Turn on thread page Beta

State school pupils opt for easy A-levels watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrsJones)
    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.
    I understand that, as I have a couple of friends who are quite severely disabled, one being paralysed from the waste down and both make the most of their life including having a part time job. I don't want to go into this either, I was just responding to the poster, who made an iddiotic comment in a thread that had nothing to do with the statement in question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Madelyn)
    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.
    Well put. The life experiences are valuable but do not show up on any exam result, that is the problem. They might show up, come to think of it, but only in a negative way.

    As long as progression up the education ladder is driven by exam results, many able staters are going to be disadvantaged later.

    The oxbridge interview redresses this a little but unfortunately it means that some high flyers, exam wise miss out.

    Rightly so.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrsJones)
    Well lets all just go and tell Tony that.
    Oh I do. Regularly. And he still does sweet FA.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Madelyn)
    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!
    Well, you are neglecting to think of tax avoidance.

    If the rich were going to pay an amount of tax they felt was unacceptable, they would do anything in their power to avoid it. This would include hiring someone to get them out of paying tax, even though it costs them money, simply so that it doesn't go to the government. A typical method is to donate to charity- laudable yes, but is a good way to stop the government getting your money.

    Even if you could force them to pay tax, they would simply raise their income by reducing the income of their workers (creating other problems) or investing less in business, damaging the economy.

    Lowering taxes and promoting investment in the economy has quite often led to greater tax revenue than raising it.

    And, if they go, you won't have the money to get your fabulous education system.

    (Original post by Madelyn)
    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.
    Whether it offers a better perspective on life or not is debatable.

    Private school children do live in the same world, and have the same concerns.

    Even if they do end up having a totally different perspective on life, perhaps that is because there really is a big divide between the state and the private worlds- maybe they will never NEED to know the state perspective since it simply never will affect them.

    Parents don't send children to private schools to create moronic and short-sighted children.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Technically in this country education is only a fundamental right up until the age of 16, as this was stated when the welfare state was set up. However people now expect all areas of education to be funded, which is just not possible. It's all very well saying that you want free university education for all, but how is this going to be funded? Particularly with the increasing numbers in university - around 43%. With the present state the welfare state is in this is just not sustainable and some solution had to be introduced and believe me top-up fees are far more preferable than the top universities becoming private institutions.

    Note: I do not advocate top-up fees
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amie)
    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
    Glad that that's cleared up then.

    Your first para though, members of higher socio thingy are more likely to be above average intelligence, thus their offspring might also be expected to have greater potential intelligence.

    I believe we are all born with a level of intelligence, from there outside influences, food, the tv our parents watch, the schools, our friends, all contribute to just how much of that initial intelligence is exploited.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trier)
    Well, you are neglecting to think of tax avoidance.

    If the rich were going to pay an amount of tax they felt was unacceptable, they would do anything in their power to avoid it. This would include hiring someone to get them out of paying tax, even though it costs them money, simply so that it doesn't go to the government. A typical method is to donate to charity- laudable yes, but is a good way to stop the government getting your money.

    Even if you could force them to pay tax, they would simply raise their income by reducing the income of their workers (creating other problems) or investing less in business, damaging the economy.

    Lowering taxes and promoting investment in the economy has quite often led to greater tax revenue than raising it.

    And, if they go, you won't have the money to get your fabulous education system.



    Whether it offers a better perspective on life or not is debatable.

    Private school children do live in the same world, and have the same concerns.

    Even if they do end up having a totally different perspective on life, perhaps that is because there really is a big divide between the state and the private worlds- maybe they will never NEED to know the state perspective since it simply never will affect them.

    Parents don't send children to private schools to create moronic and short-sighted children.
    Objection to that last sentence. The suggestion is parents send their children to state schools to become a short sighted moron.

