Boris

More inanities. Like the tax system is fair or even works. If you seriously believe this country can only afford to educate its children because some opt out you need to have a lie down somewhere quiet.

 

What opt out are you talking about? I'm not sure you even understand what I have been explaining to you so I fear I may have to give up on you. Do you want me to do a numerical example for you?

 

What about the rest of my post? I went to all the trouble of creating an analogy and you just ignored it!

Do you think that the brightest children are the wealthiest? Because if the argument for private schools is an individualistic, liberal argument by the same economics you end up with a labour market not decided by merit but by wealth. Not much of a meritocracy if a daft privately schooled kid gets into a position of responsiblity via contacts rather than ability. Surely is is better for everybody to have their vested interests in quality state schooling where opportunities are equal across the board and fewer hand outs are given to those in the right place with the right contact book?

Common sense to me.

 

How do you believe an average middling kid, from an average background, i.e books and resources available at home will do in the middling class of pay school compared to state?

 

As stated in my other posts I am in full agreement of putting more resources into State schooling and improving the standards. It benefits everyone. The issue I take with your post is "daft privately schooled kid gets into a position of responsiblity via contacts rather than ability". You seem to also think that all private schools are like Eton.

They aren't. The vast majority simply replace the failings of the State. They provide a good education but there is no mystery network effect.

 

As things stand? He'll do far better in the private school unless he is lucky and gets into one of the great state schools.

If Government sorted things out then I would say all the state schools would be modelled on the success stories in that sector and the outcomes would become similar.

 

BANG and the ill discipline is gone!

 

Can't agree. The advantage is overrated IMO. The most prestigious are transformational but there's a steep drop off.

 

Whether the improved results are due to better teaching, better methods or simply being in a class where there are few disruptive pupils I am not sure, but your average private school will outperform your average state school. This must be undisputable surely? I'm certain there are State schools that are better than many private schools, but I am thinking of the average postcode catchment area.

For what it's worth I would think the point about lack of disruption is the key advantage over State schools as Carlos said earlier in the thread, as opposed to any significantly superior teaching ability.

 

Wait. Please correct me if I’ve misread this, as I’m not really following entirely as I am at work.

Are you saying that there isn’t much advantage to a private school education, but also arguing that they are unfair and not inclusive? Is your only point that although they are pretty much equal, you are just annoyed that some parents can afford to throw their money at something which doesn’t really do much?

 

Well I think Moose's argument is that they are paying for access to an old boys network as opposed to superior education, but the stats on A-Level results don't back him up.

 

Maybe they should just have a picture of a little black book on their website? Might get even more parents to flood in.

 

I agree that much of the problem with State schools lies in the disruptive pupils. My education was marred by the same students again and again, who seemed to exist to cause trouble in class and essentially held everyone else back. May or may not be a coincidence, but they tended to be the bullies too.

A private school will simply expel such trouble makers and be done with it. State schools have their hands tied far more securely and thus the unfortunate classmates of these morons are stuck with them.

On a pure educational level, I think there is a truth in the idea that private schools don't provide a significantly improved education. I think the benefits come more from smaller class sizes and the expulsion of toxic students from the classroom.

 

Some schools in certain areas have more of these types of pupils. When the better schools have run out of places then you can see why some parents will do anything including 2nd jobs to avoid their own children having to suffer the "morons".

 

Such a tragedy that the attitudes of a few "moron" children will not only consign their own lives to the scrapheap, but also endanger the futures of innocent classmates who can no longer learn due to the ensuing chaos.

The cost to society of this is huge.

 

FYI, I actually think that there are probably better teachers in the state sector, but it is pretty well known that private schools perform better than state schools.

Smaller classes means more personalised teaching
Greater resources mean better facilities and better structures, so better technology to aid learning, more books in libraries and more time to follow up those who are not progressing.
Greater discipline and more incentives to behave means that there is less disruption
Better faith in the students that they can achieve much higher, and so greater pushing of the child’s academic potential.

The fundamental difference?

If in most state schools you are getting a B, they won’t bother you, and maybe even congratulate you for not getting a C.
If in a private school you are getting a B, they will put you on report and closely track your progress until you start getting A’s.

Oh, and you actually get to choose somewhere that isn't confined to your sometimes unfortunate catchment area.

 

Whilst the lefties concentrate on mocking the victim of a polar bear because he went to a "posh" school.

