Originally Posted by Midas

A couple of newpaper articles yet again highlighting the academic advantages of private education, and the failure of even the supposed flagship state schools. Perhaps one of the days we'll get a government which can work out the best way to do things, and actually put it into practice, but then again one day we might find out that the moon is really made of cheese!

Private and single sex schools still top A level and GCSE league tables

Oh, come on Midas, think about it more carefully.


Could it be that Parents will only pay for private education if they know their children will work hard and do well, plus private schools can pick people who will get good marks.

While public schools have to take everyone they can fit, they have hard working students and students that don't work.

It's certainly worth bearing in mind that middle class children generally have a lot more educational support from their family before and during schooling, especially those with a stay at home parent. A relative works in a state school in a deprived area, and it's shocking the amount of children who can't speak properly when they start school, let alone read.

Edit: Also presumably the resources per pupil available to a private school must be significantly more than those of a state school, so obviously better results would be expected.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

It's certainly worth bearing in mind that middle class children generally have a lot more educational support from their family before and during schooling, especially those with a stay at home parent. A relative works in a state school in a deprived area, and it's shocking the amount of children who can't speak properly when they start school, let alone read.

Yes, there are many children who start school a couple of years behind, because their parents have done little or nothing with them. These kids are behind from the start.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Oh, come on Midas, think about it more carefully.

Could it be that Parents will only pay for private education if they know their children will work hard and do well, plus private schools can pick people who will get good marks.

While public schools have to take everyone they can fit, they have hard working students and students that don't work.

I'll certainly agree that private schools, particularly those at secondary level, are selective about who they accept and will (generally) only pick the brighter children, however that's a bit of a straw man argument. You can't tell me that it's only families who can afford their fees that have bright children; statistically there are many times the number of equally bright kids in state schools, yet as these two articles clearly show, that system shows significant failings in respect of overall educational standards and doesn't lift them to the same standard. I'll guarantee that if you were to analyse the statistics in detail and look at a representative sample of kids all with equal intelligence before they started secondary education, then look at how those kids performed under both the state and private education sectors, you'd see very clearly that it's not the kid's intelligence per se which makes them perform better, but the way in which they're taught. In other words we're still back to the point that the private education still produces better educated kids than state schools, largely because they're not hamstrung by all the targets, bureaucracy and relatively limited and increasingly politically inspired curriculum that state schools are.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

It's certainly worth bearing in mind that middle class children generally have a lot more educational support from their family before and during schooling, especially those with a stay at home parent. A relative works in a state school in a deprived area, and it's shocking the amount of children who can't speak properly when they start school, let alone read.

Edit: Also presumably the resources per pupil available to a private school must be significantly more than those of a state school, so obviously better results would be expected.

Yes, that's certainly a factor, however isn't that itself a reflection of the failings of the state education system in previous generations, where large sectors of society either aren't able to or can't be bothered to assist their own children to get the most out of themselves, a failing which according to reports such those I highlighted is still going on today? Low income itself is not a barrier to giving children a good education, a single parent on benefits can give a child almost as much support and encouragement as a wealthy family can. OK, there might be a very big difference in the price of the resources used (both at home and at school), but those themselves are just aids, it's the attention and attitude of the parents and their teachers which matter most.

Originally Posted by Midas

I'll certainly agree that private schools, particularly those at secondary level, are selective about who they accept and will (generally) only pick the brighter children, however that's a bit of a straw man argument. You can't tell me that it's only families who can afford their fees that have bright children; statistically there are many times the number of equally bright kids in state schools, yet as these two articles clearly show, that system shows significant failings in respect of overall educational standards and doesn't lift them to the same standard. I'll guarantee that if you were to analyse the statistics in detail and look at a representative sample of kids all with equal intelligence before they started secondary education, then look at how those kids performed under both the state and private education sectors, you'd see very clearly that it's not the kid's intelligence per se which makes them perform better, but the way in which they're taught. In other words we're still back to the point that the private education still produces better educated kids than state schools, largely because they're not hamstrung by all the targets, bureaucracy and relatively limited and increasingly politically inspired curriculum that state schools are.

Yes, but as I said before. State schools can't be picky like private ones. They have to educate intelligent students and ones that have absolutely no intention to work. This will degrade the results of public schools.

In most nations there are many, many people who have no intention to work hard at school. Most of them will attend a public school, if it was not for all of those people, I would imagine that the marks for public schools would be far higher.

Midas, what is your overall point? Are you trying to suggest that all schools should be taken out of the control of the government (presumably with certain conditions)?

Originally Posted by Midas

A couple of newpaper articles yet again highlighting the academic advantages of private education, and the failure of even the supposed flagship state schools.

I take your point, but not all of us can afford private education these days - I struggle to make my OH's wages stretch to food AND heating as it is. So we have to put up with state schools regardless. Though I have to say my daughter's state school is very good and doing better all the time.

Failing teachers were fired, as was the useless head they had and new ones employed. An interim head, known for getting failing schools to succeed, was brought in and still has control despite another (new) no nonsense head being brought in.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Yes, but as I said before. State schools can't be picky like private ones.

Oh I don't know about that. The Catholic school across from my daughter's is VERY picky about who attends and any troublemakers are instantly expelled and sent to other schools (though not my daughter's so much these days thank God). The Catholic school, for all it's fancy name, is just another high school.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

Midas, what is your overall point? Are you trying to suggest that all schools should be taken out of the control of the government (presumably with certain conditions)?

No, not at all, in fact education is one area where I'm happy to see our tax money being spent, provided that it's spent wisely. That's the main point really, if private schools can consistently achieve significantly higher standards across a broader range of subjects, there's no reason why many of the state schools couldn't achieve the same, despite having more limited resources. The major problem is political interference in all sorts of ways, and although I can't remember the exact percentages, when my ex-partner (a junior and infant's school head) told me, I recall being astonished at how much of the per-child allowance set by the government was taken away by non-teaching activities; something over 40% I think, mainly on the sort of government inspired bureaucracy and administration that private schools avoid totally. There's a lot more to it that that of course, but it's a significant contributory factor, as are all the health and safety and discipline rules and regulations which seem to actively encourage unruly classroom behaviour, not forgetting the fact that academically poorer kids have to be included in the main classes rather than being taught separately, taking away an inordinate amount of teaching time from other, brighter, kids.

