State school pupils opt for easy A-levels Watch

This discussion is closed.
MrsJones
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#241
Report 13 years ago
#241
(Original post by MrsJones)
Personally I want the option to be able to have my children educated to a high standard to ensure they reach their potential.

I hope I will also be able to look at this subjectively and insist that if a child reaches my child's exam standard without such priviledge, then that child is more intelligent than mine.

And another thing, money has little to do with intelligence, it's in the genes. What money does merely enables a less intelligent child to appear otherwise.
0
Madelyn
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#242
Report 13 years ago
#242
Um...I, along with a whole lot of people who work in the 'caring' industry, still think the health service is (/should be) a public service, not a business. I really don't understand why it has to be a business. Ditto education. Grants not loans!
State schools need more investment. So raise taxes. The rich can afford it, education experts and uni lecturers agree that it would be the best way to improve education.
Stop rich, middle-class, pushy parents having their way all the time. Simply have every child go to their local school. Ok, there would still be parents who move house to get into the catchment area of a particularly 'good' school, but that's a problem even now. I'm not saying this will make a perfect education system, but it'd be a hell of a lot better than the one we have now.
Get rid of these stupid specialist schools, city academies, and whatever else. They **** themselves and each other up. It's just a bad idea.
Good teachers aren't only in private schools, and don't always work as tutors. And if they can be enticed back into state schools (with higher salaries, which the government can now afford due to the tax hike), they won't need/want to tutor privately. You know the main reason parents send their kids to private schools? They want the best education available. If the best education available is at the comp down the road, they'll go there.
0
Trier
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#243
Report 13 years ago
#243
(Original post by MrsJones)
Personally I want the option to be able to have my children educated to a high standard to ensure they reach their potential.

I hope I will also be able to look at this subjectively and insist that if a child reaches my child's exam standard without such priviledge, then that child is more intelligent than mine.
Unless the government removes out autonomy with our money, I can see no future where poorer families can offer their children an education as good as a richer one. That doesn't mean that they can't achieve a high standard though- are there really low standards at the average state school though, or is it simply better at a private school?

Certainly, if it can be proven that a child was disadvantaged against another one, yet excelled equally well then the other may be brighter.

However, there are always exceptions.

If it is a BBB disadvantaged versus a BBB advantaged then the answer is obvious.

However, an AAA disadvantaged versus an AAA advantaged is not clear-cut without further information.

How disadvantaged or advantaged a child is must also be defined more clearly than currently. State/private is a crude and ridiculous divide since there is far too much disproportionality in both sectors.
0
Trier
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#244
Report 13 years ago
#244
(Original post by MrsJones)
Minimal overlap, if the grammars aren't in the equation.
That isn't true actually- there are numerous examples of good comprehensives.

There really does have to be a precise examination of the success of schools before any discrimination can occur.

If anyone was so inclined, I'm sure the government could set up a 'privilege scale' that rated all schools, whether state or private and could be used in university admissions.

It would be far clearer and minimise any cries of discrimination.
0
Madelyn
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#245
Report 13 years ago
#245
(Original post by Trier)
If anyone was so inclined, I'm sure the government could set up a 'privilege scale' that rated all schools, whether state or private and could be used in university admissions.
But then some people would start complaining that their school had been rated at such and such on the scale due to this department or that teacher, and they personally hadn't had those benefits, so should be lower on the scale.
0
magiccarpet
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#246
Report 13 years ago
#246
where's the nerd who says 'omg media studies IS a good alevel. and so is photography'
0
MrsJones
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#247
Report 13 years ago
#247
(Original post by Trier)
Unless the government removes out autonomy with our money, I can see no future where poorer families can offer their children an education as good as a richer one. That doesn't mean that they can't achieve a high standard though- are there really low standards at the average state school though, or is it simply better at a private school?

Certainly, if it can be proven that a child was disadvantaged against another one, yet excelled equally well then the other may be brighter.

However, there are always exceptions.

If it is a BBB disadvantaged versus a BBB advantaged then the answer is obvious.

However, an AAA disadvantaged versus an AAA advantaged is not clear-cut without further information.

How disadvantaged or advantaged a child is must also be defined more clearly than currently. State/private is a crude and ridiculous divide since there is far too much disproportionality in both sectors.
Standards, if all schools had high standards, then they wouldn't be, they would be just average.

The public/ state divide is the most reliable factor in a school's performance. Put bluntly, a public school not outperforming state would soon loose all it's students. But there is overlap and if I wanted to try to scale how good a school's ability is on a scale of 1 to 10, then I might suggest state would occupy the are 1 to 8, and public 7 to 10. Purely conjecture which I cannot substantiate.

