So it's class war then...

[turbobloke]

blade runner said:

Fittster said:

Going to the right school helps you earn more money.

And that's the kind of future we want for our kids? One where you ultimately win or lose based on what 'club' you are in rather than on your achievements?

Funny, I'm not normally socialist, but some of the underlying snobbery on this thread is unbelievable. From some comments its seems that it's tantamount to child abuse if you can afford, but don't elect to send your kids to private schools.

Snobbery or pragmatism in terms of available options. What's seen may depend on where you're looking from.

There's every chance that an able student will do well given they have the personal attributes such as motivation and perseverance that help people to succeed. These qualities can shine through both because of and in spite of what happens at school and at home.

Unless there's a monstrous and unaffordable bureaucracy surrounding an army of State Nannies snooping and intervening at individual homes on behalf of Nanny State then the inevitability is that some students won't get all the help they could, and will need to be more self-motivating to reach their full potential in life.

There are some that would say being state-educated provides some advantage by not offering everything on a plate. Depending on whether you accept that a deficit model can lead to credit, this may or may not ring true. I've seen several feedback notes to schools from Oxbridge colleges after admissions interviews that basically say "showed many signs of being very well taught but few signs of being able to think independently".

This is not an accusation aimed at independent schools. Some clearly do encourage independence in learning and thought.

[NomduJour]

FredClogs said:

Well that all sounds entirely reasonable until you consider the original point of the thread which is that some public schools are creating elitist institutions that refuse to interact with the community in which they're based and call themselves "charities".

So give tax relief to those who don't use the state system.

Edited by NomduJour on Thursday 27th November 17:16

[WestyCarl]

FredClogs said:

I didn't go to private school (although as I said earlier in the thread my dad did) both me and my sister were educated in a pretty bad state school, we both got good A levels and degrees and live perfectly normal lives with reasonable careers, all I'm asking is what you get above that in the Private system for £100k...

I turned out alright so whats good enough for me is good enough for my kids.........

My kids are my biggest "investment", I will give them all the oppotunities I can afford and all time, support and experiences I can.

A few things the prviate sector offers (this is in my experience and of course varies school / school)
Better discipline / work ethic / education (10 kids - 1 teacher) / much much better sport.

But it's a free choice and I'm sure some excellant state schools are better than average independant schools

[turbobloke]

FredClogs said:

...the original point of the thread which is that some public schools are creating elitist institutions that refuse to interact with the community in which they're based...

According to stats published recently and mentioned already in the thread, it's about 7% of independent schools and probably includes the smallest that are struggling to survive as the number one priority.

Pushing them under with higher costs and turfing their pupils out into an already over-stretched state sector (which will struggle to cope with them financially and operationally) as being a good idea may be in dispute.

[rivercatch]

blade runner said:

Fittster said:

Going to the right school helps you earn more money.

And that's the kind of future we want for our kids? One where you ultimately win or lose based on what 'club' you are in rather than on your achievements?

Funny, I'm not normally socialist, but some of the underlying snobbery on this thread is unbelievable. From some comments its seems that it's tantamount to child abuse if you can afford, but don't elect to send your kids to private schools.

Going to a good school helps you earn more money.

Is that controversial? Why?

Do you really believe all schools and all universities are the same standard?

We know that the best of state schools are just as good as private schools, or better than. This seems to be a generally accepted fact borne out by league tables.

So are average private schools better than average state schools as many parents seem to think? Reasons for this could be:
- private schools are independent
- private schools have more money and better facilities
- private schools can select their entrants
- private schools self select highly motivated parents (because they can and are prepared to pay)

The real choice for most parents (if they can afford it) is:
1 - A good state school (or church school)
2 - A good private school
3 - An average state school
4 - A bad state school

Not very attractive really. The real problem is that category 1 seems to be limited to about 10% or so of available places - hence the competition. So, yes, if you have money you can buy your way into 2 and avoid 3 and 4.

BTW this is not to say that average or bad private schools don't exist. They do at any given point in time. It's just that they go bust (or improve). So what you see in the private sector is survivor bias - they'll only survive whilst they are better than average and can attract paying parents.
-

[rovermorris999]

NomduJour said:

So give tax relief to those who don't use the state system.

Edited by NomduJour on Thursday 27th November 17:16

Absolutely. They're paying twice. Same with medical insurance.

[RYH64E]

fblm said:

iphonedyou said:

And, for me anyway, the most colossal kick up the arse...

