Making sacrifices to fund private education to avoid state school crowd control - a good thing?

[Senor Chevalier]

An old topic, but popped up on a recent thread.

So what do we think people? To be applauded or scorned?

[Loz]

Providing it involves 'making sacrifices', as opposed to hocking yourself to the eyeballs or otherwise living beyond your means, then applauded.

[DJKillaQueen]

I'm morally opposed to two tier education systems.

[Senor Chevalier]

But surely there are multiple tiers within state education access to which being based on such random factors as faith and propinquity..?

[Loz]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm morally opposed to two tier education systems.

The people with money will always buy a better education for their offspring, be it extra tuition or better access to resources.

I have no issue with people going private. Apart from anything else, it means more pounds per child in the state system. More tiering within the state system to ensure the talent is correctly channelled together would be, in my opinion, a good thing as well.

[Frankito]

If you can, why not....! More focus on learning than in the state system, not to say that state school teachers don't work bloody hard.

I spent a year teaching at A'LevelCollege and left because I was so disillusioned, mostly by the studenrs laid-back attitude and the College's approach to dealing with it.. Cutting a very long story short...

If I had kids and had the choice would I rather give them more opportunity to learn or risk placing them in an environment where learning was optional..... Hmmmmmmm, no-brainer.

There are great comprehensive schools out there, I went to one in Scotland so I think I know what I am talking about.

[DJKillaQueen]

I favour equal opportunity over bought opportunity. The majority of cambridge and oxford students are selected from private schools. And whilst there are some good state schools/ independent schools etc, the fact remains that the majority of children attending state schools, irregardless of merit, or ability will be failed by that education system through no fault of their own. Do you want to pay more taxes so that the average class size in a state school can be as low as that in the private sector? And don't even get me started on the problems some parents are having just finding a state school place for their child, let alone on in a decent enough school.

[Senor Chevalier]

Is irregardless a word?

[Judy22]

oh ! Si

[Senor Chevalier]

Still DJ, my cockish remarks aside, people can be forgiven for not taking the moral stand that you do. Parents cannot be expected to reconcile wanting to do the best for their children with sending them into a system that is likely to fail them through no fault of their own.

[tog_in_sox]

Provided the "sacrifices" are "easily" made and aren't the buffer that keeps you in possession of your home should other things turn bad then it's a safe(ish) call.

Private school without bursary and other assistance is what? c?20k pa? Day school or boarder?

How far away is acceptable to send him/her/them?

Have you heard of Christ's Hospital? They're struggling to maintain their charter of access and a new balance of full fee paying students is under consideration but they're perhaps one to consider although competition for places is very high.

If your kid(s) is/are bright then giving them the opportunities you can to be the "best they can be" is to be supported. Don't let it be a substitute for putting in the personal quality time with them to ensure they feel encouraged, supported and loved. I've seen friends work all the hours to pay the bills and miss the time with the kids. It's particularly critical if your child needs extra attention and support in overcoming difficulties and impairments.

Think very carefully about how much of a stretch and a stress it's going to be because it will affect how you respond to life's challenges in the future including the possibility that your child may not meet the expectations you build because of the sacrifices you and your partner make.

If you're considering private schooling then it's a fair presumption that you're hoping that they'll make it to Uni. Does your career plan allow for that?

I've friends who've had to consider withdrawing their kids from private school when things became too much, the effect on the children could be significant at a critical time.

Likely like you all I've met and worked with plenty and befriended many from both State and Private education backgrounds. I don't think either origin has subsequently shown itself to encourage or quell the sense of entitlement, animosity, magnanimity, honesty, humility or ability demonstrated by these individuals to any greater or lesser degree.

I don't mean to be condescending just straight-talking it from my experience and hindsight. I wish you and your kids the best in this ever more competitive world.

DJKQ,

In a society where our social and moral compass were more universally directed to equality and fraternity I'd wholly support that access to great education should be free to all. In a world where it's patently not so, what do you tell the few children that have potential that can be encouraged and maximised at their parents' expense, but you would deny them that opportunity for the maintenance of a mediocrity?

We should be focusing on the marshalling of resources and encouragement for those who have to depend on the State for their education and yes, ensuring that their access to job opportunities and higher education is won on merit not nepotism and certainly not quota. That battle does not have to be fought in the fields of education, it has to be waged via legislation which guides, protects and benefits our workers and employers from straying from the morality we would seek to succeed with. A toughie to accomplish in a measured, evenhanded way but that is our challenge for a more sustainable future.

[DJKillaQueen]

Senor Chevalier Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> people can be forgiven for not taking the moral stand that you do. Parents cannot be expected to reconcile

> wanting to do the best for their children with sending them into a system that is likely to fail

> them through no fault of their own.

This I can totally understand of course. My gripe is more with inequality per se.....and I think we all share some responsibility for addressing that.

Tog, you know as well as I do that the many of the kids in the public school system are not the brightest society has to offer whilst far brighter kids never get access to that quality of education. I also beleive that addressing inequality within our education system is the starting point for addressing inequality in society long term.

