This isn't a straight forward 'is private education good or bad' debate per se.
Use the quote below as a starting point for debate. I won't yet reveal who said it, it might ruin it.
'People who can afford it (private eductaion) should be required to indulge because it stops rich bastards clogging up the system for everyone else.
Why should my kids take a place at our local comp – which is excellent, I hear – when it could go to someone whose parents can’t afford the alternative? Answer me that, Mr Lenin.'
dianne abbot?
private education blatently gets better results. i imagine that that is more due to staff/student ratios, resources and the home unit (ie their parents can buy them books and will most likely know a fair amount themselves) rather than the inate ability of the students.
so, it is more a question of "if i can, why shouldn't i buy my child a better future?" as a lefty i disagree with that sentiment, but, hey, i think we should pay more tax and improve society and state schools more anyway.
It wasn't Dianne Abbott, no.
The point that is being made is not so much that private education is better in it's standards (though I think it is), more that underprivileged children are less likely to be able to go to a good state school if there was no private sector. By having the private system running in tandem it frees up good places in good school. Therefore, it is for the benefit of everybody that the private system exists
Fucking bullshit
Oh, Traynor.
Huggles.
don't you mean
underprivilaged thick children?
the smart kids would still go to the good state school wouldn't they?
I should make it clear
That this isn't my argument.
That;s the point. An underprivileged 'thick' kid may not get the opportunity to get a place in a good state school of all the 'poshos' suddenly lef the private sector. It gives more chances and opportunities to those that would not otherwise have them. It's quite reasonable logic i think.
it's pretty simplistic thinking
Although I can in part agree with this
surely it misses the point that all state schools should be good schools? Otherwise it seems that a few underprivileged are granted an opportunity at social mobility to placate an entire class.
But perhaps I'm being entirely unrealistic.
i think that's looking at it in a very simplistic way
segregating classes together isn't always a good thing..
it's also ignoring the fact that the existence of private schools removes a lot of good teachers from the state sector.
then again, a lot of private schools run scholarship/bursary programs, which help a lot of people. like me! so.. um.. i don't know.
in an ideal world, there'd be no need.
you were the guinea pig?!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040407/
i was hoping that was going to be
a 70s monster movie about giant killer guinea pigs :(
no, only a twenty something richard attenborough
playing a schoolboy.
alternatively, if rich people
didnt have the choice of private schooling, they might be forced to give a shit about other people and make some noise about improving schools where their beloved kiddies would have to slum it with the thicko proles.
You are basing
your argument on stereotypes. Thank the lord we do not all do this.
rich people increasingly don't give a fuck about the wider community
they more and more in private or gated estates or exclusively-wealthy parts of town, they drink in bars for them, eat at restaurants for them, shop at stores for them, consume different media, see private doctors, send their kids to private schools, live parallel lives really. our society is becoming more and more atomised
I concur
if you are in anyway indicative of tory thinking
god help us if cameron wins
Shut up.
I made it quite clear that it was not my quote.
alright
then what's your view?
My view is that private education is good.
does it benefit the state sector and society at large?
My father has benefitted
the state sector for many years through paying excessive tax. It is , furthermore, not his duty or mine to help society at large.
is that official tory policy?
Not as such.
I have no direct influence over their policies.
The fact is, my father has paid tax in order that I have a place available for me at a state school should I so wish. As he chose to not put in state school he has actually given the state money to pay for facilities that he nor his children will ever use. As such, the state sector has benefitted in real terms from me going to private school.
in financial terms - yes absolutely
you are ignoring the fact that the exodus of middle class kids to public school effectively consigns many state schools to 'sink' status - there are serious detrimental effects on those schools even if their per pupil funding is higher than it would have been
also
"I have no direct influence over their policies."
LOL
I'd imagine that in proportional terms
your father probably hasn't paid any more tax than my stupid, state-educated father.
To be fair he probably
has, what with the top rate of income tax and all...
In proprtional terms
you're probably right. In real terms, you are not.