But I must add that I think it essential that people are given a free choice as to whether to stay with state education or go privately, which is where a voucher scheme could easily be applied.

Lets face it, given half a chance we would all send our children to private schools.
The bottom line is kids leave state schools without the benefits of an education befitting a country that would like to think it is a "world leader" on such matters.And that is a discrace

Private schooling will nearly always beat the public system, why because it is a consumer based system, if you don't get good results why are people going to send their children there?

The problem with our state system is not the general quality of the teachers, we have some of the best teachers in the world in this country, the problem IMHO is that schools have ceased being ran for the purpose of education and are now being ran with social engineering as the driver. Schools should teach according to ability, and if that means streaming then so be it, when i went through the state system in the eighties, my school was pretty run down and in a rough northern town but the streaming worked, in my class alone 28 out of 32 of us went to University.

As for university the idea to send 50% of all people to uni is stupid, and a waste of money, uni should be for those who are capable, and universities should not be made to adhere to stupid bigoted government standards, if someone is not bright enough them regardless of background they should not take the place of someone who is bright enough.

Keep politics out of education, let the educators run education

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

Lets face it, given half a chance we would all send our children to private schools.
The bottom line is kids leave state schools without the benefits of an education befitting a country that would like to think it is a "world leader" on such matters.And that is a discrace

I dunno. There are very few private schools I would allow children to attend if I had kids.

I would prefer that when i have kids that they go through the state system, butif i think it's not fit for purpose, or the school is **** then it will be the private route if i can afford it, home schooling would be last choice though, but then home schooling would be a better option than a crap comprehensive.

Originally Posted by Streetwalker

Lets face it, given half a chance we would all send our children to private school.

Not all of us no! Public schools (private to the rest of the world) do indeed perform better academically and often produce successful confident adults. Why is that do you think? Smaller classes and more resources mostly imo.
However there is another side a darker side, one of bullying and "my Dad is considerably richer than yours" and young adults with an unreasonable sense of entitlement. It rather depends on what you expect an education to include whether it should focus on academics or producing well rounded adults. I want my child to grow up comfortable in the company of all sorts of people and he certainly wouldn't be mixing with children from low income families at a public school, on the other hand he's not going to be mixing with many children of world leaders either is he? That's part of the problem until the Prime Ministers children are educated along side mine - there'll be no equality in education. Besides those who can will always want to buy better (and that requires inferior to exist) for their children.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

I dunno. There are very few private schools I would allow children to attend if I had kids.

There's a local one I'd love to send my daughter to - it has it's own farm and equestrian centre with animal husbandry as part of the curicullum for older girls; which, as my daughter wants to be a vet, would be brilliant for her.

I spent a month on exchange to St Mary's school in Dublin, an all boys school, and even just after that month, I have no doubt I would prefer to send any son/s I have to an all boys school, private of course, although probably not Church run. With girls I would send them to a mixed school, also private and non-church.

I have been to several schools in my time, my primary school was catholic, my first senior school was a Marist brothers school that was also partly military, my second was again marist brothers, but clearly in the lower funded end of the spectrum, and I finished my schooling at a grammar school. What I found was something quite clear, money = quality. While I would say the second senior school was better equipped, with more classrooms and grounds, it was the grammar school where I found the teachers were most dedicated. The school prided itself on getting the best results in the town, and was generally seen as the 'posh' school, and I have to say, it paid off. Private education is superior imo for one reason, competition. The state schools get the funding either way, the privates depend on customers, and so they have to show off the quality of their goods (the students), so there is far more demand placed on both the allocation of resources and on the teachers to achieve results.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Not all of us no! Public schools (private to the rest of the world) do indeed perform better academically and often produce successful confident adults. Why is that do you think? Smaller classes and more resources mostly imo.
However there is another side a darker side, one of bullying and "my Dad is considerably richer than yours" and young adults with an unreasonable sense of entitlement. It rather depends on what you expect an education to include whether it should focus on academics or producing well rounded adults. I want my child to grow up comfortable in the company of all sorts of people and he certainly wouldn't be mixing with children from low income families at a public school, on the other hand he's not going to be mixing with many children of world leaders either is he? That's part of the problem until the Prime Ministers children are educated along side mine - there'll be no equality in education. Besides those who can will always want to buy better (and that requires inferior to exist) for their children.

What has bullying got to do with it,unfortunatly this occurs in all schools to some degree and should not be included in a debate on what type of school is better for the children.The standard of education is at present far higher in private schools than in state run ones,that is an undeniable fact.Private schools have unlike their counterparts retained their sports facilities and playing fields.I was not financially able to send my kids to private school but found it necessary to suplement their state education with some private lessons . In an ideal world it would of course be great if the State schools were comparable with the private ones.

No its not fair that bright children from low income homes are stuck in rubbish schools and do not fullfill their potential ,but thats life and untill the government drops its ridiculas targets and league table mentality will always be so

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Not all of us no! Public schools (private to the rest of the world) do indeed perform better academically and often produce successful confident adults. Why is that do you think? Smaller classes and more resources mostly imo.

You don't seriously mean to say that if the opportunity arose to give your children an education which, to quote you is "...better academically and often produce successful confident adults", you'd turn it down and perhaps deprive those children of a start in life which could make a significant difference to their future???

Smaller classes are certainly part of the reason why private schools perform better, as are better resources - both of which could easily be put into place in state schools if it wasn't for waste, bureaucracy and political correctness in both senses of the phrase - however in my own experience, both as a parent who's had three children at private school right the way through their secondary education and as someone who's had an insight into state education by way of my ex-partner, I'd say that a very significant factor is a far higher standard of teachers and teaching and a better overall work ethic in private schools, producing kids who actually want to learn as much as they can.