    That may be the result, but i doubt it's intentional.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nellz)
    Technically in this country education is only a fundamental right up until the age of 16, as this was stated when the welfare state was set up. However people now expect all areas of education to be funded, which is just not possible. It's all very well saying that you want free university education for all, but how is this going to be funded? Particularly with the increasing numbers in university - around 43%. With the present state the welfare state is in this is just not sustainable and some solution had to be introduced and believe me top-up fees are far more preferable than the top universities becoming private institutions.

    Note: I do not advocate top-up fees
    This sort of brings things round to what I said about limiting courses to those that will increase students income, therefor tax contribution to fund the unis, and the hobby type degree course taken by those encouraged to just take "what you enjoy doing" put back into the nightschool framework.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrsJones)
    Objection to that last sentence. The suggestion is parents send their children to state schools to become a short sighted moron.

    That may be the result, but i doubt it's intentional.
    lol

    I think you know that is not what I mean.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Your first para though, members of higher socio thingy are more likely to be above average intelligence, thus their offspring might also be expected to have greater potential intelligence.

    I believe we are all born with a level of intelligence, from there outside influences, food, the tv our parents watch, the schools, our friends, all contribute to just how much of that initial intelligence is exploited.
    Of course, I totally agree

    Since a lot of people of high SES have had to be intelligent to get there (ie. doctors, lawyers and the like - monarchy not included obviously!) it could be assumed that their level of potential intelligence is higher than that of their low SES counterparts. And thus their offspring would inherit that particular trait.

    Or it could just be that they had rich parents able to send them to private school to reach their maximum potential!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrsJones)
    I believe we are all born with a level of intelligence, from there outside influences, food, the tv our parents watch, the schools, our friends, all contribute to just how much of that initial intelligence is exploited.
    Totally.

    Education should be offered equally to everyone regardless of wealth/background/whatever. I know it's idealistic, but our parents had grants, why can't we? I know there were fewer people going to university then, but there are more people in England now, so presumably they pay more in the way of tax, so we should be able to afford proper student grants.

    Back to tax: there must be a way to make everyone pay the amount of tax that they should, proportionate to their earnings. I don't know how to do it, but then I don't really understand how the tax system works now. Ask an economist. Oh, and I think charities should be part of the state as well. In trying to explain this to my German examiner, I think he may have gained the impression that I'm a Communist. But then, my history teacher thinks I'm a Marxist...

    No, parents don't send their kids to private schools to blind them to other perspectives. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. In my experience, state-educated kids have a better understanding of the world than those from private schools. And just because these ex-private kids don't need to know about poor or disadvantaged kids doesn't mean that they shouldn't. My involvement in this thread started when I pointed out that education is about more than future earnings: I feel very strongly that we should do our best to understand different points of view (isn't that why we're on an Internet discussion board?), even if we can't see a direct relevance to our own situations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amie)
    Of course, I totally agree

    Since a lot of people of high SES have had to be intelligent to get there (ie. doctors, lawyers and the like - monarchy not included obviously!) it could be assumed that their level of potential intelligence is higher than that of their low SES counterparts. And thus their offspring would inherit that particular trait.

    Or it could just be that they had rich parents able to send them to private school to reach their maximum potential!

    I think it is a double whammy, it is only the secondary effect that needs to be contemplated.

    And of course a supremely intelligent sperson, who for some reason missed out his schooling would not be suited to an oxbridge place
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i'd just like to point out that many of the problems with state schools are brought about by the attitude of the pupils. Not by lack of funding or resources.

    Infact, every state school has better resources than the private school i used to go to. The key difference between them is that the private school kids wanted to learn and lessons were allways productive.

    My point is that the government should stop hassling the teachers and instead make the pupils and parents responsible. I know it might sound draconian but corperal punishment and the like does establish discipline and discipline is the foundation of respect and a positive educational environment.

    Just look at developing countries to see how good discipline and enthusiatic pupils can achieve even with next to no money.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Madelyn)
    Totally.

    Education should be offered equally to everyone regardless of wealth/background/whatever. I know it's idealistic, but our parents had grants, why can't we? I know there were fewer people going to university then, but there are more people in England now, so presumably they pay more in the way of tax, so we should be able to afford proper student grants.