Likewise. I was an average kid that went to a great school and a top university. My friends at Uni who went to state schools were not average. It's pretty obvious the difference was the school. Like most things in life, you get what you pay for.

Persuading someone to pay upwards of £1k/month/child for something that you get for free at the local state school can't be easy, if parents didn't think the private alternative was worth the money they wouldn't pay.

I don't think that the quality of teaching is significantly better in the private sector, and, as someone who got an excellent (free) education in a cold and draughty Grammar School, the facilities don't really matter to me. What does matter is sending my children to study in a calm, orderly environment where their fellow students are equally motivated to study, and where the school tries to get the best results possible for each individual child. There may be some state schools that offer the same for free, but too many have disruptive pupils, pupils who really don't want to be there, pupils who shouldn't be there but can't be expelled, and teachers focussed on getting everyone to achieve at least a C in their subject. I don't want my kids to get at least a C, I want A or A*.

[Fittster]

rovermorris999 said:

NomduJour said:

So give tax relief to those who don't use the state system.

Edited by NomduJour on Thursday 27th November 17:16

Absolutely. They're paying twice. Same with medical insurance.

To address the unearned good luck of attending a public school its morally acceptable to tax public schools boys until their pips squeak.

[Soov535]

rovermorris999 said:

NomduJour said:

So give tax relief to those who don't use the state system.

Edited by NomduJour on Thursday 27th November 17:16

Absolutely. They're paying twice. Same with medical insurance.

But you see, it's not FAIR that we try to do better for our families. That word again - FAIR.

They want us all on bicycles with little red books and green uniforms. All the same, at the lowest common denominator.

[Fittster]

Soov535 said:

rovermorris999 said:

NomduJour said:

So give tax relief to those who don't use the state system.

Edited by NomduJour on Thursday 27th November 17:16

Absolutely. They're paying twice. Same with medical insurance.

But you see, it's not FAIR that we try to do better for our families. That word again - FAIR.

They want us all on bicycles with little red books and green uniforms. All the same, at the lowest common denominator.

Is your internet persona so out of touch with reality it thinks every family in the UK can afford school fees?

[IroningMan]

Fittster said:

Soov535 said:

rovermorris999 said:

NomduJour said:

So give tax relief to those who don't use the state system.

Edited by NomduJour on Thursday 27th November 17:16

Absolutely. They're paying twice. Same with medical insurance.

But you see, it's not FAIR that we try to do better for our families. That word again - FAIR.

They want us all on bicycles with little red books and green uniforms. All the same, at the lowest common denominator.

Is your internet persona so out of touch with reality it thinks every family in the UK can afford school fees?

There is no FAIR because not all children are born into equally-resourced households with equally-resourced parents.

If you'd rather that were the case then I recommend Aldous Huxley's Brave New World; you'll possibly find a copy in your local library.

[heppers75]

edh said:

heppers75 said:

So you have such an antithesis to private education that you would choose to state educate your child at a dire school with a drug problem and in special measures rather than go private?

Tricky, but there are usually other choices... Maybe we're lucky in that the vast majority of secondary schools in our city provide a good education.

I have to be perfectly honest I cannot believe the answer to that is not an automatic no, out of interest - what choices?

[Fittster]

IroningMan said:

Fittster said:

Soov535 said:

rovermorris999 said:

NomduJour said:

So give tax relief to those who don't use the state system.

Edited by NomduJour on Thursday 27th November 17:16

Absolutely. They're paying twice. Same with medical insurance.

But you see, it's not FAIR that we try to do better for our families. That word again - FAIR.

They want us all on bicycles with little red books and green uniforms. All the same, at the lowest common denominator.

Is your internet persona so out of touch with reality it thinks every family in the UK can afford school fees?

There is no FAIR because not all children are born into equally-resourced households with equally-resourced parents.

If you'd rather that were the case then I recommend Aldous Huxley's Brave New World; you'll possibly find a copy in your local library.

Where have I called for policies to promote equality of opportunity? I'm saying we should accept that for most children there is very little prospect of social mobility.

I'm just calling for acknowledgement of the fact that some children are born into situations that grant them favourable opportunities, such as attending public schools.

Edited by Fittster on Thursday 27th November 18:03

[FredClogs]

IroningMan said:

There is no FAIR because not all children are born into equally-resourced households with equally-resourced parents.

If you'd rather that were the case then I recommend Aldous Huxley's Brave New World; you'll possibly find a copy in your local library.

That's absurd. To liken Huxley's Brave New World (a society built on eugenic totalitarianism) to a system that aims to decrease the wealth gap or at least slow its acceleration in a civil modern society is ridiculous hyperbole.