However there is another side a darker side, one of bullying and "my Dad is considerably richer than yours" and young adults with an unreasonable sense of entitlement. It rather depends on what you expect an education to include whether it should focus on academics or producing well rounded adults. I want my child to grow up comfortable in the company of all sorts of people and he certainly wouldn't be mixing with children from low income families at a public school, on the other hand he's not going to be mixing with many children of world leaders either is he? That's part of the problem until the Prime Ministers children are educated along side mine - there'll be no equality in education. Besides those who can will always want to buy better (and that requires inferior to exist) for their children.

I can honestly say that I've not come across any more of the "darker side" in private schooling than any of my friends who had children at state schools, have. In fact I'd go so far to say that bullying in particular is far more prevalent in the latter. An education system should be designed to produce the best out of each individual child; some will naturally be more academically inclined, others more practically inclined, and in smaller classes with better teaching staff, more attention can be given to each child to encourage those natural traits. Producing well rounded adults should also be an important factor of course, but when they're herded though a state system designed to get the maximum number of children though for the minimum cost, that sadly falls by the wayside in most cases - there are some excellent state schools, but they comprise a very small minority.

There are children whose parents are on low income at most private schools, mainly courtesy of educational grants and scholarships but also because some parents have scrimped and saved to give their children something they never had, a decent education, but I'll quite accept they're in the minority. However I don't see why all those children whose parents can afford private fees should be denied that option simply because socialist ideology deems everyone should be equal, when life itself shows they're patently not.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Not all of us no! Public schools (private to the rest of the world) do indeed perform better academically and often produce successful confident adults. Why is that do you think? Smaller classes and more resources mostly imo.

Certainly smaller classes and more resources are a major factor in the greater academic achievements of Preparatory and Public Schools. However there are other contributing factors why Public Schools often produce successful confident adults. I refer to the non-academic aspects of a Public School education. My son has a minimum of 12 hours supervised sport or physical exercise each week, and the freedom to extend this. He participates in the Combined Cadet Force and the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme, improving physical fitness, self-discipline and leadership skills, whilst widening his knowledge base. He is involved in Community Support, educating him in how other sections of society live, inter-social skill development and a recognition that with privilege comes a social obligation. The result is that the typical public school 'graduate' will have achieved his academic potential, and thanks to the wider aspects of his education will be a well rounded person able to identify and mix with most, if not all social and economic stratas of society.

In more general terms, the school is efficiently run both fiscally and in terms of both academic and pastoral procedures, teachers who consistently fail to perform are dismissed, and all boys are required to contribute to their school community. Those whose conduct consistently fails to reach minimum standards are expelled in the interests of the majority.

However there is another side a darker side, one of bullying and "my Dad is considerably richer than yours" and young adults with an unreasonable sense of entitlement. It rather depends on what you expect an education to include whether it should focus on academics or producing well rounded adults. I want my child to grow up comfortable in the company of all sorts of people and he certainly wouldn't be mixing with children from low income families at a public school, on the other hand he's not going to be mixing with many children of world leaders either is he? That's part of the problem until the Prime Ministers children are educated along side mine - there'll be no equality in education. Besides those who can will always want to buy better (and that requires inferior to exist) for their children.

[/QUOTE]Bullying exists to a greater or lesser extent in every walk of life. Of course bullying exists in Public Schools just as it does in State Schools. Certainly over the three and a half years my son has been at his Public School several boys have been expelled, and quite rightly so, for bullying.( This is a far less common consequence in the state system, wrongly in my opinion) Curiously I have never heard of any bullying occurring in the form you suggest. Certainly my son's fellow pupils include the sons of 'old aristocracy' as well as the sons of investment bankers, captains of industry, and many at the forefront of the professions and the arts. They also include the sons of farmers, small businessmen, school teachers and those on scholarships and bursaries some of whose parents have modestly remunerative occupations. There is little discernible difference in how the boys relate to one another. There is a system of mentors where selected boys in the Lower Sixth have up to three or four 'mentees', new boys or 'shells' 'to look out for' and this relationship exists for the first two years of the boys time at the school. There is an accurate ethos that 'bullies are losers' and there is a degree of self policing. I am glad to say that individual or personal 'fagging' is a thing of the past, although performance of non-degrading communal chores is both expected and required. I speak about boys rather than children, because my son is in single sex education.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

Certainly smaller classes and more resources are a major factor in the greater academic achievements of Preparatory and Public Schools. However there are other contributing factors why Public Schools often produce successful confident adults. I refer to the non-academic aspects of a Public School education. My son has a minimum of 12 hours supervised sport or physical exercise each week, and the freedom to extend this. He participates in the Combined Cadet Force and the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme, improving physical fitness, self-discipline and leadership skills, whilst widening his knowledge base. He is involved in Community Support, educating him in how other sections of society live, inter-social skill development and a recognition that with privilege comes a social obligation. The result is that the typical public school 'graduate' will have achieved his academic potential, and thanks to the wider aspects of his education will be a well rounded person able to identify and mix with most, if not all social and economic stratas of society.

Sounds like a great school and I'll be the first to admit my hypocrisy by saying that I am hoping my own child will prove bright enough to pass the 11+ exams and thus go to a Grammar which offers those same extra curriculars and a broader curriculum when it comes to science, the arts and languages.

Bullying exists to a greater or lesser extent in every walk of life. Of course bullying exists in Public Schools just as it does in State Schools. Certainly over the three and a half years my son has been at his Public School several boys have been expelled, and quite rightly so, for bullying.( This is a far less common consequence in the state system, wrongly in my opinion) Curiously I have never heard of any bullying occurring in the form you suggest.

Well I'm quite glad about that, I am basing my argument on a personal experience of a close friend of mine (I do not feel I can relay the specifics), perhaps it's not as bad anymore.

Originally Posted by Midas

You don't seriously mean to say that if the opportunity arose to give your children an education which, to quote you is "...better academically and often produce successful confident adults", you'd turn it down and perhaps deprive those children of a start in life which could make a significant difference to their future???

