C or D - banning all private schools

I have spotted a flaw in the thread title...

oh fuck mods please change this while I hide under a fucking rock :-)

i don't know much about the intricacies of the british system, but is "traitor" not a very strong term to apply to someone who's deciding where to put their kids to school, presumably because they see some benfit in it?

Ban all state schools, and make 'em join the army instead.

yeah its quite a hard stance. But the more the middle classes farm their kids out to private schools the less investment goes into the state schools & the poorer kids are left with a second rate education, which is obviously not at all in the best interests of the nation/society/whatever. There appears to be a creeping suggestion that private schooling is the norm (see ILM thread re paul weller. WTF?) Whereas IMO we should be pooling our energies into making comprehensive education work well for everybody. (Also I know plenty of state schools that could do with some really pushy parents to give them a kick up the arse.)

And the argument which goes "i'm in favour of comprehensive state education but I couldn't stand for little Tarquin to go to the local school, its OFSTED results are so poor" is just the worst type of hypocrisy.

But the more the middle classes farm their kids out to private schools the less investment goes into the state schools

Not true, strictly speaking- private school users pay taxes like everyone else. What happens is that private schools drain from the state system those more likely to do well at school, depressing the learning environment expectations for those remaining in the state system. At least, that's the argument put forward by those advocating the ban on private schools, I think.

i'd be worried about little Tarquin getting his head kicked and/or knifed in by the poor tough kids.

I don't quite see how people sending their children to private school reduces the investment going into state schools ..... the school fees they pay cover their children's education with no funding from the government. They're not preventing government money being spent on state schools - if anything, they are helping by reducing state school class sizes.

funding's linked to the demand for places, though. if a state school's pupil population is falling, its budget will (usually) be cut.

I have no desire to read a thread about Paul Weller, but I do know that he went to a state school -- Shearwater in Woking.

but yes I agree with you by and large. If you are not going to bring back state grammars then you need to get rid of independent schools or at the very least force them to all means test the fees in order to create a more equitable society.

Our politicians are largely out of touch with society and this is largely coz so many of them were independently educated. And this applies to all the parties, not just the Conservatives.

There is an interesting Grauniad article on this subject today:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/oxbridge/article/0,,2279013,00.html

What happens is that private schools drain from the state system those more likely to do well at school, depressing the learning environment expectations for those remaining in the state system

Not so simple. In affluent areas there's a higher % of kids who go to private schools, but ALSO better than average state schools, for a variety of reasons. In deprived areas you'll find the failing state schools. Closing a private school in Surrey won't help raise the standards in Lambeth.

the school fees they pay cover their children's education with no funding from the government

Google "charitable status".

funding's linked to the demand for places, though

This linkage is the main reason why standards can't be raised.

This is all hypothetical anyway - private education won't be banned, nor should it be. The main question is how to give the 93% of kids who go to state schools a uniformly high standard of education.

Why should private education not be banned?

I agree it won't be banned, but I think it should be.

The main question is how to give the 93% of kids who go to state schools a uniformly high standard of education.

esp. when the job market is perhaps fundamentally incapable of accommodating a standard. but yeah it's about access/opportunities.

A similar question to the one i asked my doctor mate regarding NHS vs Bupa etc:

What would happen if all the parents who would otherwise have spent vast sums sending their kids to private/public schools, instead made all that money available to the state system?

Skunk eyes at the dinner party, probably.

xpost Its not only about money, as Neil said above. What would happen if those in power were suddenly forced to send their progeny to state comps and thus had a personal interest in ensuring high standards?

Need to define "forced" here.

at gunpoint by the daughters of the revolution...

What I meant was, if private/independent education was abolished, the powerholding class ( ie politicians, media etc) would have no other option but to send their kids to state schools. And I'd bet they would focus on getting those standards up asap.

as for improving state schools: get rid of a lot of the bureaucracy and totally reform OFSTED. If a school gets a glowing OFSTED report the school should not be visited by OFSTED for at least a couple of years. Conversely, if schools get poor results, the inspectors should pay v frequent visits working alongside the teachers to help them improve standards.