[Fittster]

FredClogs said:

IroningMan said:

There is no FAIR because not all children are born into equally-resourced households with equally-resourced parents.

If you'd rather that were the case then I recommend Aldous Huxley's Brave New World; you'll possibly find a copy in your local library.

That's absurd. To liken Huxley's Brave New World (a society built on eugenic totalitarianism) to a system that aims to decrease the wealth gap or at least slow its acceleration in a civil modern society is ridiculous hyperbole.

And what would you do about inequality of opportunity? Unless you are very stupid you can't think everyone can afford to spend the same amount on their children's education and even if you outlaw public schools the rich will find ways around it (for example send their kids to schools abroad, the extensive use of tutors)

[turbobloke]

FredClogs said:

IroningMan said:

There is no FAIR because not all children are born into equally-resourced households with equally-resourced parents.

If you'd rather that were the case then I recommend Aldous Huxley's Brave New World; you'll possibly find a copy in your local library.

That's absurd. To liken Huxley's Brave New World (a society built on eugenic totalitarianism) to a system that aims to decrease the wealth gap or at least slow its acceleration in a civil modern society is ridiculous hyperbole.

Is the basis for reducing the wealth gap simply because some people say so, or is there something in it that would help those at the lower end long-term when they are in all likelihood going to continue making bad decisions albeit armed with more of other people's hard-earned money? Surely handing out money taken from somebody else isn't the answer at least until those receiving it can be reasonably expected to do something sensible with the extra? Even then, would it not also be a good idea to provide incentive for acceptance in the donors by allowing them to keep more as well? And then, is the gap not important as long as both ends of the spectrum are improving their lot? Absolute uniformity of poverty is no good to anyone.

[IroningMan]

FredClogs said:

IroningMan said:

There is no FAIR because not all children are born into equally-resourced households with equally-resourced parents.

If you'd rather that were the case then I recommend Aldous Huxley's Brave New World; you'll possibly find a copy in your local library.

That's absurd. To liken Huxley's Brave New World (a society built on eugenic totalitarianism) to a system that aims to decrease the wealth gap or at least slow its acceleration in a civil modern society is ridiculous hyperbole.

No, it's the inevitable end result of the kind of 'line drawing' in which you're engaged.

In a meritocracy people are motivated to work hard and do well in order, among other things, to better care for and raise their offspring. You can't 'zero' the meritocratic process at birth and start over.

In any event, private education is overrated: the key benchmark should be that when you grow up you earn enough to be able to send your kids to the same school you went to - I'm about £80k a year (net) short of doing that, so my school must've been awful...

[Fittster]

turbobloke said:

those at the lower end long-term when they are in all likelihood going to continue making bad decisions

Poor people are poor because they make bad decisions? There bad decision was largely being born into poor families.

[rovermorris999]

You don't make poor people richer by making rich people poorer.

[FredClogs]

turbobloke said:

FredClogs said:

IroningMan said:

There is no FAIR because not all children are born into equally-resourced households with equally-resourced parents.

If you'd rather that were the case then I recommend Aldous Huxley's Brave New World; you'll possibly find a copy in your local library.

That's absurd. To liken Huxley's Brave New World (a society built on eugenic totalitarianism) to a system that aims to decrease the wealth gap or at least slow its acceleration in a civil modern society is ridiculous hyperbole.

Is the basis for reducing the wealth gap simply because some people say so, or is there something in it that would help those at the lower end long-term when they are in all likelihood going to continue making bad decisions albeit armed with more of other people's hard-earned money? Surely handing out money taken from somebody else isn't the answer at least until those receiving it can be reasonably expected to do something sensible with the extra? Even then, would it not also be a good idea to provide incentive for acceptance in the donors by allowing them to keep more as well? And then, is the gap not important as long as both ends of the spectrum are improving their lot? Absolute uniformity of poverty is no good to anyone.

You could have just said a rising tide floats all ships. Mr Bloke, let's not get into the habit of peculiar verbosity and endless rhetorical questions to attempt to illustrate a well understood point. Shall we? (That was rhetorical and ironic).

Things is that you in you're 75ft leisure cruiser, me in my 30ft canal barge and Ronnie Corbett in his wellies will simply never see eye to eye on this, it is and will always be a class war, and since you have been afforded the most luxurious posting of the conflict perhaps you'd be so decent and do yourself the dignity of keeping quiet about it until we come and knock on your door and ask for the keys to the Sunseeker?