Yes that is exactly what I mean, I do not think it would be in their best interest to be educated alongside people who leave school as self entitled, arrogant, egomaniacs. Now I am going to clarify that by saying I know your three all went and from everything I know about them they are nowhere close to that stereotype and I'm sure the same applies to the Major's son, but I do know a lot of people (men in particular) who have seemingly become such partly due to a public school education.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Yes that is exactly what I mean, I do not think it would be in their best interest to be educated alongside people who leave school as self entitled, arrogant, egomaniacs. Now I am going to clarify that by saying I know your three all went and from everything I know about them they are nowhere close to that stereotype and I'm sure the same applies to the Major's son, but I do know a lot of people (men in particular) who have seemingly become such partly due to a public school education.

I personally think that says far more about the families that those kids come from rather than the schools they attend, at least that's been my own impression from having witnessed both sides of the coin so to speak. Certainly as far as the schools my own kids attended, significant emphasis was placed by the schools on not having 'airs and graces', but I do quite accept that there plenty who do. Beyond that I really couldn't say.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Sounds like a great school and I'll be the first to admit my hypocrisy by saying that I am hoping my own child will prove bright enough to pass the 11+ exams and thus go to a Grammar which offers those same extra curriculars and a broader curriculum when it comes to science, the arts and languages.

I hope so for your child's sake. You are fortunate to live in a county that still offers a Grammar School Education. Many don't, and there are few options left open to parents if they are faced with some of the mediocre comprehensive schools available.

I am relieved that I have the wherewithal to provide my son with the education he is benefiting from. However this doesn't diminish my belief that as a society we have an obligation to provide a far higher mean standard of primary and secondary state education than we currently do.

This has less to do with financial resources, although this does of course have a bearing, and more to do with quality and accountability of teaching staff in general, and Head Teachers in particular( abysmally poor in many cases), the politicisation of education, incoherent, conflicting and continually changing central policy making in terms of the curriculum, dumbing down of exams, local government interference, poor fiscal and administrative management at national, county and local level and political correctness that attempts to refute the reality that people are not equal. I also believe that risk assessments and Health and Safety are used as excuses, rather than reasons, for failing to provide children with non-academic sporting and activity challenges. Certainly they do not prevent private schools from providing all sorts of physical challenges and experiences, often at minimal cost, to their pupils.

It is very saddening that despite a massive increase in spending on state education over the last decade, it has notably failed to provide any improvement in academic or non-academic educational results, indeed it has achieved the exact opposite. I acknowledge those beacons of state educational excellence which shine through the stygian darkness, whilst recognising that they demonstrate that there is less of an excuse for the majority that are so failing so lamentably.

Well I'm quite glad about that, I am basing my argument on a personal experience of a close friend of mine (I do not feel I can relay the specifics), perhaps it's not as bad anymore.
Yes that is exactly what I mean, I do not think it would be in their best interest to be educated alongside people who leave school as self entitled, arrogant, egomaniacs. Now I am going to clarify that by saying I know your three all went and from everything I know about them they are nowhere close to that stereotype and I'm sure the same applies to the Major's son, but I do know a lot of people (men in particular) who have seemingly become such partly due to a public school education.

[/QUOTE]In every social group there are bad apples. Education alone can not cure all character defects and personality disorders. Just because a pupil at a Public School has a proud lineage or a wealthy background or suffers from poor parenting, does not mean that the excellence of the education on offer will compensate for defects and flaws in the individual character, any more than a state education can compensate for the flaws and defects in its own pupils characters. In fairness while acknowledging that they exist, I think those products of a private education demonstrating those very unpleasant characteristics are in a small minority, and as such are an inaccurate stereotype, if they are a stereotype at all.

Private school only.
Why should I pay for the illigitemate offspring of irresponsible spongers to get themselves indoctrinated?

The scum who spat em out should pay for their upbringing and education and healthcare and so on and so forth.........................

I can then spend my hard earned pittance on that which i choose for myself!!!!Free from interference from totalitarians.
Yeah!!! fewer illigitimate scum to worry about!!!!!More scotch for me!!!!!!Now I am off to order a nice 1970 Scotts selection Macallen from my fave website!!!!!( i could afford 2 if i wasnt expected to pay for the bastards of others to learn ideas above their station)!!

Private schools are clearly better, so nationalise them and open their gates to pupils based on merit rather than finance, in order to make them even better (obviously keeping a similar style of management to before the change).

Originally Posted by DougieG

Private schools are clearly better...

Hurray

...so nationalise them and open their gates to pupils based on merit rather than finance, in order to make them even better (obviously keeping a similar style of management to before the change).

And now you go and spoil it When have you ever known anything that's nationalised to be "even better", even effective or efficient? If you brought private schools into the state network, I'd guarantee that before many years they'd be performing no better than most of the better equipped grammar schools, and the vast majority of wealthy parents would be sending their children out of the UK for education.

For what it's worth Dougie, the vast majority of private schools have quite rigorous entry examinations; believe it or not - and for some reason you seem to have difficulty in doing so - the ability to pay fees is far from being the only entry requirement these days. Private schools in the UK are in competition with many from around the world and they have to produce a very high standard of all round education in order to do so.

Relating to this whole subject, this article from yesterday's Sunday Times might be of interest as it highlights the boom in private tutoring, a reflection of the overall level of dissatisfaction British parents have with the state education system.

Originally Posted by Midas

And now you go and spoil it When have you ever known anything that's nationalised to be "even better", even effective or efficient? If you brought private schools into the state network, I'd guarantee that before many years they'd be performing no better than most of the better equipped grammar schools, and the vast majority of wealthy parents would be sending their children out of the UK for education.

Some grammar schools are better than private schools though if we're basing it purely on academic results here ( that top one's quite near where I live, it used to be the tech (and is still referred to as such by the longer established Grammars and Independent Schools, what were we saying about the snobbishness having gone?). A lot of wealthy parents have always had their children tutored to pass the 11+ thus getting a private education for free, hence there being a disproportionate number of children from higher income families. This is partly to do with the emphasis on acheivment placed in the home environment too of course, but is why Dougie's suggestion won't really work - there will still be elitist schools.