And your dad being stupid is something I wouldn't know about, i've never met him.
good for some
that is the same argument as saying privatisation reduces nhs waiting lists
it also syphons off the tops surgeons and consultants nullifying the entire point of it.
private education may well mean there are less kids in state schools but it also means there are less quality teachers.
if the parents of would be public school children were at state schools, i'm sure the faculty would have no trouble getting large donations at PTA nights and that would improve state education. sadly only in the wealthiest pockets where it isn't needed as much (clever parents, good provision of books etc).
Well yes,
Clarkson does make the same link to the NHS.
I think you are doing a bit of an injustice to state school teachers though. It is true that often times the cream of the teaching crop will chase the cash, but not always.
I'm guessing of course, i've never stepped foot inside a state school.
it doesn't matter how good a teacher you are
its hard to teach effectively when you have class sizes of 35 +
they are all EXACTLY like grange hill
is it jeremy clarkson that made your quote?
anyway, when i end up teaching i won't be going into private schools as i disagree with them.
again, i think it is a disagreement on means of equlity. absolute, relative etc
i can see what you mean, but i think it is possible for all to get a great education without the rich getting the best. we've had ove a century of state and private schooling in this country and still there is a big gap in the quality of the two sectors. your (sorry, some one else who you probably agree with's) argument doesn't really seem to mean that much.
What would you say constitutes a 'quality teacher'?
I'm hoping to a post-grad teaching course in a year and am curious.
Is there some way to reconcile a desperate need for teachers in this country with some sort of selective process ensuring that all teachers are of a high 'quality'?
Personally,
I believe that all teachers who pass the relevant qualifications are of a certain, good, standard. But it was not me who stated that the private system has better teachers, you would have to ask Keith.
I did
You just got your reply to his post in first!
i'm planning on one too
what subject?
of course we can say that all qualified teachers will have reached a minimum standard but sadly not all teachers are as good as each other.
we all remember certain teachers for being awful and some for being great. that is how it works and market economics means that the places with higher wages will be able to attract the better workers.
I'm going to apply for a PGCE
course in upper primary education, haven't decided what I specialise in but probably English. Finished a History degree in June and am working for year. Finding it quite hard to get any classroom experience though, so not sure which path I'll end up taking. Yourself?
Do you think its better to have these bad teachers though, simply because there is no alternative? I'm not sure which I'd consider more damaging
i'd say no teachers is worse than not very good ones.
i'm planning on being a physics teacher. i didn't have much trouble getting a week's work experience but it was through a family friend.
fortunately, we're both in demand.
Yeah
I'm quite lucky in that there are virtually no male primary school teachers and alot of people are kicking up a fuss about a lack of male rolemodels for young children
...
"nderprivileged children are less likely to be able to go to a good state school if there was no private sector"
false. tell me what you mean by a 'good' school?
In terms
of actual class places and class sizes, I would say that underprivileged children are less likely to be able to get into a good state school, if there were no private sector.
Well, what constitutes a 'good' school could well be a very long debate in itself. In short, I don't believe grades alone can be the mark of a good school, though it is a useful indicator. Many other factors are involved: class sizes, quality of facilities, low crime levels, lack of fear in the classroom, the ability to instil good values, the ability to elp an individual achieve their potential. In essence, a good school is one that can produce well-rounded individual who will be an asset to society rather than a hindrance.
and i think private schooling makes it less likely
that underprivileged children will have a good state school to go to
Well
on this we will have to disagree.
Do you think
role models are irrelevant? That, ifunderprivileged children attend the same school as someone who is intelligent and made to work hard, some of that will rub off on their peers?
Possibly.
Either that or they'll get bullied for being geeks and 'poshos'. Role models are fine in theory, but most 'street' kids find 50 Cent to more appealing than Stephen Hawking.
i think you'll find most rap music is purchased by white middle class boys
Urgh
you get the point i'm trying to make.
When you're young and rebellious you very rarely have decent role models bcause you don't want them. You would rather look up to the James Deans of this world, they are, quite simply, more fun.
your parents really fucked you up didn't they?
i mean
you don't appear to have any real connection with ordinary life at all, like it's all hypothetical to you, received through media rather than experienced. that and your seeming delusions of grandeur
alright i gues sthat was rude. apologies
but i find it amazing how you see things in black and white, or rather you need neat categories. the gritty human stuff appears to bother you. that and your hiding behind sophistry
And right there
you have shown your inability debate.
