Would you send your children to a private school?

Howard

How so?

Is the statistic a pure reflection of the differences in levels of teaching? Does it show that a wealthy family is more likely to put a focus on education, nurturing a learned mind at home; therefore the statistic is a reflection of this and not the differences in quality of teaching? Is it some middle-ground between the two polar examples giving above? If so, how far to either side is it? If it is the second of the suggestions, surely a wealthy family sending a child to the worst school would produce the same result as if they had sent them elsewhere? If not, are we suggesting that a child can indeed receive immense benefit, above another child of the same ability, because of how much their parents earn?

Reply 125

mousy

Benighted88

But most people who join the school to begin with are pretty well behaved in general, it may just be the kind of people the school attracts...

Its no wonder that private schools do generally better than state schools in exams, because provate schools often have entrance exams, wheras state schools take any old riffraff. Of course there are other factors,but it must play a part.

Reply 126

Wez

mousy

The problem with this debate is that everyone is generalising (myself included.)

Personally I think the solution to this debate is generalising.

The generalisation I would make is that private schools usually provide a better academic education than state schools.

Does anyone disagree with that?

Reply 127

Howard

5

Lusus Naturae

Is the statistic a pure reflection of the differences in levels of teaching? Does it show that a wealthy family is more likely to put a focus on education, nurturing a learned mind at home; therefore the statistic is a reflection of this and not the differences in quality of teaching? Is it some middle-ground between the two polar examples giving above? If so, how far to either side is it? If it is the second of the suggestions, surely a wealthy family sending a child to the worst school would produce the same result as if they had sent them elsewhere? If not, are we suggesting that a child can indeed receive immense benefit, above another child of the same ability, because of how much their parents earn?

Oh, I see - reasons behind the statistics. Complex. Bit of both I would think - better teaching and better parental support. Of course a child can receive benefit based on how much their parents earn - that's just the way the cookie crumbles I guess.

Reply 128

L i b

19

Lawz-

Lol... you DONT SAY Thud! :biggrin:

Perhaps she forgets that any sort of communal leftie educational set-up would effectively be a private school too...

Reply 129

Shifty404

I will never have children, i will just have clones of myself and train them in the way of the "Shifty" so we can take over the world.

Reply 130

high priestess fnord

9

i dont understand why anyone should be against private schools. if i was a parent i would want my child to have the best chance in life, that means a good education. if the government cannot provide a good standard of education for everyone (which they clearly cant) and it was my child being sent to a bad school then i would be prepared put every penny i had into a private education. this is even good for the state seeing as i would be effectively paying twice for that educationa and taking stress off the state education system.

Reply 131

Lawz-

Private school is NOT the preserve of the rich at all, there are countless middle class kids who pay for their education. Further, the notion that middle and upper-middle class kids are somehow less worldly than your local working class child is absurd, not least because they are generaly far better travelled, and better read due not least to the better education.

The fundamental disagreement has to be on privilege. Through networking, those who do not deserve a high position, based on their merits, receive it based on their school. Consider the current situation with the Shadow Ministers of the Conservative Party; although in the minority, a grossly disproportionate number of them were educated at Eton College. It would be absurd for you to claim that they have attained this position purely through merit, their public school education has given them an advantage over those who would, perhaps, be far more able to carry out the role adeptly and do a good service to the country.

You are right to say that they tend to be better educated - even Orwell remarked there are gifted and honest individuals among them...- but it is certainly the case that many who are not better educated receive an unfair advantage. Similarly, because an overwhelming proportion of students are state educated, and the state sector does provide a healthy education for many students, allowing them to attain their desired place in university, one can only question why the less than 10% of the population manage to have such a position of potency not only in Politics, but in Law, Banking, and other sectors. As Orwell went on to say, "...we have got to break the grip of the moneyed class as a whole"

One cannot argue that public schools do not offer a better education to many students, to do so would be fatuous, but the power and privilege that a student receives from attending a public school goes far beyond the education they receive.

The shadow of the eighteenth and nineteenth century aristocracy still looms in our society; privilege replaces merit; wealth replaces aptitude; positions of power are in the grip of the public schools, not in those who sincerely deserve it. By sending your child to a public school, you are promoting this antiquated institution and defending what would be a baffling incongruity in a progressive, meritocratic and, alas, a decent society of which we can be truly proud.

Let us embrace reason; it is now clear that public schools should be an abhorred anathema of any prosperous populace.

Reply 132

high priestess fnord

9

Lusus Naturae

The fundamental disagreement has to be with privilege. Through networking, those who do not deserve a high position, based on their merits, receive it based on their school or university. Consider the current situation with the Shadow Ministers of the Conservative Party; although in the minority, a grossly disproportionate number of them were educated at Eton College. It would be absurd for you to claim that they have attained this position purely through merit, their public school education has given them an advantage over those who would, perhaps, be far more able to carry out the role adeptly and do a good service to the country.