    Back to tax: there must be a way to make everyone pay the amount of tax that they should, proportionate to their earnings. I don't know how to do it, but then I don't really understand how the tax system works now. Ask an economist. Oh, and I think charities should be part of the state as well. In trying to explain this to my German examiner, I think he may have gained the impression that I'm a Communist. But then, my history teacher thinks I'm a Marxist...

    No, parents don't send their kids to private schools to blind them to other perspectives. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. In my experience, state-educated kids have a better understanding of the world than those from private schools. And just because these ex-private kids don't need to know about poor or disadvantaged kids doesn't mean that they shouldn't. My involvement in this thread started when I pointed out that education is about more than future earnings: I feel very strongly that we should do our best to understand different points of view (isn't that why we're on an Internet discussion board?), even if we can't see a direct relevance to our own situations.
    para 1, i'm realistic enough to know this will not happen

    para 2, we are very heavily taxed now, it's just not upfront on income tax so we don't notice it the same. Another funding source is the lottery, but I'd do it differently to how its done now. I would say, May 28th, proceeds to education and all the people who played would know where their money would go. June 4th, sports development. Everybody's money would go there. June 11th, short sighted illegal immigrant driving awareness scheme. At least people investing here couldn't complain where their money went.

    para 3, parents send their children to publics to get a better education and a leg up over those who cannot afford it, and to introduce them to the workings of the old school network.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zakatu)
    i'd just like to point out that many of the problems with state schools are brought about by the attitude of the pupils. Not by lack of funding or resources.

    Infact, every state school has better resources than the private school i used to go to. The key difference between them is that the private school kids wanted to learn and lessons were allways productive.

    My point is that the government should stop hassling the teachers and instead make the pupils and parents responsible. I know it might sound draconian but corperal punishment and the like does establish discipline and discipline is the foundation of respect and a positive educational environment.

    Just look at developing countries to see how good discipline and enthusiatic pupils can achieve even with next to no money.
    Correct, but the main advantage of publics is the lack of disruptives. Without the disruptives the majority would achieve far higher.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    MrsJones - just wondering if you went/go to either a private school or a public school?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Having disruptive pupils may well detract from your exam results, but marks *shock horror* aren't everything. And them being there makes you into a better person, I think. And I should know, I deal with fights in the lower school on a regular basis. The first time I had to intervene was harder than any exam I've ever been in.

    Zakatu - so you think pupils should be beaten into obedience? You know, the third reich was based on people being obedient. Seriously though, corporal punishment is stupid and wrong. You would never (I sincerely hope) do that to another adult, so why do it to a child? The way to gain respect is to treat them with respect. Beating them will only breed resentment (cf. Lindsay Anderson's brilliant film "If....", or generations of my family).
    And one of the problems exceptionally clever kids have is that all their lives they've been able to do everything. So the first time that they are truly challenged, they just give up. They can't cope with it. Having to deal with things, to overcome obstacles all your life not only equips you better to cope with them, but also makes you truly value the results. Perfect, brilliantly-equipped schools are not the answer. Offering equal opportunities to everyone is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kittennffc)
    MrsJones - just wondering if you went/go to either a private school or a public school?
    in the middle, grammar
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Oh rite, well I wanted to get the facts before i started this...

    From your post it seems like you have a bit of a clouded view of what public schools are really like. you seemed to be making out that all of them were inner city scum holes not worth being there.

    This is completely untrue. I went to a public school and it was not in the city, and did not have classes with thirty-plus people with poor resources. Yes, it did have desruptive pupils who did not want to be there but what school doesn't? There was probably a 90% majority of people who did want to be there and made the most of it.

    So why don't you stop slating all public schools like they aren't worthy of their foundations
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    By "public", do you mean state?
 
 
 

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
  • Aston University
    Postgraduate Open Day Postgraduate
    Wed, 30 Jan '19
  • Solent University
    Careers in maritime Undergraduate
    Sat, 2 Feb '19
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

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.