For what it's worth Dougie, the vast majority of private schools have quite rigorous entry examinations; believe it or not - and for some reason you seem to have difficulty in doing so - the ability to pay fees is far from being the only entry requirement these days. Private schools in the UK are in competition with many from around the world and they have to produce a very high standard of all round education in order to do so.

I'm so confused by your argument, weren't you arguing natural ability wasn't the only reason why public schools performed better?

Relating to this whole subject, this article from yesterday's Sunday Times might be of interest as it highlights the boom in private tutoring, a reflection of the overall level of dissatisfaction British parents have with the state education system.

Getting a 404 for that link , but isn't it the case that as all parents want the best for their children, they'll do as much as they can; and it shows a healthy attitude towards education on a parental level I think that they put faith in it as a concept to improve their childs lives, the lack of which is something which has contributed to the problems in schools over the last few generations. The point is we all do what we can, hire a tutor, spend hours getting our children to read and forcing them to write thankyou laters and play "educational" games with them or even pay extortionate school fees, that's totally natural. What's also totally natural and the reason there will always be schools for "elites" is for those who have to want the best for their kids that their money can buy - for the best to exist it needs to be better than something else.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Some grammar schools are better than private schools though if we're basing it purely on academic results here ( that top one's quite near where I live, it used to be the tech (and is still referred to as such by the longer established Grammars and Independent Schools, what were we saying about the snobbishness having gone?). A lot of wealthy parents have always had their children tutored to pass the 11+ thus getting a private education for free, hence there being a disproportionate of children from higher income families. This is partly to do with the emphasis on acheivment placed in the home environment too of course, but is why Dougie's suggestion won't really work - there will still be elitist schools.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that all private schools are better than all state schools, that would be stupid, all I'm saying is that on average, the private education sector produces children who perform better both academically and socially. I don't have a problem with the tutoring aspect; if a child's innately bright enough he'll respond to tutoring and thus pass the exam, if he's not, he won't. OK, I'll accept that parents shouldn't have to do this, but it's because of those failings of the state education system that they feel they need to.

I'm so confused by your argument, weren't you arguing natural ability wasn't the only reason why public schools performed better?

No, all I was doing was pointing out to Dougie that the ability to pay wasn't the only reason that parents got children into private education, intelligence matters too. But of course better facilities, smaller classes and better teaching standards count as well in producing better educated people.

Getting a 404 for that link

Don't know why, it's working for me.

...but isn't it the case that as all parents want the best for their children, they'll do as much as they can - and it shows a healthy attitude towards education on a parental level I think that they put faith in it as a concept to improve their childs lives something which has contributed to the problems in schools over the last few generations. The point is we all do what we can, hire a tutor, spend hours getting our children to read and forcing them to write thankyou laters and play "educational" games with them or even pay extortionate school fees, that's totally natural. What's also totally natural and the reason there will always be schools for "elites" is for those who have to want the best for their kids that their money can buy - for the best to exist it needs to be better than something else.

I wouldn't say that's true at all actually, there are a significant number of families who don't seem to give a damn about their children's education! But on the other hand, as you rightly point out, there are also, thankfully, many more who realise the state system is not enough and want to do more for their children; good for them, and I for one think they have every right to be able to do so.

Originally Posted by Midas

And now you go and spoil it When have you ever known anything that's nationalised to be "even better", even effective or efficient? If you brought private schools into the state network, I'd guarantee that before many years they'd be performing no better than most of the better equipped grammar schools, and the vast majority of wealthy parents would be sending their children out of the UK for education.

Wrong wrong wrong. It's all to do with how they are governed, not how they are funded. If the government were to fund them yet stay relatively apart from the actual running of the school (admittedly not something that would be vastly likely to happen under either Labour or the Tories, who both have dreadful political agendas that they want to push in education) the quality would go up since the quality of the intake of pupils would be vastly better.

Originally Posted by Midas

For what it's worth Dougie, the vast majority of private schools have quite rigorous entry examinations; believe it or not - and for some reason you seem to have difficulty in doing so - the ability to pay fees is far from being the only entry requirement these days. Private schools in the UK are in competition with many from around the world and they have to produce a very high standard of all round education in order to do so.

I guarantee you that at university the brightest students tend to be state school ones. Personal experience, I know, but I have yet to meet someone who was in the top 5 of their degree last year (of which I know about 9 or 10) who went to a private school. Surely then the private schools are not taking the best pupils? Us state schoolers tend not to be the most hard working but we do tend to be the fastest at picking up information and ideas. If people had had the benefits of a hard work ethic instilled at private/boarding school just imagine the quality of the students.

Originally Posted by Midas

Relating to this whole subject, this article from yesterday's Sunday Times might be of interest as it highlights the boom in private tutoring, a reflection of the overall level of dissatisfaction British parents have with the state education system.

Irrelevant. Some bad schools existing does not mean anything. Also, I went to one of the best schools in the country, certainly the best in the area, and yet hundreds of kids had private tuition! It's more to do with panicky, pushy parents whose children aren't actually THAT bright buying them a free ride. I don't think it should be banned, but having a lot of private tutors doesn't mean a school is bad.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Wrong wrong wrong. It's all to do with how they are governed, not how they are funded. If the government were to fund them yet stay relatively apart from the actual running of the school (admittedly not something that would be vastly likely to happen under either Labour or the Tories, who both have dreadful political agendas that they want to push in education) the quality would go up since the quality of the intake of pupils would be vastly better.