 

At the top end they give massive social and educational advantage. Below that they are middling and as people are pointing out it's more about people's fear of mixing.

 

Ah. Watford fans?

 

Very naughty Moose. It isn't people are afraid of "mixing". It's that a discruptive pupil will be expelled from private school, whereas the state school will have to jump through far more hoops to be able to do it.

You have a gift I must say of taking people's valid concerns and putting a sneering, sanctimonious spin on it.

 

I get the advantage thing, and even though I think it will never be equal if everyone is in state schools (tuition, expensive courses etc), some private schools are incredible institutions that I wish everyone had the privilege of going to.

Has anyone said that it is a fear of mixing though? I really do not get this point at all. It has nothing to do with class whatsoever, and I think you are the only one on the forum who is stating it is. Surely it is entirely about putting your child through a system that is far more supportive than a state sector, where one or two idiots can spoil everything with no repercussions.

 

Isn't that what mixing is? Mixing with everyone.

As for 'sneering' you should be ashamed of yourself. It's you that has the belief that people are where they deserve to be, that their children are feckless no hopers.

 

You're just making things up now Moose. You are the only person here obsessed with class. I've never said that people "are where they deserve to be". I'd like to improve the State education system. Failing that I'd like people to have the option to pay for private education with their own disposable income if they wish. You can't just make accusations willy nilly whilst waving your arms in the air in an attempt to win the argument.

 

Hmmm

 

What? I am dismayed that some moronic kids will ruin it for other children and that is the equivilant to me saying people "are where they deserve to be"?

Care to explain your latest baffling logic?

 

Person A: disruptive kids ruin lessons for themselves and others
Person B: so private school kids don't want to mix with lower classes

This is not even a debate anymore. Just one person defending themselves over unfounded accusations as another puts their hands over their ears and screams 'I can't hear you'!

 

Ok, maybe that's a bit harsh and I somewhat retract.

You do however continue to bandy about the notion that some people's children are too 'moronic' (I'm reading this would have been 'a bit rough' in old money) for some people to consider sharing education with. To me that's just s******y dressed up and in London the same is largely racism dressed up. I just don't accept that the levels of disruption require the flight from the state sector we see. It would be all over the papers if middle class kids in state secondary schools were unable to complete their studies, but actually they do pretty well.

You also by the corollary of pushing the 'choice' argument ignore other kids with no choice but freely run down the schools they go to. That seems harsh to me and poorly evidenced.

Ultimately I think schooling apart is a social bad, whether for religious reasons or social ones. If you don't accept that, or believe it's any of your concern, I'm not going to change your mind. But the original point I made, that Boris's class likes to live apart is utterly unquestionable surely?

Edit - why can't you write 'snob-bery?'

 

I don't know what it is Moose. But you really do seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder about "class".

I think that is quite sad, as I honestly think that 99% of the population never think about class. You seem to be in the 1%. You will disagree, but that is what resentment and bitterness does to you.

Really, all rich or "upper class" and successful people are not evil, selfish and greedy without pressures of their own, and not all "working class" are hard working angels, and neither do they feel as downtrodden and worthless as you think.

Lighten up a bit, you are heading for an early grave.

 

Your concern is much appreciated ZZ, but I think denial is much worse for the health and you should take note. You are full of anger and disdain for people who do not share your world view. They always appear to want to take what's yours off you or constrict your freedoms.

I don't have any issue with individuals of differing classes whatsoever. I know lots of privately educated people and recognise some of the positive values in them instilled by their education and also some of their limitations. I don't deify working class people either. You are ascribing things to me that I've never said and don't believe.

You have a peculiar way of looking at the world. You are not daft, but meaning and nuance seem to pass you by. The social world is very complex and people's behaviour and life experiences transcend the simple analysis you give it. You are obsessed with socialist 'jealousy' and it colours every judgement of yours.

We came into this subject because I had the temerity to suggest that one section of society likes to live apart from another. Why this should be quite so earth shattering given the raft of clubs, organisations fellowships, networks, private estates, social events etc etc reserved for the upper class is hard for me to fathom, but imagine you were an alien visiting earth for the first time. Would you not be able to identify this group from, say where they go on holiday or how they work or where they live, or even where they send their children to school? Would you make nothing of how it endures decade after decade? Would it have no meaning?