Without doubt the best system would allow public (no way to stop them ) but then reintroduce selective schools for all.

Yes, back to the grammar system.

Then the more intellectually able can study in an environment free from intimidation from the less able/ willing and work in an educationally supportive system. The results from these schools will match those fron public schools, as they once did.
0
Trier
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#248
Report 13 years ago
#248
(Original post by Madelyn)
State schools need more investment. So raise taxes. The rich can afford it, education experts and uni lecturers agree that it would be the best way to improve education.
It also damages the economy.

If rich people have less disposable income, they may well simply leave the country or push all the costs onto the poor.

Tax is always a compromise between what the government would like and what the people would tolerate- 80% over 100k would quite possibly lead to lower tax revenues as it did under Old Labour.

(Original post by Madelyn)
Stop rich, middle-class, pushy parents having their way all the time. Simply have every child go to their local school. Ok, there would still be parents who move house to get into the catchment area of a particularly 'good' school, but that's a problem even now. I'm not saying this will make a perfect education system, but it'd be a hell of a lot better than the one we have now.
The problem would get far, far worse with private schools being abolished.

(Original post by Madelyn)
Good teachers aren't only in private schools, and don't always work as tutors. And if they can be enticed back into state schools (with higher salaries, which the government can now afford due to the tax hike), they won't need/want to tutor privately. You know the main reason parents send their kids to private schools? They want the best education available. If the best education available is at the comp down the road, they'll go there.
Of course they don't just work in private schools- but face it, the rich are rich for a reason. Unless you make them poor, they will always have enough money to match anything the government can offer.

All the teachers at my local private school are actually on lower salaries than they were in the state sector. They simply could not stand working there.

The same applies to the parents- they send their children to private schools for several reasons, not just education.
0
magiccarpet
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#249
Report 13 years ago
#249
(Original post by Trier)
It also damages the economy.

If rich people have less disposable income, they may well simply leave the country or push all the costs onto the poor.

Tax is always a compromise between what the government would like and what the people would tolerate- 80% over 100k would quite possibly lead to lower tax revenues as it did under Old Labour.



The problem would get far, far worse with private schools being abolished.



Of course they don't just work in private schools- but face it, the rich are rich for a reason. Unless you make them poor, they will always have enough money to match anything the government can offer.

All the teachers at my local private school are actually on lower salaries than they were in the state sector. They simply could not stand working there.

The same applies to the parents- they send their children to private schools for several reasons, not just education.
disabled people are poor out of no choice
0
Trier
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#250
Report 13 years ago
#250
(Original post by Madelyn)
But then some people would start complaining that their school had been rated at such and such on the scale due to this department or that teacher, and they personally hadn't had those benefits, so should be lower on the scale.
I don't pretend that it is a perfect solution.

But a couple of individual court cases is preferable to thousands of people being unjustly discriminated against in my opinion.
0
Trier
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#251
Report 13 years ago
#251
(Original post by magiccarpet)
disabled people are poor out of no choice
I'm not sure what you are getting at?
0
MrsJones
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#252
Report 13 years ago
#252
(Original post by Madelyn)
Um...I, along with a whole lot of people who work in the 'caring' industry, still think the health service is (/should be) a public service, not a business. I really don't understand why it has to be a business. Ditto education. Grants not loans!
State schools need more investment. So raise taxes. The rich can afford it, education experts and uni lecturers agree that it would be the best way to improve education.
Stop rich, middle-class, pushy parents having their way all the time. Simply have every child go to their local school. Ok, there would still be parents who move house to get into the catchment area of a particularly 'good' school, but that's a problem even now. I'm not saying this will make a perfect education system, but it'd be a hell of a lot better than the one we have now.
Get rid of these stupid specialist schools, city academies, and whatever else. They **** themselves and each other up. It's just a bad idea.
Good teachers aren't only in private schools, and don't always work as tutors. And if they can be enticed back into state schools (with higher salaries, which the government can now afford due to the tax hike), they won't need/want to tutor privately. You know the main reason parents send their kids to private schools? They want the best education available. If the best education available is at the comp down the road, they'll go there.
I agree with much of what you say here, but I'm not quite such a lefty. I would also impose a "tax windfall", making all graduates over the last 20 years pay a "retro top up fee". Why should they continue to enjoy a higher standard of living provided by a degree that cost them nothing?
0
Trier
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#253
Report 13 years ago
#253
(Original post by MrsJones)
The public/ state divide is the most reliable factor in a school's performance. Put bluntly, a public school not outperforming state would soon loose all it's students. But there is overlap and if I wanted to try to scale how good a school's ability is on a scale of 1 to 10, then I might suggest state would occupy the are 1 to 8, and public 7 to 10. Purely conjecture which I cannot substantiate.
Yes- it is reliable, overall.