Actually Dougie the reason private schools score better isn't because the students are naturally brighter (unless you'd like to argue rich = smart), it's because they're funded better. Now if you were to nationalise private schools, you would have to maintain that funding in order to maintain results, and that will cost tax payer money, naturally the Government would like to see how it can cut costs in this regard, and what you end up with is essentially a state school. In regards to a median entry, I also fail to see how that would work. What you end up is a school for the 'elite' of society, we're only the smartest can go. That means that a child who may not necesserily be bright, but who's parents can pay for private education, is, instead of recieving a better than average education and overcoming his intelligence issues and get a good job, resigned to the state system, where he will not grow any brighter, not get a good job and probably not raise his children to be bright, compounding the problem. You essentially create an intelligensian aristocracy.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Actually Dougie the reason private schools score better isn't because the students are naturally brighter (unless you'd like to argue rich = smart), it's because they're funded better. Now if you were to nationalise private schools, you would have to maintain that funding in order to maintain results, and that will cost tax payer money, naturally the Government would like to see how it can cut costs in this regard, and what you end up with is essentially a state school. In regards to a median entry, I also fail to see how that would work. What you end up is a school for the 'elite' of society, we're only the smartest can go. That means that a child who may not necesserily be bright, but who's parents can pay for private education, is, instead of recieving a better than average education and overcoming his intelligence issues and get a good job, resigned to the state system, where he will not grow any brighter, not get a good job and probably not raise his children to be bright, compounding the problem. You essentially create an intelligensian aristocracy.

Your argument doesn't really make sense. Costs wouldn't necessarily be cut except for ridiculous things. And hang on, why does the rich dumb child in your example deserve a good education over a clever poor kid? You don't even attempt to explain that. Surely the clever poor kid would be an even better parent if given a great education? Are you saying that an aristocracy based on intelligence would be worse than one based upon your parent's wealth? That's what we currently have in Britain.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Your argument doesn't really make sense. Costs wouldn't necessarily be cut except for ridiculous things. And hang on, why does the rich dumb child in your example deserve a good education over a clever poor kid? You don't even attempt to explain that. Surely the clever poor kid would be an even better parent if given a great education? Are you saying that an aristocracy based on intelligence would be worse than one based upon your parent's wealth? That's what we currently have in Britain.

If the Government was able to fund for better education, why has this not already happened in state schools?

And yes and no, his parents who have worked hard to give him that education deserve to be able to do so. In regards to the clever poor kid, instead of locking out everyone below the median and taking over private schools at huge cost, shouldn't the government simply increase scholarships to those students who are poor but above the median, allowing them to attend private schools?

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

If the Government was able to fund for better education, why has this not already happened in state schools?

And yes and no, his parents who have worked hard to give him that education deserve to be able to do so. In regards to the clever poor kid, instead of locking out everyone below the median and taking over private schools at huge cost, shouldn't the government simply increase scholarships to those students who are poor but above the median, allowing them to attend private schools?

You've not seen my plan for education reform before have you? I'll fish it out at some point, it's very detailed. Parents would pay according to their ability so it would be a bit like scholarships - poor kids wouldn't pay.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Wrong wrong wrong. It's all to do with how they are governed, not how they are funded. If the government were to fund them yet stay relatively apart from the actual running of the school (admittedly not something that would be vastly likely to happen under either Labour or the Tories, who both have dreadful political agendas that they want to push in education) the quality would go up since the quality of the intake of pupils would be vastly better.

Some truth here. It is the structure and management that is pivotal I am sure. I am not an educationalist, but it seems to me that amongst the many faults within the state secondary system is a tendency to reduce academic standards to the lowest common denominator. I would welcome a return to grammar, secondary modern and technical college education. Thus the potential of the academic can be more readily achieved without being held back by those who can't or won't learn, the potential skills and talents of those of a more practical bent can be recognised and developed, and a general standard of basic education including life skills can be learned by some of those who fail to reach a minimum level in either category.

I guarantee you that at university the brightest students tend to be state school ones. Personal experience, I know, but I have yet to meet someone who was in the top 5 of their degree last year (of which I know about 9 or 10) who went to a private school. Surely then the private schools are not taking the best pupils? Us state schoolers tend not to be the most hard working but we do tend to be the fastest at picking up information and ideas. If people had had the benefits of a hard work ethic instilled at private/boarding school just imagine the quality of the students.

A rather hit or miss conclusion Dougie. I am not sure of the ratio of privately educated to state educated, but I would guess something in the range of 1 to 12 or 1 to 15, so you would not expect to find the majority of privately educated students at the top. It also depends on the courses taken and varies from university to university I should think.

Irrelevant. Some bad schools existing does not mean anything. Also, I went to one of the best schools in the country, certainly the best in the area, and yet hundreds of kids had private tuition! It's more to do with panicky, pushy parents whose children aren't actually THAT bright buying them a free ride. I don't think it should be banned, but having a lot of private tutors doesn't mean a school is bad.

[/QUOTE]

Again I do agree in part. Bad schools often exist for reasons other than their catchment area, including poor quality staff and manangement.

Public schools also tend to have an academic pecking order. However the potential of a prospective entrant is usually assessed by the Preparatory School, and the parents and pupil guided towards a Public School which is deemed to be the most suitable match, so most get into their chosen school. Thus the brightest might go to Winchester or Magdalene College, the next tier to Radley or St Pauls, the third tier to Stowe or Uppingham and so on.

Originally Posted by DougieG

You've not seen my plan for education reform before have you? I'll fish it out at some point, it's very detailed. Parents would pay according to their ability so it would be a bit like scholarships - poor kids wouldn't pay.

So again the wealthy need to support the poor? And you also imply that the dumber the kid, either the more expensive it should be to educate them, or they should only have access to poorer education. Nice, keep the dumb, dumb.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

Some truth here. It is the structure and management that is pivotal I am sure. I am not an educationalist, but it seems to me that amongst the many faults within the state secondary system is a tendency to reduce academic standards to the lowest common denominator. I would welcome a return to grammar, secondary modern and technical college education. Thus the potential of the academic can be more readily achieved without being held back by those who can't or won't learn, the potential skills and talents of those of a more practical bent can be recognised and developed, and a general standard of basic education including life skills can be learned by some of those who fail to reach a minimum level in either category.

Definitely true to an extent although of course there has to be an element of choice. There should be academic options for those who are less bright but want to study them.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

A rather hit or miss conclusion Dougie. I am not sure of the ratio of privately educated to state educated, but I would guess something in the range of 1 to 12 or 1 to 15, so you would not expect to find the majority of privately educated students at the top. It also depends on the courses taken and varies from university to university I should think.

