State school or Public school?

[BLOCK F]

The point you were making was fair enough. Your choice of analogy to make that point was completely absurd.

I agree with that, so lets change tack.

Those that are paying for private education are doing so by paying through the nose on income that has already been taxed. It ought to be considered very poor value for money, when you consider they have already paid for their kids' right to an education through taxes.

So isn't it the case that the challenge ought to be to persuade the electorate to spend FAR more on education and raise taxes by 2p in the £ to pay for it? Make sure education is up to standard pretty much everywhere. This may mean smaller class sizes and higher spending in more challenging areas of the country than in other places, but we need to remove the stigma of state education to middle classes in areas where hard working tax payers feel obliged to go private.

This issue ought not to be the class war that it is to some. You will never stop those of obscene wealth and privilege from sending their kids to Harrow and Eton without banning them, and I can't see the point of that. But as a nation, I feel we ought to aspire to have our state education up to standards somewhere approaching the thousands of private schools with good facilities and smaller class sizes. I genuinely believe that 95% of people sending their kids to these schools are doing so with the best of intentions rather than snobbery.

Simster,it is 'knucklehead' here.I am somewhat surprised that you couldn't/wouldn't see the point I was making re Jetset's post but so be it.
I agree with the majority of your post,but do not think that it is just a question of pushing more money at the problem.It certainly hasn't worked in certain parts of the NHS,whch unfortunately my wife has discovered over the past year.
Seems to be the same old arguments on dear old NSC about this one and appears many posters would rather the authorities ban private education than try to raise standards in the public sector.
P.S.Have you edited your post or am I getting senile(quite possible!)Don't think my analogy was that daft.I was trying to point out the lack of punishment.Anyway,we can agree to disagree!

 

[JetsetJimbo]

Aol,I was making a point about Jetset Jimbo stating that poor children were being punished for their parents poverty.
Not knuckleheaded at all.Read Jetset's post and then make a more considered reply!

It won't surprise you that I'm with aolstudios on this one, although perhaps I should have expanded on the point I was trying to make. It's been shown that parental interest is a huge indicator of educational attainment: put simply, if you grow up surrounded by books in a family that values education you're likely to do ok even in a state school. However, we've got a situation in a lot of western countries where large numbers of kids are brought up (and I use the term "brought up" very loosely) by parents who don't give a damn. Sometimes this is the parents' fault, sometimes it isn't, but the effect is the same.

Private education, which as I said previously cements undeserved privilege and the class system in this country, effectively condemns the kids I'm talking about, by creaming off the best teachers and- more importantly in my view- the "sharp-elbowed parents" who, without private education, would be pointing their activism towards making sure whichever state school their Tristans and Jemimas ended up at were delivering. Even more significantly, the handing down of privilege from generation to generation, which is so prevalent in the UK and has resulted in many sought-after jobs being effectively hereditary, would be shattered, as bright-but-poor kids would no longer be shut out from the networking and connection-forming that private schools currently monopolise for the rich. Am I really the only person uncomfortable with the fact that the people who run Britain's government, financial system and legal system all know each other from private school? I suspect not, and I also suspect that there are a lot of people who could do a better job if the right school tie wasn't a prerequisite.

So yeah, I maintain that the very existence of private education is a punishment for poor kids and that aolstudios was right on the money

 

[Simster]

Simster,it is 'knucklehead' here.I am somewhat surprised that you couldn't/wouldn't see the point I was making re Jetset's post but so be it.
I agree with the majority of your post,but do not think that it is just a question of pushing more money at the problem.It certainly hasn't worked in certain parts of the NHS,whch unfortunately my wife has discovered over the past year.
Seems to be the same old arguments on dear old NSC about this one and appears many posters would rather the authorities ban private education than try to raise standards in the public sector.

I thought I had made it clear that I did see your point, I just felt that your Rolls Royce analogy was ridiculous. One is an obscene flaunting of wealth, the other is all about the lengths people might go to for their kids to be educated to standard.

I also agree with you that banning private education is a daft idea and in any case I can guarantee that it would never EVER get through parliament. Think of the kerfuffle surrounding fox hunting, and the way the Lords disgracefully kept pushing it back to the commons.

 

[BLOCK F]

I thought I had made it clear that I did see your point, I just felt that your Rolls Royce analogy was ridiculous. One is an obscene flaunting of wealth, the other is all about the lengths people might go to for their kids to be educated to standard.