...also, stop forcing non academic kids to take academic subjects they have no interest in.

But you know as well as I do that the term "cold dead hands" would come into immediate play if any government ever tried that (xxp).

It might be worth pondering whether we need schools at all, public or private, any more.

why, coz we have wikipedia?

xxxpost if we get rid of the bureaucracy how will we know when standards have increased? :-)

xxpost yah but who will look after the children? nannys are so dear these days.

when the job market is perhaps fundamentally incapable of accommodating a standard

what do you mean, Blueski?

In my opinion our entire education system - particularly secondary and upwards, double particularly the exam sytem - needs scrapping and rebuilding from the ground up. But that ain't gonna happen, and I'm not gonna write out a full manifesto on a Friday afternoon. But if anything I think the problems with what we teach our children, how we assess what they know/can do, and what relevance those things have to their future lives - including but not limited to getting a fulfilling job - are more important than reforming the Victorian class hangover we live with now.

How about keep private schools open but not give them a fucking penny from the Government coffers ever again. There. That should be acceptable...

...what do you mean "securing votes with middle class welfare?"

...also, stop forcing non academic kids to take academic subjects they have no interest in.

-- Grandpont Genie, 09 May 2008 12:51 (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

yeah, they're not schoolkids you know.

Historical (Victorian era onward) primary purpose of schools: to condition children for industrial era working environment with the emphasis on instilling unquestioning obedience of authority and punctuality.

Model no longer applicable to 21st century ways of living.

Cattle approach of classroom to be replaced by systems of individual tutoring tailored to child's specific learning needs - public funds freed up would be more than sufficient to subsidise this (no building costs etc.) to ensure that poorer families don't miss out on the opportunity. Still a central (but non-oppressive/non-vested interest) overseeing body to agree standards, set exams etc.

With small tutorial groups of children, societal function of education, i.e. learning to get on and work with others, can be preserved and better focused.

certainly an intriguing idea, Dingbod. It might just work! Have any countries around the world implemented such a system?

i like the current ads for teaching/teachers on TV/ad boards. I wonder how well they're working tho.

Some of Dingbod's ideas have a heck of a lot of merit. I might worry about them leading to further atomising of society depending on how it was done tho.

Every single under-30s teacher I know seems to hate their life intensely, so probably "good". xp

Conversely, if schools get poor results, the inspectors should pay v frequent visits working alongside the teachers to help them improve standards

They already do. But there is massive scope for disagreement about what constitutes 'poor results'. But OFSTED will not help raise standards much.

A tailoring of education to suits childrens needs is a better approach, as Marcello says. Of course secondary moderns used to provide a lot of that with vocational subjects - car maintainance, building/bricklaying, metalwork, horticulture, while more academically inclined kids did traditional subjects.

Secondary Moderns were great at preparing kids to work in an industrial sector that no longer exists.

What would happen if those in power were suddenly forced to send their progeny to state comps and thus had a personal interest in ensuring high standards?

The main problem with this argument is the notion that the quality of local state education isn't already one of the biggest electoral swing issues. Just because people have the option to opt out, and just because many of them do opt out, doesn't mean they necessarily would if the local comprehensive was up to scratch.

So it's not all "oh poor little Tarquin", because although I went to a comp and I'm glad I did, some of the other comps in my borough were fucking horrible and I would have have a pretty appalling time there.

I do think fee paying schools are a corrosive influence, but their very existence should not be a barrier to improving state education. A lot of the time the school itself is less the problem and rather the rampant poverty in the area - and yes the 'cattle-like classrooms' model can be ineffective here. Dingbod's ideas have a lot of merit.

Secondary Moderns were great at preparing kids to work in an industrial sector that no longer exists

true, but they also prepared them to be plumbers, joiners, carpenters, electricians, potters etc - all things that still do exist.