Considering well over half of the students at my university were at private school, and most of my friends were at public school, I think it's very significant that none of the cleverest people I know went to these places.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

So again the wealthy need to support the poor? And you also imply that the dumber the kid, either the more expensive it should be to educate them, or they should only have access to poorer education. Nice, keep the dumb, dumb.

Better than keeping the poor poor.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Definitely true to an extent although of course there has to be an element of choice. There should be academic options for those who are less bright but want to study them.

I would agree with you, but then there would need to be streaming on the basis of ability so that the less able don't have a negative impact on the more able

Considering well over half of the students at my university were at private school, and most of my friends were at public school, I think it's very significant that none of the cleverest people I know went to these places.

[/QUOTE] You have the benefit of experience in this area which I lack. I am aware that some 92% of leavers from my son's Public School go on to university. It is an observation rather than a comment on whether it is a good or a bad thing.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Better than keeping the poor poor.

Not really, in fact in the long term that would probably increase the working class. Because it really doesn't matter how smart katie is if she has to go home to a single mum who abuses drugs. Even if she went to the best school in the world, her chances of scoring high are still pretty grim, simply because the academic drive and support from a home environment isn't there. Now Tommy might not be smart, but his parents are upper middle class, stable, and want to encourage him to do well. Unfortuantely, Katie takes his place, so he's forced to go to a poor quality state school where he simply can't do as well without the support offered by a private institution. He ends up with a poor job. Now obviously Katie doesn't score as well either, so she also ends up with a poor job. So your system actually increases the amount of people earning below average income by restricting education access. Because let's be honest here, you haven't increased access to high quality education, you've restricted it to a select few with above avergae intelligence.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Wrong wrong wrong. It's all to do with how they are governed, not how they are funded. If the government were to fund them yet stay relatively apart from the actual running of the school (admittedly not something that would be vastly likely to happen under either Labour or the Tories, who both have dreadful political agendas that they want to push in education) the quality would go up since the quality of the intake of pupils would be vastly better.

Of course how schools are governed plays a significant role in their overall performance, and I'm not saying that all private schools are better governed than all state schools, but on average they are. Their governance is also free of many of the onerous and purely bureaucratic duties which eat up so much time and money in the state system. Like anything you can't look at specific cases but can only go on averages, and on that basis, pretty much everything that the state runs (not necessarily owns) is far more inefficient and far more wasteful; that's a fact, not just my view. I do agree with you that no political party has much to commend it as far as education policies are concerned though, but those from the socialist side are noticeably worse due to constant political interference and manipulation.

I guarantee you that at university the brightest students tend to be state school ones. Personal experience, I know, but I have yet to meet someone who was in the top 5 of their degree last year (of which I know about 9 or 10) who went to a private school. Surely then the private schools are not taking the best pupils? Us state schoolers tend not to be the most hard working but we do tend to be the fastest at picking up information and ideas. If people had had the benefits of a hard work ethic instilled at private/boarding school just imagine the quality of the students.

That's hardly surprising though given that there are probably some 15 times more state educated students around than there are privately educated ones. What you do find though is that the more prestigious you get as far as universities are concerned, the higher the percentage of privately educated students you get, and given that those are the universities which, proportionately, produce more of this country's political and industrial leaders, it's fairly obvious why - they're better equipped all round to face the big wide world of work, and pure academic achievement on its own is only part of that. You've said yourself that you agree that privately educated students "...are clearly better", which rather counters the argument your just using, but I can't help but agree that if state schools could instill the same work ethic in kids, many of this country's (future) problems would diminish.

Irrelevant. Some bad schools existing does not mean anything. Also, I went to one of the best schools in the country, certainly the best in the area, and yet hundreds of kids had private tuition! It's more to do with panicky, pushy parents whose children aren't actually THAT bright buying them a free ride. I don't think it should be banned, but having a lot of private tutors doesn't mean a school is bad.

I don't think it's irrelevent at all, it's a reflection of the concern that parents generally have about the overall quality of state education and how it fails their children, not just in the 'worse' schools.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

If the Government was able to fund for better education, why has this not already happened in state schools?

And yes and no, his parents who have worked hard to give him that education deserve to be able to do so. In regards to the clever poor kid, instead of locking out everyone below the median and taking over private schools at huge cost, shouldn't the government simply increase scholarships to those students who are poor but above the median, allowing them to attend private schools?

The Labour Government are already doing this via political use of the Charities Commission. The Charities Commission are in effect blackmailing independent schools to provide an ever increasing amount of scholarships, bursaries and use of facilities, the cost of which is paid for by the fee paying parents. An increasing number of independent schools are reviewing their charitable status, as the advantages are becoming increasingly marginal.

Fee paying parents are of course providing a considerable benefit to society as a whole. Whilst their children are entitled to a state education, the parents of the 600,000 or so children who opt for a private education are still making their contribution to state education (in most cases at 40% of income). By paying for their childrens education twice over they are are making a contribution worth billions to the nations coffers. Indeed when you consider the 'stealth tax' placed on school fees by the government through the politicised Charities Commission, they are paying for their childs education more than twice over.

Originally Posted by Major Sinic

The Labour Government are already doing this via political use of the Charities Commission. The Charities Commission are in effect blackmailing independent schools to provide an ever increasing amount of scholarships, bursaries and use of facilities, the cost of which is paid for by the fee paying parents. An increasing number of independent schools are reviewing their charitable status, as the advantages are becoming increasingly marginal.

Fee paying parents are of course providing a considerable benefit to society as a whole. Whilst their children are entitled to a state education, the parents of the 600,000 or so children who opt for a private education are still making their contribution to state education (in most cases at 40% of income). By paying for their childrens education twice over they are are making a contribution worth billions to the nations coffers. Indeed when you consider the 'stealth tax' placed on school fees by the government through the politicised Charities Commission, they are paying for their childs education more than twice over.

That's bs, why should parents pay for someone else's child's education? If the Government wanted to really help poor, gifted children, it should provide bursaires at its own expense, or at least provide funding to schools to cover the cost of those schools having scholarships.