I also agree with you that banning private education is a daft idea and in any case I can guarantee that it would never EVER get through parliament. Think of the kerfuffle surrounding fox hunting, and the way the Lords disgracefully kept pushing it back to the commons.

Yup,you did see my point after your edit,but that did not seem to be the case when I was composing my original reply.

 

[bhaexpress]

I thought I had made it clear that I did see your point, I just felt that your Rolls Royce analogy was ridiculous. One is an obscene flaunting of wealth, the other is all about the lengths people might go to for their kids to be educated to standard.

I also agree with you that banning private education is a daft idea and in any case I can guarantee that it would never EVER get through parliament. Think of the kerfuffle surrounding fox hunting, and the way the Lords disgracefully kept pushing it back to the commons.

One way of improving public services and the NHS is to get rid of a lot of the senior management in both. There are so many deadbeat, stuck in the mud OIPs (Only Interested in Pension) in both they are resistant to change and cause a lot of problems with their attitude.

 

[BLOCK F]

It won't surprise you that I'm with aolstudios on this one, although perhaps I should have expanded on the point I was trying to make. It's been shown that parental interest is a huge indicator of educational attainment: put simply, if you grow up surrounded by books in a family that values education you're likely to do ok even in a state school. However, we've got a situation in a lot of western countries where large numbers of kids are brought up (and I use the term "brought up" very loosely) by parents who don't give a damn. Sometimes this is the parents' fault, sometimes it isn't, but the effect is the same.

Private education, which as I said previously cements undeserved privilege and the class system in this country, effectively condemns the kids I'm talking about, by creaming off the best teachers and- more importantly in my view- the "sharp-elbowed parents" who, without private education, would be pointing their activism towards making sure whichever state school their Tristans and Jemimas ended up at were delivering. Even more significantly, the handing down of privilege from generation to generation, which is so prevalent in the UK and has resulted in many sought-after jobs being effectively hereditary, would be shattered, as bright-but-poor kids would no longer be shut out from the networking and connection-forming that private schools currently monopolise for the rich. Am I really the only person uncomfortable with the fact that the people who run Britain's government, financial system and legal system all know each other from private school? I suspect not, and I also suspect that there are a lot of people who could do a better job if the right school tie wasn't a prerequisite.

So yeah, I maintain that the very existence of private education is a punishment for poor kids and that aolstudios was right on the money

Jetset,agree completely with your first paragraph.However I think you are over egging the pudding somewhat in your second para graph and your views are rather out of date.As for your third paragraph, that is tosh!

 

[aolstudios]

It won't surprise you that I'm with aolstudios on this one, although perhaps I should have expanded on the point I was trying to make. It's been shown that parental interest is a huge indicator of educational attainment: put simply, if you grow up surrounded by books in a family that values education you're likely to do ok even in a state school. However, we've got a situation in a lot of western countries where large numbers of kids are brought up (and I use the term "brought up" very loosely) by parents who don't give a damn. Sometimes this is the parents' fault, sometimes it isn't, but the effect is the same.

Private education, which as I said previously cements undeserved privilege and the class system in this country, effectively condemns the kids I'm talking about, by creaming off the best teachers and- more importantly in my view- the "sharp-elbowed parents" who, without private education, would be pointing their activism towards making sure whichever state school their Tristans and Jemimas ended up at were delivering. Even more significantly, the handing down of privilege from generation to generation, which is so prevalent in the UK and has resulted in many sought-after jobs being effectively hereditary, would be shattered, as bright-but-poor kids would no longer be shut out from the networking and connection-forming that private schools currently monopolise for the rich. Am I really the only person uncomfortable with the fact that the people who run Britain's government, financial system and legal system all know each other from private school? I suspect not, and I also suspect that there are a lot of people who could do a better job if the right school tie wasn't a prerequisite.

So yeah, I maintain that the very existence of private education is a punishment for poor kids and that aolstudios was right on the money

this - it's not envy, just hope for something like democracy

 

[Seagull27]

It's interesting that out of the 61 voters so far, not one would let their kids choose where they go. Assuming we're talking about secondary schools here, would anyone allow their 11-12 year olds to make the decision themselves?

 

[whitelion]

I went to a state Grammar School and would have no problem sending my child to a state school. In fact my son went to Hove Park and obtained a 1st in Physics at Reading Uni. If I had the money I guess I would go to the public school route though. Just feel that the standard of education and pupils is higher. Ooer, does that make me a snob?