I'm the first to say that kids who hate "academic" subjects need to do stuff that engages them, but reifying the class system on 11 year-olds is probably a bit harsh even for the nu-Tories, and the division between academic and non-academic is part of the problem here.

the school i went to did next to nothing to prepare kids for those kinds of jobs. that was more a 'leave after GCSEs and do an apprenticeship/training with a firm' kinda thing. xp

I don't quite see how people sending their children to private school reduces the investment going into state schools ..... the school fees they pay cover their children's education with no funding from the government. They're not preventing government money being spent on state schools - if anything, they are helping by reducing state school class sizes.

-- C J, Friday, 9 May 2008 13:12 (41 minutes ago)

Sorry CJ, nothing personal, but this is the most pernicious and poisonous misconception about the private sector that there is (and goes double for those who say private healthcare 'reduces the strain on the NHS'). There is, for one thing, frequent state funding and subsidies for private schools. For another, there is the state funding for teacher training - many of these teachers are then leached off to the private sector, making the government investment essentially a waste of resources. Finally, there is the simple fact that schools rely on much more than state funding for their operations - those who are in privileged positions have more time and money to spend on fundraising for their schools, creating mass disparity between state/private schooling.

I'm very tired today, so might not be stating my case in the best possible terms, but hopefully that makes sense to you. Also, this took me about 15 minutes to even write, so I may have missed lots of other people making similar points. Ah well.

true, but they also prepared them to be plumbers, joiners, carpenters, electricians, potters etc - all things that still do exist.

I hear the demand for potters in Inner London has never been higher

My girlfriend works at a primary school on one of the poorest estates in the country, and the most consistent corelation of academic success there is parental involvement. The kids who sit with their parent/guardian to read or do homework every evening are the ones at the top of the class. How/ should parents be encouraged to be more involved - particularly when they've probably had a shitty experience of education themselves?

Don't 'der kids' wot go to private schools be more likely to talk inna "Ali G" style innit?

xpost

In many ways that's why I think you have to design a system that works irrespective of parental involvement, or recognise that you can't meaningfully improve education unless you meaningfully improve society.

Is that what 59% of Tory MPs sound like then? (xp)

Didn't really know about it being a public school kid thing, but once I was on a bus and this young fella, obv. rather posh tho he was trying desperately to hide it, got on with a girl and started coming out with all sorts of unintentionally hilarious patter. There was a black guy sitting opposite me and his face was an absolute picture. I memorized some of his lines but I've forgotten them.

I believe the term is "twatois"

xp

OMG.

xp i thought that was how wankers updated their web pages?

xpost to Matt CD: I mean, doing it as a joke to be Ali G, as opposed to being 4 real, etc..

This is one of those things people tend to dramatically change their minds about once they actually have kids, isn't it? I mean, it's all very well when it's an abstract, but when you have to make a choice about your own child, and you consider that he/she may have a better shot at life being privately educated than going to the local comprehensive, then are you really going to sacrifice your child to your ideals?

(full disclosure: I was privately educated; my son won't be, partly because I couldn't afford it anyway, partly because I hated my school, partly because I live in France where everyone goes to the lycée anyway. Ideological concerns clock in at a very distant fourth.)

so in brit-speak, a "public school" and a "private school" are the same thing?

gabbneb - yes.

There is a small and I think insignificant difference, but I can't remember what it is. There are threads about it tho.

but when you have to make a choice about your own child, and you consider that he/she may have a better shot at life being privately educated than going to the local comprehensive voting Tory and dancing on the corpses of poor children, then are you really going to sacrifice your child to your ideals?

I memorized some of his lines but I've forgotten them.

A somewhat anticlimactic ending to that story.

C

They should make all cars limited to the same top speed as well.

Is it too early to call the private school I might want my 14 month old kid to go to about enrollment? I know she wont start until Kindergarten in 2012, but it wouldn't hurt to start kissing someones ass now to make sure she gets in, right?

what about prekindergarten? and early childhood enrichment? the school i went to started kids that early. you could be paying tuition as early as 2010!