But there are far too many exceptions to make it justified in my opinion.

A far more well-thought out solution is required.

If you want to discriminate, you have to be armed with the facts- even if it takes time to look up precise statistics or use an Oxbridge style system to select the best.
0
MrsJones
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#254
Report 13 years ago
#254
(Original post by magiccarpet)
disabled people are poor out of no choice
Never saw that coming!!
0
Nellz
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#255
Report 13 years ago
#255
(Original post by magiccarpet)
disabled people are poor out of no choice
Of course, because just because you're disabled you can't earn a living :rolleyes:
0
Madelyn
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#256
Report 13 years ago
#256
(Original post by Trier)
It also damages the economy.

If rich people have less disposable income, they may well simply leave the country or push all the costs onto the poor.

Tax is always a compromise between what the government would like and what the people would tolerate- 80% over 100k would quite possibly lead to lower tax revenues as it did under Old Labour.
So have an international tax system. Ok, that's not really possible at the moment, but England could certainly have higher taxes than it currently does, and we could move towards such a system, or at least do more to prevent the rich leaving in order to avoid tax. And if they go, their kids can't be in my fabulous education system. Their loss!

I have been in non-selective state schools all my life, and think they're brilliant. I think everyone should have the education I did. My school, despite being in a predominantly middle-class area, has huge numbers of kids coming from all over the city, huge numbers on free school meals, and pretty decent results. We don't top league tables (but most other schools in the area are at least partially selective) we're the last school in the city to permanently exclude a pupil and we offer, in my opinion, one of the best educations in the country. Yes, there are kids running riot in the corridors and we need video cameras and fences to control them the little we do, but that's what the real world is like. Out on the street, you're not going to be surrounded by people from your background, with your money, living in your area. A school like mine offers a more true cross-section of life - including the poor, the rich, the different classes, everything - as it really is. All I want is to give everyone that opportunity.
0
Madelyn
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#257
Report 13 years ago
#257
(Original post by MrsJones)
I agree with much of what you say here, but I'm not quite such a lefty. I would also impose a "tax windfall", making all graduates over the last 20 years pay a "retro top up fee". Why should they continue to enjoy a higher standard of living provided by a degree that cost them nothing?
Like I think I pointed out somewhere else, my parents are both graduates and would be eligible for such a fee. Their income is so low that I'm on EMA. Having a degree doesn't make you rich. Besides, as someone else has said, they already benefit the economy by paying higher taxes - at least they damn well ought to.
Education is a fundamental human right. How can anyone justify making people pay for such a right?
0
MrsJones
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#258
Report 13 years ago
#258
(Original post by Nellz)
Of course, because just because you're disabled you can't earn a living :rolleyes:
This is another issue where I really don't want to go.

Disables have their own needs and we're really talking mainstream here. Anybody see the prog on Hawking? Just so emotional. It could happen to anyone of us, then we would realise just how priviledged we are to not have to worry about such things.
0
MrsJones
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#259
Report 13 years ago
#259
(Original post by Madelyn)
Like I think I pointed out somewhere else, my parents are both graduates and would be eligible for such a fee. Their income is so low that I'm on EMA. Having a degree doesn't make you rich. Besides, as someone else has said, they already benefit the economy by paying higher taxes - at least they damn well ought to.
Education is a fundamental human right. How can anyone justify making people pay for such a right?
Well lets all just go and tell Tony that.
0
amie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#260
Report 13 years ago
#260
And another thing, money has little to do with intelligence, it's in the genes. What money does merely enables a less intelligent child to appear otherwise.
That's not strictly true. I believe some studies have found that children with parents of a higher socio-economic status tend to have higher IQ's than those of lower socio-economic status. And although the concept of IQ is rather flawed, it does still give some indication of the cognitive ability of a given person.

Also, much research into the area of intelligence has supported the assertion that measured intelligence is due to both heredity and environmental factors (including the school environment, I imagine). It does seem possible that all people have a maximum potential intelligence determined by genetics, but that child's environment determines how much of it they reach. So if that's the case, although you're right that it wouldn't make a less intelligent child more intelligent, private schooling could help children reach their potential more so than those educated by the state
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

University open days

  • University of the Arts London
    MA Performance Design and Practice Open Day Postgraduate
    Thu, 24 Jan '19
  • Coventry University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 26 Jan '19
  • Brunel University London
    Undergraduate Experience Days Undergraduate
    Sat, 26 Jan '19

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (90)
20%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (181)
40.22%
Nope, not that interesting (179)
39.78%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed