Private = fee paying school
Public = non-fee paying school
I stated what i meant by public/private, so that is simply what they are refered to where i come from.
Whats make a grammar school different from a 'state' school? Is it purely because you have to take an entry exam?
Yeah i know that grammar schools are stated funded so you can stop patronising me. That wasn't the issue, it was the fact that you were condemning comprehensive schools.
The confusing "public" tag I believe arose from the progression of education.
First there was none
Then there was privat education where the moneyed employed tutors to teach their offspring, often living with the family together with butlers etc.
This was expensive, so the well off types pooled together to build schools so that by employing one tutor, many children could be taught. In effect a school open to the public, provided they could pay
Then came state, education for all free at point of delivery.
Maybe wrong, if it is it's still an easy way of remembering what's what.
Do you think im stupid or something?
I know all this so stop trying to act all clever.
Fee paying schools where i come from are refered to as private, whereas schools available to the public without paying any sort of fee are refered to as public schools.
Does that make it a little bit clearer why i was refering to them as public and private?!
Kids, don't argue. Can we call fee-paying schools 'private' and state-funded, non fee-paying school 'state', simply for the sake of clarity? Would that be so hard?
No, i don't agree with that.
Why is it harder to realise potential if someone goes to a comprehensive school?
Almost all of the pupils in my sixth form went onto university (a number of them Oxbridge, Durham etc), and the small few who didn't have had gap years and are going to university this coming september. Surely this proves that the potential of the students at my sixth form was recognised.
Can you explain to me why it is harder for the potential of comprehensive school pupils to be recognised?
It's a generalisation. Private schools generally have greater access to resources and fewer disruptive pupils, whereas state schools (especially liberal, non-selective ones) tend to be poorer and have to retain the disruptive pupils, so students can have their education disrupted and don't get the same resources (textbooks, computers, equipment, extra-curricular stuff, extra revision sessions...), so can't always achieve what they would have done had they gone to a private school. Of course this is not always the case, but it seems to be the case for the majority of schools. This is why a smaller proportion of state school pupils get into top universities.
Thank-you. I completely agree with that point of view; the fact that it is a generalisation.
My comprehensive is one of the toughest to get into, simply because it has such a good reputation, excellent resources, and great teachers.
I think MrsJones needs to realise that whilst some comprehensive schools don't do that well and get tarred with a bad brush but some (mine included) are excellent and couldn't have done a better job than a private school.
But to clarify, i don't have anything against private schools, a number of my friends go to one of the best private schools in the country and i know how well they've done out of it, and i know for a fact that if my parents could have sent me to a private school they would have, but it doesnt mean that comprehensive schools are something to be ashamed of.
Thats complete rubbish!
A friend of mine went to a private school, and left with ABB and is now at Leeds reading law.
A friend of mine who went to comprehensive school left with AAAA and is now at Cambridge reading theology.
What have you got to say about that?!
This is a stupid pointless arguement, and i doubt that either of us is going to change our ideas of comprehensive and private schools so lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that.