[citizenED]

I would agree with a two tier system if it meant that all the most under-priveleged, under-valued and marginalised kids went to the Etons and Harrows and Dulwich Colleges with all their expertise, resources and small classes and everyone who had a happy, stable home life with supportive families and social networks went to reasonable state schools.

[maxxi]

Would this not lead to

"Est vos irreverens mihi? Vos can't tactus mihi vir it's obviam lex innit?"

[tog_in_sox]

DJKQ,

I made no claim that all or a majority of those in private schools were bright, but a good number are bright enough to make a difference, and as you say 50% of Oxbridge intake is not inconsiderable. And just because many aren't bright you would deny all the others their futures? Inequality in the education system will take longer than the next few generations of A-level takers. The social engineering to address the challenged children's underlying issues of morality, respect, attention span, etc will require a societal shift you can't just fix by eliminating private education. The inclusion you aspire too will not be won overnight and in the meantime would it be right to deny opportunity to those children who are poised to well for themselves. You still need to redesign the whole educational curriculum to give kids the opportunities to find their fortes, convince them that some subjects are truly fundamental, cultivate an appreciation within them that all can make a worthy contribution to community and that dedicated work is the most satisfying route to success not because it earns big bucks but because achieving goals, making things, doing things that bring happiness and prosperity to self and others is the real reward.

Successful integrated education will only be possible when enough of the majority intake are inclined to be educated. Then we will have the opportunity to truly assist the less inclined to face their objections and hopefully realise that these can be overcome to their benefit.

It's not so much about peer pressure as self-actualisation, raising their awareness of self and others to where they can make a reasoned, moral evaluation to their advantage and not at the expense of others.

[Senor Chevalier]

It's been a while since Caecilius so I'm having to interpret a bit but I feel you

Luckily I've been practicing my reading between the lines on Richardbachs's posts all w/e...

[Marmora Man]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I favour equal opportunity over bought opportunity. The majority of cambridge and oxford students are selected from private schools. And whilst there are some good state schools/independent schools etc, the fact remains that the majority of children attending state schools, irregardless of merit, or ability will be failed by that education system through no fault of their own. Do you want to pay more taxes so that the average class size in a state school can be as low as that in the private sector? And don't even get me started on the problems some parents are having just finding a state school place for their child, let alone on in a decent enough school.

However, it's political / educational orthodoxy which is at fault. By the 1960's public fee paying schools were becoming an irrelevance and represented a small minority of educations. Between 1950 and 1970 grammar school pupils went to Oxbridge and university in general in large and ever increasing mumbers. Then the Labour Party and Anthony Crossland vowed to shut every f*****g grammar school in England and Wales as they were elitist. Their work was continued by the Conservatives under Thatcher. Perversly it was a generation of grammar school educated, Oxbridge graduate politicians that implemented this foolish policy.

Result - a flawed but effective meritocracy in education was replaced by an even more flawed comprehensive system. Allied to an educational theory, which regrettably still has its supporters, that held it to be wrong to force learning (natural curiosity would do the trick), wrong to applaud success and competition this meant a dumbing down of much of our education system and the consequent rise of fee paying schools.

A return to the three tier Grammar, Technical, Secondary Modern approach - this time allied to a more flexible and sensitive streaming policy could, over a two generations, again reduce the reliance upon fee paying schools.

However, in today's system - I quite understand and applaud anyone making sacrifices for their children to go to a successful school that will help them achieve of their best.

[mockney piers]

World Wide Words point out that 'irregardless' is becoming a defacto word as it's a century old and has wide usage, despite strong opposition.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-irr1.htm

[mynamehere]

Here's an "e-petition" to sign:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/774

"The reintroduction of State Grammar Schools

Responsible department: Department for Education

To effectively support pupils who show ability and desire to achieve, State Grammar Schools should be reintroduced as part of population density based school cluster learning hubs. To counter any possible charge of elitism, these schools should be first located in the most deprived communities."

[DJKillaQueen]

Oooh lot's of points here.....

Tog....I think we both would agree no kid should be denied a bright future (and certainly not on the grounds of whether they were lucky enough to be born into affluence or not)? I can't sit easily with an idea that says the brightest kids of the wealthy have more right to a bright future for their kids that the brightest kids of the poor....

I totally agree with you that it will require a shift over generations and that abolishment of the public school sector would not be the answer. The fact remains that public schools on the whole are better schools. So the rationale for me has to be to ask why and then replicate that in the state sector for those kids that respond to that kind of schooling (but didn't we have that once anyway? MM's comments on Grammar schools are spot on).....

Then you run into all kinds of funding problems. The replication the class sizes alone would require doubling the teaching staff of state schools.

But if we have to have things the way they are then I would argue that only the brightest kids should go to those public schools and that those unable to afford it be given scholarships, paid for by the state. Because that's what investment in the brightest really means.

