Fee-paying schools: classic or dud

No. Yes. No. No.

It's okay to discuss both, but I think it's pretty horrible having a knee-jerk reaction over something so petty.

It was my parents' decision to send me to a fee-paying school (in the US, this is called a "private" school, but we would have gone to a "public" school had we stayed in the US). By my late teens, I had discovered political awareness, and insisted on being transferred to the local state school to finish my education. It was the worst six months of my entire educational career (including the bizarre Christian Scientist school where they used to beat us and lock us in closets).

My conclusion is that someone who went to a poor state school like that had a very different educational experience than me, and will have been molded into a different person. I am not going to draw conclusions about which is better or worse, but I am aware that I have had some kind of advantage.

The principal difference is that 99.9% of parents of private/public school kids have an interest in their children's education, purely by virtue of being willing to pay thousands for it. In parents of state school children the figure is considerably lower. Obviously that is going to foster a different culture.

Fee-paying schools are dud in so many ways in Britain. As a way of perpetuating inequality they're second to none, the standard of your education being determined by your parents' income seems archaic to me.

Secondly, and this applies to all selective schools,it's just a shame to spend your formative years amongst just people who are similar to you. I've met peolpe in Britain who went their whole childhood never meeting a kid from a council house or even never meeting any afro-caribean kids.

Thirdly, and maybe most importantly, whilst the people who decide British educational policy don't send their kids to state schools the standard of British schools will never improve.

Here's a thought, rather than banning private schools, how about this? Any politician, council member, educational Trades Unionist who has any bearing on education policy must send their children to a state school (same for the Health service too, come to think of it). How quickly do you think money would be put into state education then?

i find the idea of private schools an absolute abomination. I've been raised the perfect liberal in that respect.

I don't have knee-jerk reaction against people who went to them (besides you generally only find out what school they went once you've established roughly whether they're dicks or not...) but I do think i've met a lot of wanks from Private Schools. I think they can be the breeding ground for a certain kind of wank. State schools too: just different kinds of wanks...

and Winterland: YES! that should be made the law. to have people in power who are willing to say what's good for us, yet send their kids to eton is horrible...

Is education a basic right? Yes, being taught how to read, write, perform arithmetic, type, and perform basic functions necessary for work is a basic right of living in civilised society. Not everyone NEEDS and not everyone even has the ability or the desire for more than that.

The sort of blanket socialist approach to education that winterland suggests - do you really think that it would raise *all* education to a uniform high standard? No, I think it would dillute education to the point of being meaningless.

It's that good old British reverse classism. Anything that supports or perpetuates the Class System is evil and must go, even if it does actually provide some kind of benefit.

I agree that wealth and status are not good indication of who deserves or even is able to utilise further education. In a perfect world, scholarships would be based on merit. A good education, good teachers, facilities, etc. - it's not free. Provide more money for all schools? What a great idea! But where's it going to come from?

There will *always* be inequality in education. News flash! Get rid of fee-paying schools, and you are not going to get rid of the class system! Ban Public Schools, and wealthy parents will hire private tutors. Parents to whom learning is important will imbue their offspring with a love of learning. The number one factor in determining or measuring how well a child will do at school is not wealth, is not whether the child goes to public or state school, it's the number of books in the parents' home.

My state school was paid for by property taxes, and it was good enough to send 20 students in my class to Ivies and the next 80 to other prestigious schools, out of a class of 400. The schools in my old state are very good, though.

Kate OTM about books in the home. My mum's were in her dresser drawer. Hollywood Wives sure taught me a lot!

Xpost

one way to undermine them (i've mentioned this before): anyone who pays for compulsory education has to pay fullcost (ie the same as overseas students) for higher education.

kate's kind of right about the postcode lottery, but i think now it's even more insidious that that with so-called "parental choice", ie middle-class parents who know how to work the system tick all the boxes to get into the schools perceived to be the best, whereas those with less knowledge of how to play the game (regardless of how interested they are in their child's education) end up at the "bog-standard comps"...

...ooh hello, i appear to be on my high horse, sorry...

I agree that wealth and status are not good indication of who deserves or even is able to utilise further education. In a perfect world, scholarships would be based on merit.

Fee-Playing or "first class" or whatever you want to call them schools should continue to exist so that persons who show that merit can get scholarships to them.

If you provide a "first class" education to the average patron of a cattle-hall style state school (I am describing the school I went to) it will be wasted. Should you waste time and money improving the cattle hall, or should you provide the means and the money to get bright and motivated students to better schools? I think the latter.

Education is one of the few things I am perfectly happy, in fact I think it is necessary to have a two-tier system for.

x-post...

