Home Affairs - Education - State schools

do you think private schools should be abolished to spread wealth out over state schools so 'poorer' children can get the same chance of a better education?

Also bear in mind that one reason that state schools are so poor is that they lack experienced and gifted teachers, who are often attracted by the higher wages/working environment offered by the private sector.

Well ofcourse unis will have to reject talented people with some courses only have one place for 14 or so applicants! But they only have a certain number of things to go by and it is a difficult task, but i do not think that coming from a state school should make a massive difference to the application unless the complete context of the individual is known - which is impossible and far too time consuming so give up!

I really do not agree with this. If the "gifted individuals" you are referring to didn't have an opportunity to teach enthusiastic, able pupils and be well compensated for it, they wouldn't move into the state sector, they'd simply leave the profession (or never get into it in the first plave). I went to a major public school which successfully head-hunted staff out of the City; there's no way state schools would be able to do that.

I really do not agree with this. If the "gifted individuals" you are referring to didn't have an opportunity to teach enthusiastic, able pupils and be well compensated for it, they wouldn't move into the state sector, they'd simply leave the profession (or never get into it in the first plave). I went to a major public school which successfully head-hunted staff out of the City; there's no way state schools would be able to do that.

There was quite a heated debate about this before

- Private schools should not be forbidden, because to forbid them is to forbid freedom of choice.

- The private school system saves lots of tax payers money, if you let 14% of the students in the country fall back into the state system, schools are going to get worse due to lack of funding. So I'm not quite sure how abolishing the private school network is going to suddenly give poorer kids a better learning environment.

- Scholarships and Bursaries: If you're a smart kid, and your parents are willing, then you'll get one and go to a private school for cheap. Failing that, smart kids who have the will to learn will succeed in any environment. If they don't want to learn then no amount of good education is going to persuade them to.

- The only way I'd support a 100% state system is if they went back to the old grammar school system. Why put kids who want to learn with kids who are disruptive? Why put people with greatly varying intelligence together? The less intelligent ones are made to feel stupid by their smarter classmates, the smart ones feel too smug as they haven't met people smarter than them.

- You can't improve 'poorer' kids education without changing their home environment. I'm generalising here, but on general less economically wealthy parents don't put as great an emphasis on academic success. The kids grow up with a mentality that learning isn't important. There are exceptional cases . It's a shame as smart kids are underachieving.

Given the choice between a VCR and a DVD, you would probably go for the DVD, but it doesn't mean you wouldn't take the VCR if the DVD wasn't available. How do you know how willing private sector teachers would be to work in the state sector, do you have any evidence for this?

fishpaste - unis do not want people who make excuses for everything.

So why is it then that so many bitter people like yourselves who are so talented come out of uni - turn into teachers - and then teach in the private sector....LOL

I went to a state school which was average. About 50% of people got 5 grade Cs at GCSE. In my area this was good. I worked hard to do well in my GCSEs and was bullied everyday from about year 5. I don't know how I didn't kill myself looking back. I guess I didn't realise how bad is was because I'd never known any different. I don't think that is really to do with it being a state school though. I could have been bullied anywhere.

There were 3 comprehensives in my town but only one 6th form college because not that many people went to 6th form. A girl who sat next to me in maths got 5As and 6Bs but she didn't go to 6th form because she didn't even apply. She hadn't even considered it. A lot of people don't. I just felt there was a serious culture of under achivenemnt. Part of it is to do with the obsession with governemnt league tables. Schools are assessed on how many pupils get 5 A-C grades. Pupils who are easily going to get 5Cs are just left to drift. There is no incentive to aim for any higher. So a lot of people get 5 Cs and nothing else, when they could have done really well if they'd done even one day's revision. Whereas the lower ability pupils lose out as well because if their GCSE grades are going to pull the school down, the school doesn't even let them enter the exams! They are supposed to sit their exams at an 'independent centre' (usually a further education college) but many of them don't. Their parents would have to register them but they have no knowledge of education so they don't. I think I was just very lucky because my grandma was a teacher and she always thought I was special, so I worked hard for her.

My classes at school were very big so the teaching was more like crowd control. I don't blame the teachers. they did they best but they had to teach to every level. So they chose the lowest Classes were streamed for GCSE though, so it got better.

'Just teach yourself' is not a solution! How can one teach oneself when one had no idea what this involves? Like I said, I was lucky because my grandma could help me. Plus my mum got me revision books from the library. Many people in my school had parents who had no qualifications and weren't bothered if their kids got none. Such people wouldn't even know where to start.

Kids with difficulties were failed too. Big time. They had to spend 1 hour a day in a 'support studies' class. Thisclass included all the kidws who were just naughty, ill-behaved and disruptive. the kids who were behind because they hadn't come to school for 6 weeks, who were high on dope etc etc. In a class of 30, perhaps 10 had genuine speical needs, but they go no help because the poor teacher was busy controlling the bad kids. Plus being labelled special needs and segregated from the other students does no-one any good. they got picked on a lot.

When I got to uni I met so many people who had had amazing school experiences in my eyes. This included people at grammar schools because people at Cambridge who went to a comprehensive are very very very rare. Actually, I'm not sure I know any. All the state school people had been to grammar schools. Not an option for me since the nearest grammar school was 70 miles away. I bet you had a school library with books and computers too? Not 1968 copies of MacBeth presented to the school when it opened.

Trust me, if you went to a selective or fee paying school you are unbelieveably lucky. You don't even realise it just like I didn't realise how crap my school was until I had something to compare it to. For example, I had never heard of the Duke of Edinburgh's award, yet nearly everyone at uni had done this at school. My school had no organised sports teams except football, so I never did anything like that outside PE. I was never taken to see plays that we studied in English. None of those extra things that really help. Plus no real encouragement to do well. I was left to sit at the back of the class and get on with whatever I liked, because I could easily get a C.

So that's my experience from an 'average' school. Not somewhere where you will be shot, but somewhere where everyone is encourage to be 'average' and so everyone fails. Schools shouldn't be under-funded just because of where people live. It's not my fault my parents aren't rich and live in the north-east. My mum is a librarian and my dad is an accountant. They have worked hard all their lives and paid their taxes. Why should their kids have to go to rubbish schools?

I am speaking from direct experience. One of my teachers told me that within days of starting her PGCE she'd concluded that she'd either find an independent school or find another job. Doesn't get any more conclusive than that. There are countless other examples, teachers saying they'd only consider leaving the school for Oxbridge (and even then having doubts), teachers saying they'd refuse to teach somewhere where they didn't have a well equipped boat house etc etc. Then there are the people who leave Magic Circle Law firms and major Investment Banks. You really think that sort of person would even consider going into anywhere but a very well funded, professional, comfortable, highly motivated and high achieving institution?

That's a fair observation and good evidence, but it's not the case across the board is it? There are at least a fraction of teachers who would be willing to switch between the sectors.