trouble getting on with, the reason I feel I can make such a blunt statement is not that I am confident I know what type of person you are, but because I am confident I know what they of people they are. They would be rude and cause friction. It's not your fault that they would be like that, but they would.

In regard to everything you've said, the truth is of course I'm blatantly exaggerating, in reality, mechanisms exist so that regardless of background, people can get on, at least on a formal basis.
But if 50% of the population are rude and cause friction, then I can readily avoid them. Whereas in a school you can't avoid someone permanently. I suppose it also depends on what career you go into after graduation.
0
Leekey
Badges: 9
#118
Report 14 years ago
#118
(Original post by Mysticmin)
I suppose it also depends on what career you go into after graduation.
You may have to take into account where you live, where you work, send your children to school, your partner, your partners work, your hobbies and a million and one other factors in order to avoid having to deal with this 50%. This is how the social hierarcy, that everyone comlains about, is formed.
Mysticmin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#119
Report 14 years ago
#119
(Original post by Leekey)
You may have to take into account where you live, where you work, send your children to school, your partner, your partners work, your hobbies and a million and one other factors in order to avoid having to deal with this 50%. This is how the social hierarcy, that everyone comlains about, is formed.
Lol, i still doubt the majority of people are that bad. I haven't met anyone like that for years out of school. Occasionally you'll get a snotty customer at work but that's about it.

I think it's just that children are more insular when they're younger, so they tend to pick on those that are different. but the situation is rectified when they get older and gain more experiences.
0
fishpaste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#120
Report 14 years ago
#120
(Original post by RedCat6)
Fishpaste,

Your virulent dislike of one section of society is a form of bigotry. Bigotry of any kind is reprehensible. You hold unsubstantiated opinions about the broadness of others interests and seem to think that the only value within education is your imagined and exclusively 'real' world of state school education. Would you extend your argument to include all higher education as being elite and not 'real' I wonder, after all, not everyone takes advantage of the opportunity to take a degree and it costs money. I have come across people who have this attitude and who see advanced education and a well paying job as some sort of luck, when in reality these things are a testament to hard work. Hard work reaps its own rewards and one of these is more choice, including the choice to send your children to any school you see fit.
You make sweeping statements and are presumptuous about people you clearly know nothing about. Your statement about people only being interested in UCAS forms is laughable.
I went through the state system and I worked hard and created my own opportunities. I have worked in both the state and the private sector, so I am in a position to know what I am talking about. Also, I am not a little girl with a huge chip on my shoulder. I, like many people, have worked hard for what I have, and I do not need to make any apologies for it.
As for the earlier comments about state schools bringing children into contact with a wider section of society... in the area to which I am moving the demographic of all the state schools is 99% white, C of E. The private schools on the other hand are proud of the fact that they represent a number of cultures and races within their student body. By sending my daughter to a private school I will be exposing her to a diverse student population which will be to her advantage.

RedCat
Dislike?! Rather presumptious yourself there. All I've said about private schools is that they limit the range of people you are exposed to. I came to that conclusion with such confidence because I have been taught in them now, and in really bad state schools, and so am able to compare the difference. I don't dislike the people they produce at all. My statement about people only being interested in UCAS forms was an exaggeration I admit, and bound to cause controversey. It was merely a shortcut to sayng that there seems to be a certain culture in these establishments, a culture which also makes an appearance on these boards, this culture is not necessarily bad but it quickly consumes the lifestyles of said people, hence my wider conclusion that you end up limited.

You give anecdotal evidence about the demographics of state schools, which I don't deny, but is not the case generally. You're exposing your daughter to more cultures in this case, but not a particularly wide variation of attitudes or lifestyles.

Also, please don't imply that I'm trying to argue against parents' rights to send their children to private schools at this point, I'm merely arguing that you get the opportunity to appreciate more things on different levels at a state school.
0
X
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

The new Gillette ad. Is it:

Man-hating bullsh*t (141)
46.08%
Pro-humanity (165)
53.92%

Watched Threads

View All