Fairness and 'social mobility'

[TrevorH]

HundredthIdiot said:

speedyman said:

So why would private schools waste money having lower class sizes if they didn't need to, they know a lower class size makes for better teaching and results. I rest my case..

They may or may not "know" that. The customers believe that and are prepared to pay for it, and it helps them differentiate from state schools, so it's good business.

And don't forget that the private schools can use entrance tests and so sort the wheat from the chaff. (Unless it's very, very rich chaff)

[Deva Link]

TrevorH said:

HundredthIdiot said:

speedyman said:

So why would private schools waste money having lower class sizes if they didn't need to, they know a lower class size makes for better teaching and results. I rest my case..

They may or may not "know" that. The customers believe that and are prepared to pay for it, and it helps them differentiate from state schools, so it's good business.

And don't forget that the private schools can use entrance tests and so sort the wheat from the chaff. (Unless it's very, very rich chaff)

Not just entrance tests - kids who are "failing to benefit from the education we provide" are weeded out right through school.

[theaxe]

thinfourth2 said:

If you want social mobility then introduce a law that all private schools must take on one child per class for free and they fund this from their own budget.

I'm pretty sure that most private schools have schemes in place to offer free/subsidised places to less well off children.

[Deva Link]

theaxe said:

thinfourth2 said:

If you want social mobility then introduce a law that all private schools must take on one child per class for free and they fund this from their own budget.

I'm pretty sure that most private schools have schemes in place to offer free/subsidised places to less well off children.

Yes - it typically extends to paying 10-20% of the fees of a coupls of kids per year.

[thinfourth2]

RichB said:

thinfourth2 said:

...let them bugger off and work down a mine or learn a useful skill.

Ah but there is the nub of the problem (well one of) we no longer have any industry in the UK so there aren't really any factories/mines/docks/foundries/shipyards/mills etc. for them to work in and the country only needs so many plumbers and electricians. Without getting into the economics and politics of why - it's a fact that generally since the war the opportunities for manual workers have decreased generation by generation... hence the layabouts and loafers.

Utter ste

There is loads of jobs that need skilled workers, seen the polish section in Tescos lately?

The reason the country is over run with poles as we have too much dross we can't be arsed working.

If they spent from 12 to 16 working instead of avoiding school they might have a work ethic

[Ten Ninety]

speedyman said:

So why would private schools waste money having lower class sizes if they didn't need to, they know a lower class size makes for better teaching and results. I rest my case..

I'm not saying that small class sizes aren't better than large ones. In many cases they are, depending on the subject and age of the students. However, my point is that you cannot use class size alone to differentiate the quality of experience a child will receive, hence my assertion that it is largely a red herring. The teacher's ability and commitment are infinitely more important.

Small class sizes do make it easier for the teacher - the smaller the class, the less work and energy required. Small classes are therefore useful for private schools to try and attract teachers into what might otherwise be a pretty unappealing alternative to state employment. And, as already noted by others, it's useful for marketing to gullible parents with more money than sense - many of the tinpot little private schools have piss-poor facilities compared to what's in state schools these days, so they need some kind of unique selling point...

thinfourth2 said:

Also in state schools they should reduce the leaving age to about 12 as the scum doesn't want to be there, the scums parents don't want them there, the teachers don't want scum there, pupils who want to learn don't want the scum there so let them bugger off and get addicted to drugs, burgle your house and end up spending their entire lives either in prison or on benefits at immense cost to the taxpayer.

EFA

As it happens, I rather enjoy trying to teach the 'scum'. I like a good challenge, and they are often hugely entertaining. On very rare occasions I even manage to get it right and actually impact upon their lives. And if that's not social mobility in action, I don't know what is...

However, despite saying that and despite my facetious edit of your text, I actually think you're right. For every child I might have 'helped' over the years there have been tens who have remained on the path to oblivion. I am increasingly of the opinion that mainstream state education is simply not the place for the hardcore of children who are, in most situations, unteachable. And yes, I agree that we can quite easily identify them at 12/13 if not before.

Sadly, whatever we do with them I suspect most would prove to be unemployable and untrainable as well as ineducable. But at least we could argue that we are reducing their negative impact on other children who currently might have to share a class with them.

[Gaspode]

speedyman said:

I truly believe that state education will never be as good as the private sector until class sizes are reduced to the same levels.

Although class sizes are certainly a factor, I would say that state education will never be as good as that provided by the public sector until the state system is able to imbue its pupils with the same sense of unshakeable self-confidence that Public Schools seem to give to their pupils.

The State Approach seems to be:
Take little Jimmy at 11 years old, let him wear sweatshirt and trainers to school, and tell him that if he tries really hard he might get to go to university so he can get a good job, but as there's lots of competition from other clever kids, he isn't to be upset if he doesn't succeed - in other words they are setting him up to be an 'also-ran' right from the start.

The Public School Approach seems to be:
Take little Jimmy (ok, he's probably called Tarquin or Henry) at 11 years old, make him wear a shirt and tie and blazer with a school badge, make him polish his shoes and tell him that he's part of the elite, he's better than anyone else out there, and all he needs to do is to speak confidently, behave impeccably, make sure he always looks his best, and make sure he does all his prep. Then he will easily be able to get a decent offer from the university of his choise, he'll get any job he chooses to apply for, and he'd bloody well better crack on with it because if he doesn't there's no room in the school for losers.

[anonymous-user]

Deva Link said:

theaxe said:

thinfourth2 said:

If you want social mobility then introduce a law that all private schools must take on one child per class for free and they fund this from their own budget.

I'm pretty sure that most private schools have schemes in place to offer free/subsidised places to less well off children.

Yes - it typically extends to paying 10-20% of the fees of a coupls of kids per year.

the big public schools are much more generous than that. i know of one thats 30k a year that has 50 scholarships all of which can be topped up to 100% bursary for those in financial need.

Edited by fbrs on Friday 20th August 15:21

[RichB]

thinfourth2 said:

RichB said:

thinfourth2 said:

...let them bugger off and work down a mine or learn a useful skill.

Ah but there is the nub of the problem (well one of) we no longer have any industry in the UK so there aren't really any factories/mines/docks/foundries/shipyards/mills etc. for them to work in and the country only needs so many plumbers and electricians. Without getting into the economics and politics of why - it's a fact that generally since the war the opportunities for manual workers have decreased generation by generation... hence the layabouts and loafers.

Utter ste

There is loads of jobs that need skilled workers, seen the polish section in Tescos lately? The reason the country is over run with poles as we have too much dross we can't be arsed working. If they spent from 12 to 16 working instead of avoiding school they might have a work ethic

Firstly I am talking about unskilled workers as were you, not skilled. So I disagree, I am not talking about a few people stacking shelves in a supermarket that's insignificant. I'm talking about towns where once there would have been hundreds and thousands working in unskilled jobs in factories and yards where now there is nothing (other than a few supermarkets). While I do believe there is a responsibility for kids to go out and look for work, for those with no qualifications it's not as simple as you make out. 30 years ago there would have been a manufacturing base in most areas where, if nothing else, you could get a job at the factory. That capability for factories etc. to absorb unskilled kids as they leave school is not there anymore.

[speedyman]

There's always the Army

[anonymous-user]

speedyman said:

There's always the Army

according to the army todays teenagers are too fat and lazy

[Ten Ninety]

Gaspode said:

Although class sizes are certainly a factor, I would say that state education will never be as good as that provided by the public sector until the state system is able to imbue its pupils with the same sense of unshakeable self-confidence that Public Schools seem to give to their pupils.

Heh, I always thought that NOT imbuing children with that was one of the few things we actually get right in the state sector!