You are right to say that they tend to be better educated - even Orwell remarked there are gifted and honest individuals among them... but it is certainly the case that many who are not better educated receive an unfair advantage. Similarly, because an overwhelming proportion of students are state educated, and the state sector does provide a healthy education for many students, allowing them to attain their desired place in university, one can only question why the less than 10% of the population manage to have such a position of potency not only in Politics, but in Law, Banking, and other sectors. As Orwell went on to say, "...we have got to break the grip of the moneyed class as a whole"

One cannot argue that public schools offer a better education to many students, to do so would be fatuous, but the power and privilege that a student receives from attending a public school goes far beyond the education they receive.

The shadow of the eighteenth and nineteenth aristocracy still looms in our society; privilege replaces merit; wealth replaces aptitude; positions of power are in the grip of the public schools, not in those who sincerely deserve it. By sending your child to a public school you are promoting this antiquated institution and defending what would be a baffling incongruity in a progressive, meritocratic and, alas, a decent society that we can be truly proud of.

the majority of private schools is nothing like Eton and if you think that abolishing private education would stop that kind of elitism then you have your head in the clouds. put yourself in this situation:

you have a child with dyslexia. you know the child is inteligent but cant understand why they arent doing well at school because the school (like most state schools) just writes them off as stupid instead of testing them. you get the test done privately because you are worried (im guessing you have no problem with this so far). the school your child is at looks at the test results but doesnt have the faclities or funding to do anything about it and the child continues to fail at basic literacy. your local private school is very good and has fantastic special need support. do you stick to your ideals and write your child off as a failure or try to salvage their education?

Reply 133

City bound

Lusus Naturae

The fundamental disagreement has to be on privilege. Through networking, those who do not deserve a high position, based on their merits, receive it based on their school. Consider the current situation with the Shadow Ministers of the Conservative Party; although in the minority, a grossly disproportionate number of them were educated at Eton College. It would be absurd for you to claim that they have attained this position purely through merit, their public school education has given them an advantage over those who would, perhaps, be far more able to carry out the role adeptly and do a good service to the country.

You are right to say that they tend to be better educated - even Orwell remarked there are gifted and honest individuals among them...- but it is certainly the case that many who are not better educated receive an unfair advantage. Similarly, because an overwhelming proportion of students are state educated, and the state sector does provide a healthy education for many students, allowing them to attain their desired place in university, one can only question why the less than 10% of the population manage to have such a position of potency not only in Politics, but in Law, Banking, and other sectors. As Orwell went on to say, "...we have got to break the grip of the moneyed class as a whole"

One cannot argue that public schools offer a better education to many students, to do so would be fatuous, but the power and privilege that a student receives from attending a public school goes far beyond the education they receive.

The shadow of the eighteenth and nineteenth century aristocracy still looms in our society; privilege replaces merit; wealth replaces aptitude; positions of power are in the grip of the public schools, not in those who sincerely deserve it. By sending your child to a public school, you are promoting this antiquated institution and defending what would be a baffling incongruity in a progressive, meritocratic and, alas, a decent society of which we can be truly proud.

Let us embrace reason; it is now clear that public schools should be an abhorred anathema of any prosperous populace.

Couple of points. The application to politics and specifically Eton is dodgey. Private school in general, especially the larger ones like Eton, provide a far more rounded education. That includes the manner in which to conduct yourself. Many politicians have commented on the smooth charm of the old Etonians that enter the house. The extracurricular and social education provided by places like Eton gives it's pupils an advantage that manifests itself more acutely in politics. To confuse this with the "old boy network" or some perverse notion that voters prefer privileged MPs would be wrong.

Did you mean "One cannot argue that public schools ..."? It's pretty conclusive that they do provide a better and more rounded education. (Sometimes simply because they have to put in so many more hours.)

Reply 134

high priestess fnord

the majority of private schools is nothing like Eton and if you think that abolishing private education would stop that kind of elitism then you have your head in the clouds.

All private schools do provide privilege based on wealth, not merit. Do you agree with me on this?

high priestess fnord

you have a child with dyslexia. you know the child is inteligent but cant understand why they arent doing well at school because the school (like most state schools) just writes them off as stupid instead of testing them.

Please can you provide some evidence for this hasty generalization?

high priestess fnord

you get the test done privately because you are worried (im guessing you have no problem with this so far). the school your child is at looks at the test results but doesnt have the faclities or funding to do anything about it and the child continues to fail at basic literacy. your local private school is very good and has fantastic special need support. do you stick to your ideals and write your child off as a failure or try to salvage their education?

Your situation is extremely hypothetical and does nothing to support an argument for private schools. Naturally I would support my child in whatever they excelled at; writing them off as a failure, because they have dyslexia in a state school, is simply a gross exaggeration.

Reply 135

City bound

Did you mean "One cannot argue that public schools ..."? It's pretty conclusive that they do provide a better and more rounded education. (Sometimes simply because they have to put in so many more hours.)