He followed
it up with clarification. You're obsessed with 'proper debate' to a bizarre degree...
i'm thinking mild asperger's
Well
I do think debate on serious issues should be approached seriously, yes. And I don't see that as a bad thing. Especially online where you have the ability to consider your post before responding.
But all you've
done in this thread is post a link to an article and then said 'i didn't write it!' whenever someone has questioned its central tenents and then occasionally said 'private education is great' and that your dad is quite rich.
Seriously,
how do people acquire their human capital?
Conventional wisdom is that it's a combination of born-with talent and a good education. But you also need to consider what students perceive as being possible and what they interpret the pay-offs of learning to be.
Bollocks
In a school full of underachievers and badly behaved kids, it will be the handful of bright hard-working ones that get bullied. If there are loads of bright and hard-working kids then I don't think they'll get bullied to quite the same extent.
This assumes
there are lots of bright, hard-wroking kids out there. There are lots, i'm sure, but i wouldn't say there is a clear majority.
No it doesn't
All
of the things you list in your criteria for a good school are just self-indulgent things that worry parents who know their children are reasonably bright and will attend a pretty decent school, surely?
Grades are the most important thing because they have the greatest impact on your future.
Also, I think that people tend to be dragged up or down by their peers. Certainly, I have known people of limited intelligence who attended exceptional schools and got As across the board.
I wouldn't call
having a production line of good, well-rounded children coming out of a school as self indulgent. It benefits everyone.
And I do not agree that grades are the MOST important thing., not in a traditional academic sense. As discussed below, there needs to be scop for non-academic paths to be available.
It's all
very well to say that grades don't matter if you're of a certain background. You might consider them a bit more important if you had a child who was on course to get maybe a couple of GCSEs before dropping out.
NO!
I have not once said grades aren't important! That is a plain lie. Of course I think they are important!
I was merely stating thatI don't think they are the only factor in judging a school's success.
And I'm saying
it's very nice to adopt that position if you're more or less guaranteed to have a load of grades that make you competitive in the labour market.
Seriously now darling,
This is working on the assumption that being in private education and having successful, intellegent parents will automatically lead to you having good grades. It helps for sure, but it doesn't make it automatic. Having been part of that exact set up I know only too well.
Why do you see everything in absolute terms?
I don't think that having successful parents and being privately educated GUARANTEE good grades anymore than I think that having long-term unemployed parents and attending a shit school guarantee that you will get awful grades.
Are you denying that their is a premium attached to having successful parents and attending private schools?
Not for a second
am i denying the premium of private schools. I believe in private education with all my heart.
And, quite the opposite, I would say it is my detractors (and there are many) who see everything in black and white, rather than myself. It is those that have perpetuated the belief that private education is full of good teachers and state schools full of bad ones.
does private school provide a better education?
in part better funding, but more importantly the quality of teaching and the culture of the school.
i assume it does, else parents wouldn't fork out £5-20000 a year for it
Who has said that?
Noblesse Oblige
I have no idea who or what that is.
But it wasn't him/her/it.
ricky otto?
Was that quote
taken from Mr. J. Clarkson's column in last Sunday's Sunday Times?
No,
It was in Saturday's Sunday Times.
But yes, it was your friend and mine, Jeremy Clarkson!
If you can make it to my office in Victoria I will give you your prize.
because cherry picking the brightest students
or those from the best (in terms of condusive to education) backgrounds creates a vicious cycle for those left behind. the classes at the comp will be more rowdy, peer pressure to flunk greater, education less valued. these are people - with their pack mentalities - we are talking about not mere numbers. also, of course, there is the question of social cohesion, educational ghettoisation, equal opportunity for all.
however, i'm not a socialist and i wouldn't ban private schooling. parents have the right to educate their children as they wish (within reason) - be that private schooling, home schooling, religious, steiner, whatever.
how to reconcile the two i don't know
rich kids are smart kids
genetics innit
they're also instilled with the values of SUCCESS.
thus having them around, being picked up in their parents bentley's every day, inspires the other kids to strive to success
or just that public schools syphon off a load of teachers and dont get the maximum out of them with small class sizes
lol
grammar school?
grammar school is great for the 15% or whatever that make it
the other 85% ar elabelled failures at the age of 11. it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.