I don't really think they should have charitable status, they are a business like any other.

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

I don't really think they should have charitable status, they are a business like any other.

If that were the case then I might agree with you. A business is generally considered a commercial enterprise trading with the objective of a financial return for the owners (shareholders). Most private schools are held in trust, and as such are governed by trustees, and any 'trading surplus' is used to improve the school. In other words it is a 'not for profit' enterprise.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Oh, come on Midas, think about it more carefully.


Could it be that Parents will only pay for private education if they know their children will work hard and do well, plus private schools can pick people who will get good marks.

While public schools have to take everyone they can fit, they have hard working students and students that don't work.

Then they categorised everybody in the same catigory, well said.

We have a 10 year old in the education system at the moment, it is a joke, the level and standard of education she receives is pathetic. My old teachers would be horrified at what they teach, or don't.

When I was 8,10,12 we all had reading age tests, we had to have a reading age at least that of our biological age or we were given extra help or simply held back a year.

Now we have a daughter who is 10, has a reading age of 7.9 and is in the top 5% for the school.....SCARY

I have been giving her extra projects for history, as this will help her to use a computer to do research, reading and also writing, as I will not let her type and thus use spell checkers. In the time we have been doing it her reading, writing and spelling are improving dramatically, but I have been criticised by the school for teaching things not on the national curriculum for her age!! They still have failed to reply to letters sent in to the head teacher...

I am sorry to say that the state of the State Education system is deplorable, and the money spent on it gives a clue. The figures are in Billions. Look at the total budget, and then look at what is actually spent on schools, and these figures include salaries too. The Tertiary education relates to Sixth form and Colleges respectively. Education not defined by level includes the costs for building new schools, repairing existing ones, paying for OFSTED and the Education departments within all the authorities and the Government.
The figures in the first column are from central Government, the second from local government and the third is the total. (Can't get it to list it neatly )

1. Education 29.9 54.2 84.0
2. Pre-primary and primary education 0.8 0.0 0.8
3. Secondary education 2.2 0.0 2.2
4. Post-secondary non-tertiary educa 8.6 0.0 8.6
5. Tertiary education 12.9 0.0 12.9
6. Education not definable by level 3.2 54.2 57.3
7. Subsidiary services to education 2.2 0.0 2.2
8. R&D Education 0.0 0.0 0.0
9. Education n.e.c. 0.0 0.0 0.0

The amount wasted on top heavy administration is a joke, and the Governments claims that they spend more on education are fictional when you look at this. Billions wasted on admin and other services when it should be spent on the schools for a decent and proper ediucation

There in lays the problem.

On principal I am against the private education system not because of an egalitarian ethos, but because of the things that private school students miss from being in amongst a comprehensive student body which is that they are segregated from, and therefore don't understand, their less-well-off peers. Too many of my friends who went to independent schools just don't appreciate how well-off they are because they have no comparison, and often don't have an accurate view of what money is worth. Not only that, but the majority of my state-educated friends did much better than many privately-educated friends, which I think does reinforce that much of a child's success at school comes from supportive parenting like Jim Franklin mentioned (keep up the good work with yours!).
However, would I wish for my (hypothetical) children to go to a sub-par local comprehensive? ....I'm not sure...

State schools now have the option of becoming a 'Foundation status' school, which means that they have much more independence from local government, including control of assets, teachers and governance. This can be to the serious advantage of some schools, but only those that have strong management (governors in particular). The schools I know personally that have taken this route have considerably improved, 'perhaps' suggesting that LESS GOVERNMENTAL INFLUENCE IS GOOD. (Ahem)

: )
P.S. I'm new to the forum, but am enjoying myself enormously. Thanks!

Originally Posted by akPRO

On principal I am against the private education system not because of an egalitarian ethos, but because of the things that private school students miss from being in amongst a comprehensive student body which is that they are segregated from, and therefore don't understand, their less-well-off peers. Too many of my friends who went to independent schools just don't appreciate how well-off they are because they have no comparison, and often don't have an accurate view of what money is worth. Not only that, but the majority of my state-educated friends did much better than many privately-educated friends, which I think does reinforce that much of a child's success at school comes from supportive parenting like Jim Franklin mentioned (keep up the good work with yours!).
However, would I wish for my (hypothetical) children to go to a sub-par local comprehensive? ....I'm not sure...

State schools now have the option of becoming a 'Foundation status' school, which means that they have much more independence from local government, including control of assets, teachers and governance. This can be to the serious advantage of some schools, but only those that have strong management (governors in particular). The schools I know personally that have taken this route have considerably improved, 'perhaps' suggesting that LESS GOVERNMENTAL INFLUENCE IS GOOD. (Ahem)

: )
P.S. I'm new to the forum, but am enjoying myself enormously. Thanks!

Hi akPRO, and welcome to the Politics Forum; can I apologise for not posting this official welcome message before now!

To start with you might like to read the extended “Welcome” message in the “Rules and Guidelines” section of the forum, which also includes a full version of the Forum Rules

Knowing what’s appropriate to say and post and what isn’t can save everyone a great deal of hassle, and as such you might also find the Guide to Good Posting useful. If you’re unfamiliar with the type of forum software we use here, a brief guide to using it can be found here. Please respect other people’s views here; they mightn’t be the same as yours but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong, just different.

If you need help with anything at all, feel free to contact me, or one of the other moderators, via a personal message; details can be found here, listed as “Junior Minister”.

Perhaps you’d care to introduce yourself, which you can do here, or tell us a little bit more about yourself here.

Enjoy the debates

As far as this particular topic is concerned, as someone who has put three children through private (secondary) education I tend to disagree with your assessment that they don't appreciate how well off they are because of lack of comparison. Now there might be an element of truth in that whilst they are in their first couple of years at private school, however beyond that I think that the vast majority of kids get plenty of opportunity to get out and about and see how their peers in state education cope; after all, many of them will have friends back at home in state education.

As far as less government influence being good, I can only say I'm with you 100%!