Thank you; I have edited it to correct that mistake.

City bound

Couple of points. The application to politics and specifically Eton is dodgey. Private school in general, especially the larger ones like Eton, provide a far more rounded education. That includes the manner in which to conduct yourself. Many politicians have commented on the smooth charm of the old Etonians that enter the house. The extracurricular and social education provided by places like Eton gives it's pupils an advantage that manifests itself more acutely in politics. To confuse this with the "old boy network" or some perverse notion that voters prefer privileged MPs would be wrong.

I think that this only supports my idea, in that it deviates from the basic principles of a meritocracy that we should adhere to; charm is an important trait in some jobs, I fully agree; however, in many other jobs, you should not have somebody with charm to replace a person who has a strong intellect and is able to carry out their job role more adeptly than one who has charmed their way to where they are. That who is a politician is more likely to reflect how charming they are, not how well they are able to serve their country, shows that our polity is in a sad state.

Reply 136

Lawz-

Lusus Naturae

The fundamental disagreement has to be on privilege. Through networking, those who do not deserve a high position, based on their merits, receive it based on their school.

Networking is neither the invention nor the preserve of public school children. The level to which public school functions as a networking opportunity is debateable, and moreover, varies MASSIVELY from school to school.

Consider the current situation with the Shadow Ministers of the Conservative Party; although in the minority, a grossly disproportionate number of them were educated at Eton College. It would be absurd for you to claim that they have attained this position purely through merit, their public school education has given them an advantage over those who would, perhaps, be far more able to carry out the role adeptly and do a good service to the country.

A simplification of the situation. There are numerous reasons why there might be such a degree of Old Etonianism among the front bench of the Tories - perhaps there is a level of ideological congruence between Etonians and the Tory party? Perhaps people with political careers in mind tend to gravitate to places with a history of producing such persons, perhaps, shock horror, the education at places like Eton really does equip one well, and thereby increases your shot at success in whatever field.

Are the people on either front bench the BEST in the UK for the Job? Doubtful. Do some of them owe SOMETHING to their networking, whether at school, university or elsewhere? Certainly... so what?

You are right to say that they tend to be better educated - even Orwell remarked there are gifted and honest individuals among them...- but it is certainly the case that many who are not better educated receive an unfair advantage.

As do children who have parents who remain married, as do children who are fed well, as do children whose parents take them to museums, so do children who enjoy good health, so do children who attend a state school in a preferable catchment area...

There are lots of "unfair advantages". Of course getting a better education than another is an advantage, and to the extent that one thinks EVERYONE should have precisely the same opportunity, it is unfair. However, that's the nature of society. Where people go off the rails is in thinking:

a) That there are no benefits to having well educated people, even if they are a select group, that help balance the "unfairness"

b) The right steps to alleviate this injustice would be to ban private education, thus increasing state school class sizes once again.

Similarly, because an overwhelming proportion of students are state educated, and the state sector does provide a healthy education for many students, allowing them to attain their desired place in university, one can only question why the less than 10% of the population manage to have such a position of potency not only in Politics, but in Law, Banking, and other sectors. As Orwell went on to say, "...we have got to break the grip of the moneyed class as a whole"

For a number of reasons. Are you implying it is mainly due to nepotism. I would strongly disagree.

One cannot argue that public schools offer a better education to many students, to do so would be fatuous, but the power and privilege that a student receives from attending a public school goes far beyond the education they receive.

Have you ever attended such a school? What is your basis to comment on the quality of the education vis a vis the supposed "power" and "privilege"?

You do realise that Eton, Harrow, Milfield, King's, Westminster, and Marlborough make up a TINY TINY fraction of private schools?

The shadow of the eighteenth and nineteenth century aristocracy still looms in our society

Hardly. You only need to look at the present government, and much of the House of Commons to realise that most of them are no where near being "aristocracy" of the C18. The notion is grossly overstated all too often.

privilege replaces merit;

Again, to an extent - but once more you overstate it.

wealth replaces aptitude;

And again. Despite the cadence of your point, it simply isnt born out in fact.

positions of power are in the grip of the public schools, not in those who sincerely deserve it. By sending your child to a public school, you are promoting this antiquated institution and defending what would be a baffling incongruity in a progressive, meritocratic and, alas, a decent society of which we can be truly proud.

And could the same be said of many things. As I have asked, is it wrong of us to feed our children better than others? Would it be wrong to purchase after-school tuition? Music lessons? Buy them books?

There are numerous people who can't afford such things. By doing so are we "perpetuating" the "antiquated" notion of wealth over innate merit?

What makes allowing people to succeed based on the genetics they were born with fairer than allowing them to succeed based on the wealth they were born with? Are both not accidents of birth?

Let us embrace reason; it is now clear that public schools should be an abhorred anathema of any prosperous populace.

And yet it actually often functions as the ENGINE of a prosperous populace.

Reply 137

Lawz-