WOO

we can afford to put beeps through private school but the next one will have to deal with the public education system. SORRY FUTURE YET TO BE CONCEIVED CHILD. If you didnt want to be second best I guess you should have been born first!

you're forgetting that beeps will be a prodigy after all this schooling. she will be pulling in 40k easy by the time beeps2 needs schooling paid for.

...Tarquin?

http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/753/753021/tarkin_1167867382.jpg

^^^ public school puffta

is home-schooling allowed in Britain?

Errrrrrrrrrrrr, of course, why wouldn't it be?

It's banned in some US states (California for one, I think)

cos it's for looneys and communists.

its illegal in australia. i think.

Errrrrrrrrrrrr, of course, why wouldn't it be?

-- Tom D., Monday, May 12, 2008 10:14 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

this is a thread about banning private schools; the question of whether or not super-private homeschooling is allowed seems like a valid one. moreover, i would not have been totally surprised if the answer to my question had been "no."

me too.

also, from the outside (lol american), it seems like the byzantine and stratified hierarchy of english schooling would preclude something so disorganized and unregulated as home education. like what if kids don't know which king came after that other king? what if you can't hive off the dumb kids early enough, and they accidentally go to university?

Home-schooled children still have to follow the national curriculum, take standard exams, etc. It's not unregulated in the slightest.

id totally let my kid cheat

you're not allowed to cheat in the UK

like what if kids don't know which king came after that other king?

Serves you right for having weirdoes for parents

Gotcha. I'm shooting from the hip here, but I'm fairly certain that is NOT the case in the states. That is, there are certain requirements that must be met for, say, a GED (high school equivalent), but how you get there is up to your parents/crazy neighbor lady. hence its popularity with religious wingnuts, Bode Miller, and William Upski Wimsatt.

xp

if i wasn't so helplessly social, i think home-schooling would have been fucking rad

If I had been home-schooled, I probably would have gone to college at age 14.

I have home schooled friends and it is very tightly regulated here, you have to follow the curriculum, do the key stage tests and receive fairly frequent visits from social services.

why not just go to school?

full of heathens, dude

no playstation

Banning all private schools would be a major distortion of the market... and would lead to black-market private schools emerging.

Banning all private schools seems rather reactionary/extreme doesn't it?

yes, duh.

http://www.provokateur.com/news/wp-content/photos/CameronEton2_468x420.jpg

Some unreactionary moderates, yesterday.

i think that banning all private schools was mooted at about post number 3 upthread, and it was decided to shoot all children that might grow up to vote tory instead.

ha xpost!

reactionary

adj: said of a person or policies: relating to or characterized by reaction, especially against radical social or political change, reform, etc, and in favour of reverting to a former system or state of affairs.

noun: (reactionaries or reactionists) someone who holds such political or social views. reactionism noun.

In 1972, a crack teaching unit was sent to prison by an educational tribunal for operating an illegal two-tier system of secondary education. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Home Counties underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as teachers of fortune. If you have a maths problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... the black-market private schools.

:D

We must be kind
And with an open mind
We must endeavour to find
A way-
To let the Tories know that when the election's over
They are not the ones who'll have to pay.
We must be sweet-
And tactful and discreet
And when they've suffered defeat
We mustn't let
Them feel upset
Or ever get
The feeling that we're cross with them or hate them,
Our future policy must be to reinstate them.

Refrain 1

Don't let's be beastly to the Tories
When our victory is ultimately won,
It was just those nasty Nazis who persuaded them to stand
David Cameron and Liam Fox are really jolly grand
Let's be meek to them-
And turn the other cheek to them
And try to bring out their latent sense of fun.
Let's give them full air parity-
And treat the rats with charity,
But don't let's be beastly to the scum

The balls of these scumwads

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jan/29/private-schools-criticise-plans-to-get-more-poor-students-into-university

Classic

not just classic but u&k