It goes without saying though that we have to change what is going on in the state school system too. Kids leaving school unable to spell properly, or do basic maths......what idiot decided it was a good idea to abolish spelling tests and reciting times tables in junior schools? The experiment of the past two decades has failed and like MM says, it's totally understandable why parents, if they can afford it, don't want their children in the state system.

My dad went to a grammer school and every town had one...they were the poor families public schools. Abolishing them was just idiotic and as MM rightly says, cut off the route to Oxford for so many from those backgrounds.....never to be replaced.

We have to go back to understanding that not all children are the same. Yes they all have abilities, but not in the same things. What doesn't help us of course is that we are no longer a nation with manual skilled jobs. There are no apprenticeships that don't require passing exams and in some cases having a degree even. So we try and turn every kid into university material and then wonder why we fail.

[Senor Chevalier]

Seems to be support for the grammar school from a broad base. Any contrary views?

I wish it had been an option for me. All that was available in my area was a means tested assisted place to a private school. It was a good school and I'm gratefull an all, but can't help but think there'd've been fewer tosspots in a grammar school.

Edited to correct the spelling of "grammer" (sic) - oh the shame.

[tog_in_sox]

No, no, no! Making all the bright ones go to public/private schools whether on bursary/scholarship/sponsorship is not part of the answer. You still run the risk of creating a culture of entitlement and elitism. Both systems should represent a cross-section of intellectual capability so that students evolve in as pluralist a representation of human capability as possible (money, ahem, aside). The flaunting of wealth and possessions is something that should be addressed at all schools.

The one thing that can be learned from private schools? That instilling discipline in children is the duty of every parent and the respect of authority should be shown by every member of an organisation. Sadly that's no great revelation and the deterence of exclusion/expulsion from private school to flounder in the state system along with the shame borne by the parents in their social circles is not replicated in the same action by a state school.

Shared facilities across the state and private sector might go some way to integration, tolerance and cohesion. Area teams composed of the top local students competing regionally and nationally.

Intercollegiate study groups, peer-to-peer mentoring and shared extracurricular interest groups. Students should be helping students with the oversight and support of the teachers from across the establishments.

Perhaps this kind of sharing would go some way to dismissing the prejudices of auld.

[DJKillaQueen]

But there's a contradicton right their togs....affluence already creates an elitism in public schools. So we have a private school system that is culturally poor because it mainly services children from a similar affluent demographic rather than the brightest from a cross range of demographics.

I think both options lead to an elitism tbh but I think the elitism of the latter is morally better than the elitism of the former....and when it comes to occupying the top jobs in Law, politics, Medicine etc at least guarantees a mix of people from different backgrounds. At the moment we don't have that. We have the affluent buying the majority of the privilege.....and in the long term that is devisive, where only the children of the wealthier middle classes and above will occupy those jobs that shape our society. The current government cabinet is a classic example of that process. Where are the ordinary people done good that can identity with the ordinary man on the street. They are just not there....and it matters.

I do think your ideas on exchange between the two systems are good ones. And I think your point regarding discipline is also a very valid one. Teachers should not be afraid of pupils or worse still their parents. But nor do we want to see a return to pupils being terrified of teachers either. There's no place for bullies on either side of the classroom.

I do think though that a return to a grammar school system is the way to go for those children that are bright and/ or want to learn. We then have to come up with an equally good system of education that works for the others.

[DaveR]

"Both systems should represent a cross-section of intellectual capability so that students evolve in as pluralist a representation of human capability as possible"

This is the sort of muddled thinking that got us into our present mess. It's perfectly possible to instil respect for all whilst allowing kids to be educated in the most effective way, which is obviously in groups that are matched to ability and aptitude. Do you want a cross-section of intellectual capabilities in medical schools? Or, for that matter, a cross-section of manual skills in carpentry schools?

Grammar schools would be great, provided the alternatives on offer for kids who are not suited at that age to that sort of education are properly organised and funded to provide high quality vocational education. And also enough flexibility to cater for late developers. That's the real challenge.

[peterstorm1985]

Being born 'bright', by which I presume you mean having a high IQ, is no less a matter of chance than being born into a rich family. I'm not sure why it means you should deserve more.

I went to a Direct Grant school in the 70s. The system provided a grant for private schools to take a proportion of children who would otherwise be in the state sector. There were differences in the way the system was applied* but in my school's case, the method of choosing those children was a simple lottery. Names of all children went into a hat and if you were lucky you got a place. It did exclude children from special schools and remedial units but many of the new pupils entering the school at 13 had difficulties reading, so a broad base.

The value of this system was that the 'grant' was no more than the amount spent on those same children in the state sector, it gave the state sector a benchmark of what a pupil could achieve, regardless of background, and it randomly spread messages of work ethic and aspiration into homes that might otherwise not have that example.

Interestingly, while this system was in existence, the local state schools had remarkable results. As soon as the system was ended (by Barbara Castle) the local state schools went into decline. No benchmark.

It is notable that class sizes in my school averaged 30, and that pupils entering the school at 13 with projections of no GCE results regularly obtained 6 or more good grades.

*Some counties/schools were selective