 

[User removed 4]

It won't surprise you that I'm with aolstudios on this one, although perhaps I should have expanded on the point I was trying to make. It's been shown that parental interest is a huge indicator of educational attainment: put simply, if you grow up surrounded by books in a family that values education you're likely to do ok even in a state school. However, we've got a situation in a lot of western countries where large numbers of kids are brought up (and I use the term "brought up" very loosely) by parents who don't give a damn. Sometimes this is the parents' fault, sometimes it isn't, but the effect is the same.

Private education, which as I said previously cements undeserved privilege and the class system in this country, effectively condemns the kids I'm talking about, by creaming off the best teachers and- more importantly in my view- the "sharp-elbowed parents" who, without private education, would be pointing their activism towards making sure whichever state school their Tristans and Jemimas ended up at were delivering. Even more significantly, the handing down of privilege from generation to generation, which is so prevalent in the UK and has resulted in many sought-after jobs being effectively hereditary, would be shattered, as bright-but-poor kids would no longer be shut out from the networking and connection-forming that private schools currently monopolise for the rich. Am I really the only person uncomfortable with the fact that the people who run Britain's government, financial system and legal system all know each other from private school? I suspect not, and I also suspect that there are a lot of people who could do a better job if the right school tie wasn't a prerequisite.

So yeah, I maintain that the very existence of private education is a punishment for poor kids and that aolstudios was right on the money

From 1964-1997 every prime minister was state school educated , mervyn king went to wolverhampton grammar, although independent , hardly a bastion of upper class privilege,in short I dont think your argument holds water.

 

[User removed 4]

It's interesting that out of the 61 voters so far, not one would let their kids choose where they go. Assuming we're talking about secondary schools here, would anyone allow their 11-12 year olds to make the decision themselves?

i would like my kids to go to private schol, the eldest starts secondary this september, he is adamant that he is going to the local state comprehensive , which is thankfully supposed to be good.

 

[brightn'ove]

i know someone who went to stringer......got straight a's at a-level (including over 95% in politics) and has degree's from oxford and harvard

if you're clever and applied enough you don't need private school

this, i went to blatch and got 2A*s and an A at a level, currently at uni.

you dont need to go to private school to do well, it just helps. that is the problem!

 

[JetsetJimbo]

From 1964-1997 every prime minister was state school educated , mervyn king went to wolverhampton grammar, although independent , hardly a bastion of upper class privilege,in short I dont think your argument holds water.

So you don't think private education and the class system are related? What about the years before 1964 and more importantly after 1997 (i.e. now, which is when I'm talking about)?

 

[Nibble]

Haven't read much of this thread but I went to both Private and State schools. While Private school education is vastly superior to state. I got in on a single parent scholarship so don't know how muchit costs normally but I think at the time it was about 5 grand a term. Hated the place, boarding and th emilitary lifestyle just wasn't for me. I got good results mainly because I was forced to do the work though.

I would have no problem sending any kids I may have to State school.

 

[Randsta]

If you can afford it Private all the way! state school filled with plebs going nowhere

 

[The Merry Prankster]

If you can afford it Private all the way! state school filled with plebs going nowhere

Don't stand next to any walls come the revolution.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

If you can afford it Private all the way! state school filled with plebs going nowhere

I think you need to go to a grammar school though.

 

[public school boy]

If I had children, I would never send them to a state school to mix with common children.

 

[Gwylan]

Even more significantly, the handing down of privilege from generation to generation, which is so prevalent in the UK and has resulted in many sought-after jobs being effectively hereditary, would be shattered, as bright-but-poor kids would no longer be shut out from the networking and connection-forming that private schools currently monopolise for the rich. Am I really the only person uncomfortable with the fact that the people who run Britain's government, financial system and legal system all know each other from private school? I suspect not, and I also suspect that there are a lot of people who could do a better job if the right school tie wasn't a prerequisite.

Agree totally with this.

if it were a case of buying a better education, I see nothing wrong with it, people can spend their money as they like. But what they're buying is access to the best job - in effect, paying a bribe (although no-one calls it that).

I think, to their credit, some of the universities are beginning to address this and are beginning to favour kids from state schools but there's little that can be done to stop the stuffing of the legal service and civil service with ex public school types.

I used to go out with a lawyer and I'll never forget that she didn't invite me to her chambers' dinner as she'd feel embarrassed when her colleagues found out that I'd gone to a grammar school and a modern university. She thought that she'd be laughed out for going out with someone with a poor education. I always considered myself pretty well informed about the world but that incident revealed a pretty old-fashioned mindset but sadly, one that is all-too common.