I'd rather go with want rather need as the basis for educational distribution. But then I'm one of those optimistic pro-intellectual and pro-education types who believes that education in itself is a positive good. I don't think we should be forcing people to learn anything beyond the basics, but anyone who wants to go further should be able to.

Ability wrt education is a whole great box of weasels which I don't particularly want to get into.

Xpost: yeah, what Carsmile said abt middle-class parents.

The overseas fee to attend Oxford still works out cheaper than Eton, Westminster etc.

Good state schools find ways to support everyone. Mine did. But one of the reasons they worked so well is because parents who might've gone private if living on the East Coast did not keep their kids out of our midst.

and scholarships don't work (unless you have an entirely scholarship based programme which would just be silly). The amount of people I have met who have been sent to a private school on a scholarship and then recieved hideous bullying for being *working class* is not worth thinking about.

Xpost

incidentally: how early do you think one can tell if a child is deserving of a first rate education? t

I agree. But I do NOT want to waste another penny of my hard-earned taxes sending a ned with entitlement issues, like, oh, say, C-man, to further education! It's just a waste!

I hope you're joking with the use of 'ned' there...

I'm not sure that motivation is something you can teach, anyway.

(x-post, yes, I am joking with the use of "ned")

BUT what I'm asking for is equality of opportunity. Does everyone need a first-class education? Maybe not. Should everyone have that chance? Yes, yes and yes again. What do you do with smart kids whose parents don't have books in the home, don't do their homework with them? Is it fair to say 'if your parents don't care about your education, neither should the state?'

The fact is that Britain's state schools are run by people who often have no stake in their quality. An end to selective schools would force them to look at standards in their local schools.

And do all people DESERVE a first-class education? Well yes, who exactly is it that you think doesn't?

Is education a basic right? Yes, being taught how to read, write, perform arithmetic, type, and perform basic functions necessary for work is a basic right of living in civilised society. Not everyone NEEDS and not everyone even has the ability or the desire for more than that.

*but* how are you going to decide who gets to go to the good schools? when do you make this decision? at birth?

(several x-posts)

The difference is that its easier to coast at private schools if you know exactly which hoops to jump through while at state school its easier to drop out altogether.

There's another reason why private school exam results are so good, which is that they don't bother entering you if they don't expect you to pass.

Winterland OTM.

I agree with all your points. I just disagree with the methodology of achieving it.

What do you do with smart kids whose parents don't have books in the home, don't do their homework with them? Is it fair to say 'if your parents don't care about your education, neither should the state?'

Is the responsibility for children the responsibility of the individual, or the responsibility of the state? We are getting down to the core problem that I have with socialism and this way of thinking.

What do you say? Sorry, kid, you lost the genetic lottery. You got dud parents. My experience is that kids who are bright, kids who are motivated will *always* find a way to get what they need. As evidenced by the number of bright kids from a non-posh, non-public-school background made good on this very board and this very thread. Should it perhaps be easier? Yes. But should we do it for them, at the expense of others? No.

occasionally i used to see suggestions like removing the charitable status of public schools/putting a huge tax on school fees. would any of these work?

i've definitely met people for whom this wasn't the case.

did you go to one? No.

would you send your kids to one? Hell no! I'm paying for education through my taxes. Do you expect me to pay TWICE for something? What kind of mug do you take me for?

do you have a knee-jerk prejudice against people who went to them? No.

xpost

http://www.northwood-cheltenham.co.uk/assets/images/Cheltenham_Ladies_College.jpg

having won a scholarship when I was 11. I was very, very happy there and remember my school days with much fondness.

Yes (although in Nigeria & Pakistan, not the UK, where I went to state grammar [selective] school in Kent)

No, but I might move to an area with good schools, although I'm not planning on kids ever anyway

No but I believe from my experiences at (haha a tewwibly elite Oxbridge) university that public schools and/or growing up with parents that send their kids to them encourage(s) said offspring to act like complete twatpackets until they grow a brain in a rather higher proportion than the general public.

(This may be different in the UK than in America... for varying reasons.)

It is essential to be educated with people from as many possible walks of life as you can manage, otherwise it's much less of an actual education.

I think the problem with Kate's argument is the conflation of intelligence with motivation. The notion that every bright pupil is in a social climate where they want to succeed. In many schools there's a stulifying climate where academic success if frowned upon among pupils. How do you get these people out of that state of mind? This is an age old problem of course and not one I expect us to get round on this thread.