To me that's not democratic, it's ineffective and inelegant as a social system. In Britain particularly it creates a divided country with too limited a social provision. You may think differently, but you cannot deny it is there. So don't make out I'm some kind of hater just for mentioning it. That's just weird. It's a social fact, that's that. Even Boris wouldn't deny he's posh and different.

 

"Moronic" is something that applies to people from any background. Anecdoctal, but the disruptive students at my school were always the white students. Of the two worst, one was from a relatively modest background and the other was from a reasonably well to do family.

The point I'm making is that disruptive students will be disruptive regardless of background. The difference between the State schools and the Private schools is the latter will kick the pupil out rather readily.

"Unable to complete" isn't the same thing as "negatively impacted". It's not going to turn an A into a U, but it might turn an A into a B or a B into a C. It's about small margins.

N O B

 

First of all Moose, I grew up on a council estate and never really had any money to spare until the last couple of years. If allowed, I would have voted Labour with all my heart until about 17/18 when I saw the light and my views changed. I don't hate anyone, like you hate "toffs". I never have, and never will feel annoyed to be excluded from private clubs, societies, etc, any more than I feel annoyed at being excluded from the local Labour Club. I leave those feelings of jealousy to the likes of you.

All of us have preferences as to who we mix with, and who we would prefer our kids to go to school with, but that isn't about class for most of us. It is about success, aspirations, disruptions, manners, positive/negative attitudes, and a host of other non-class related measures. That is why so many aspirational working class parents fight tooth and nail to get their kids into the better state schools, or work harder, sacrifice and save for private schools.

If I had school age children and I was looking for a school now my primary concern would be about the disruption from other kids, so discipline would be important, but also the teachers. The last teacher I would want is a Mr Moose, who doesn't believe in being the best you can be, because that doesn't matter as you'll get looked after anyway by those more successful than you.

But you are right about one thing. It is my view that many socialist type views that many people have are based on jealousy/envy. That must be the case, because normally there is no other possible sensible logic and common sense behind those views, and certainly very little successful track record that demonstrates they work. So that must leave jealousy and envy. I admit that I have and still do suffer from those unattractive traits. But instead of moaning about the success of others I have worked hard to try and close that "gap" and I resent those, like you, that want to stifle aspirations and want to reduce that same "gap" from the opposite direction - by bringing successful people down. I admit that these particular views may colour my judgement, but then I don't have a chip on my shoulder as big as yours, so perhaps it balances out.

 

We need an "outstanding like" button on this thread.

 

Moose - I have no idea why you have now brought race into the debate. Disruptive pupils are a challenge nationwide. This is not a race specific issue at all.

 

I think that wealthier people who have had success assume that people who are not wealthy are so simply because they are lazy. As you said yourself, for you a challenge to your views amounts to jealously, somebody trying to 'bring successful people down'.

That is a chip on your shoulder.

My cousin teaches in Tottenham, and there are real, sometimes enormous barriers to achievement for many pupils there for example environmentally, socially, and culturally. I believe that inequality is the source of most social problems - but you can recognise, sympathise and assist those who require it without assuming them to be lazy, ignorant or anything else. You remove institutional advantages equally as you would disadvantages. Clearly, some people are a lost cause, but that is neither here nor there.

I believe in a level playing field in education and I do not believe that wealth should equate to a leg up in it. Of course you do the best you can for your kids, but believing in institutionalised educational inequality is, for me, is absurd. Everybody should believe they have an equal opportunity to make something of themselves, better all round if the vested interests were all brought into the state education basket so everybody was pulling in the same direction. When people start saying that they shouldn't be taxed for their healthcare or schooling because they go private its a huge conflict of interest.

 

"Of course you do the best you can for your kids, but believing in institutionalised educational inequality is, for me, is absurd. Everybody should believe they have an equal opportunity to make something of themselves, better all round if the vested interests were all brought into the state education basket so everybody was pulling in the same direction. When people start saying that they shouldn't be taxed for their healthcare or schooling because they go private its a huge conflict of interest. "

I'm sure most people don't seriously expect to get a tax rebate for having private healthcare or schooling and it is never going to happen.

The problem with your thinking is you would to actively reduce the quality of education in this country (by removing private schools) and then fixing the State system after you've done it.. I would suggest the government should fix it first before you start dictating what people can or cannot spend their own money on. You seem to prefer that everyone suffers equally when they don't need to. For me that is muddled thinking and not the way to build a successful workforce.