I am not missing the irony in champion procrastinators like most of us discussing motivation either ;)

Is that part of education? *Can* that be part of education? Is this something the State should even be getting involved with?

but why is that the case, that people think that these faith schools are better. if they are better, why are they better?

to me, this is totally shit! why the fuck should you be able to a school where you dont give a shit about any of the things that underpins the school?! how is this justifiable? so that the 'system' can be bought down from within!??

sorry, but whenever i hear people totally railing against religion, i am always reminded of 'disgusted of tunbridge wells', sitting behind a net curtain complaining about immigrants, gay people etc etc.

billions of people in this world ascribe to a certain religion, many people in this country do as well (and that number is growing, though it is still a minority (isnt it?)), so deal with the fact that they are there. whether they should be allowed to set up a school that introduces their beliefs into a curriculum.....well, is there really no civil liberty element to this?

as, matt says, they shouldnt be funded by the state, if you are going to separate yourself off from the state, then you shouldnt get funding from the state. (although, to be brutally honest, i dont agree with religious schools existence at all, children should not be taken out of the state system, they should be able to go tia religious school on saturdays or evenings, but no one should have the right to opt out of the state education system)

Yeah, act of worship is compulsory. Which is completely farcical.

is this definitely still true? i had a feeling it had changed a couple of years ago. i could be wrong, though.

ok so my rant was kinda pointless, but what i wanted to say was, what does "anti denominational schools" mean? do you want to ban them? it seems on this thread that people are talking about fee-payin, and now faith schools, in a totally theoretical, i-wish, way, but when confronted with what is the logical conclusion of their wishes, bottle out. there is loads of 'well i dont think fee-paying schools should exist, but i dont like the idea of banning things'. what about the practicalities?
that is why i mentioned my stereotype amil-reader. he is the guy who, wants all non anglo saxons to be removed from the country, and all gay people to cease to exist somehow, but he is flying in the face of what is happening outside his window, where the society he is so against, is established, probably irrevocably so, and just getting on with it. this is why his rants are so impotent, because they are so wishy washy.

enough with the hesitancy people! no more 'I think I'd be' conditionality. N, what would be the circumstances in which you think that you would be against anti denominational schools? if that is what you think you would be, what are you now? (nb i am not getting at you, it is just a good example of the kinda indecisiveness displyed on this thread).

a key issue here to me is that many problems with state education stem from the fact that they are managed so badly (and that policy is heading in the wrong direction). Teachers are swamped with bureaucracy, playing fields are sold off to developers, the curriculum is becoming optimised so that all work done, no matter whether it be maths, english or art, ceases to become something that requires judgement (by a teacher), and onyl required to fit into certiain boxes that can be ticked (preferably read by a computer come exam time).

is there not a case that private schools, aside from better resources, selection policies etc etc, often provide better results because they are (to quite a large extent) free from the whims and (frequent) foolishness of those that decide education policy. if general studies is a waste of time, then they can ditch it. RE can be taken or left, teachers dont have to submit feedback reports after each lesson detailing how they think thier performance went.
there is money/resources available in the state sector but it gets trasehed before anyone actually linked with an school can use it on what is patently needed.

like, lets buy a computer for every school child! get them on the net! er, that will be really good for no specific reason!
good one TB.

best headline i saw in barcelona - "Terrassa city government report that computer usage in schools is 0%"

on a side-note, anyone see that 'secret diary of a teahcer; in private eye? that was pretty depressing.

It would help if the middle classes were prepared to pay taxes to improve the education system (you know like they do in the rest of Europe?) instead of spending ever more money to make sure their sons and daughters end up as professionals no matter how intelligent or well suited they may be to be in those professions. Long sentence.

I'm totally against fee paying schools.

Damn lot of msgs to wade through. . .many heated.

My answers to orignal question:

should fee-paying schools exist?

sure, unless you live in a socialist/communist society. Otherwise, freedom, rights, blah blah.

did you go to one?

nope. went to some of the crappiest public (american) schools in a state that ranks 48 out of 50 in terms of quality of schools and then went to the largest state university in America. Thanks to an elite honors program at the latter my college education was far, far above what the average state uni student receives, however.

would you send your kids to one?

absolutely not. I'm a socialist at heart and while I recognize the right of such schools to exist I personally don't believe in them nor like the idea of them.

do you have a knee-jerk prejudice against people who went to them?

I try to avoid knee-jerk reactions in general. not too smart. I might be suspect of someone who went to a private (US) school and think perhaps they've missed out on a lot of real-world life experience. But that's more of a reflection on my ideas of poverty vs. wealth and not all private school children are wealthy.

bullshit republicans. . .

I'm against divisiveness, and I think religious schools promote that, besides the argument about separating state and religion, with which I also entirely agree.

As for these arguments about saying "I'd ban them if I were in power" being impractical, well we on ILE plainly can't change national policy. Translate this if you like to "I would give full support to people in power putting forward this policy."

After three years of teaching in a complete hell-hole example of American public schools I have but one, hyphenated, word: home-school.