[Closed] Am I being a snob?

I reckon some of the people on here spouting on about how wonderful it is mixing with all sorts at comprehensives didn't actually mix with all sorts at their comprehensives - just half decent kids. Yes there is a bit of stereotyping going on, but the characteristics mentioned do mean the kids are more likely to be disruptive, bully and cause trouble, even if most of them don't. I went to a rubbish school and had some bad experiences - I really wish I'd gone to a better one. Whilst I survived and came out OK, that was because I'd have done OK anywhere - doesn't mean I enjoyed all of my school life that much in the lower years of that school, and I certainly won't be subjecting my kids to that.

aracer. My school was not one of the worst but it certainly had its share of troubles. Two stabbings while I was there, daily fights and a couple of big gang fights. Certainly scary enough for me as an English kid with a lisp and called Jeremy in a big Glasgow comprehensive. I did judo for 4 yrs to survive. I stand by what I said about mixing with allsorts - for me it taught me far more than the academic stuff and I am convinced that it has stood me in good stead all my life.

The comprehensive I went to, from 13-16, was awful. Racism, violence, apathy and **** all resources were standard. I don't remember anyone being killed while I was there, but there were a few stabbings/violent beatings. A sprinkling of teenage pregnancies (the youngest was just 13, If I remember right). Some kids were being abused at home, quite a few were malnourished.

I was bullied, and took my share of kickings. I did manage to stand up for meself, though. I was a lary little sod (no, really??), so I often got meself into scrapes. I learned to get out of them, too..

Some of my peers went on to Higher Education, as did I, eventually. Some went on to a life of crime. I think my year alone produced at least two murderers that I know of. Then there were the suicides. About half a dozen or so, in my year, at the last count.

So, pretty normal really, for an inner city comp in a rough part of London.

Mixing with all sorts? I wouldn't change a thing. I learned a hell of a lot about life, at that place. A lot more than the public school I'd come from.

I'd probbly be richer, had I stuck it out at the first school.

Happier? I dunno. More experienced in life? I doubt it.

TandemJeremy - Member

aracer. My school was not one of the worst but it certainly had its share of troubles. Two stabbings while I was there, daily fights and a couple of big gang fights. Certainly scary enough for me as an English kid with a lisp and called Jeremy in a big Glasgow comprehensive. I did judo for 4 yrs to survive. I stand by what I said about mixing with allsorts - for me it taught me far more than the academic stuff and [i]I am convinced that it has stood me in good stead all my life[/i].

Why?

Can't say I regularly get involved in fights, certainly try and avoid any incidents involving people being stabbed. All sounds like the kind of people you'd want to avoid as much as possible.

Also, surely if you go to an expensive private school you get to mix with other areas of society, perhaps ones that you may want to associate with in later life. Surely you are better off being able to interact with intelligent people than violent thugs.

Doesn't it depend on the area? As an example only, in Feltham there are two public secondary schools, both of which are really awful. Given you can apply for a bursary I'd send my kid to a private one rather than there as, judging by the number of local single mums who aren't even 16, the only life skill learnt at the school is giving head.

Haven't been arsed to read all the posts but wanted to add my two-pence worth.

I spent 3 years at a Comprehensive Boarding School before moving to a Private Boarding school for a further three years.

The two experiences were sooooooooooooo much different and looking back now if I had the money I would send my kids to Private school everytime.

For me it wasn't who I mixed with - you get people from all walks of life and all personality types at both schools. The academic education was slightly better at the private school due to better facilities and more money invested.

But for me it was the extra activities that were available at the private school which made the biggest difference (Sports especially but not keen on the 6am runs most mornings, but also things like regular talks from people from all walks of life and on all subjects, Being made to join the cadet force, having to go to church every week, various clubs you could get involved in varying from rock climbing, shooting, fly fishing to much more).

Private schools get you involved in so much to make you a much more rounded person which in my experience Comps just don't have the facilities or time in the timetable to do. For me school and those formative years aren't just about getting qualifications but about new experiences and learning about the world. Private schools also teach you to be independant and look after yourself, something Comps and living at home just don't do to the same level.

But at the end of the day if parents have the time and focus they can replicate these experiences just as well, so if this is the case is there any difference between schools?

jonb - I was a very unworldly middleclass kid living in a small middleclass enclave. Going to the comprehensive opened my eyes to how other folk live and gave me the confidence and ability to mix with anyone.

I didn't need lessons in snobbery - I needed lessons in life.

This may well not hold true for everyone but it certainly did for me.

TJ - that is the thing - we are the sum of our experiences (or thereabouts)

Being made to join the cadet force, having to go to church every week

These are good things?

Private schools also teach you to be independant and look after yourself

That's also highly debatable - some of the ppl I went to uni with from public schools were ridiculous mummy's boys who could barely fry an egg.

fwiw the original post is about private junior or primary schooling and you are all preaching about the virtues of tough under achieving comprehensive schools. it's not the same thing. we are thinking along the lines of private for the early years and state for the latter years (probably due to the increase cost) but at least they will have a good start in schooling.

additionally, from my own experience, at state school i did under achieve because of disruptive influences. i didn't have to waste a year doing resits before going onto sixth-form college and then university (and in those days it was harder to get into a *real* university - makes me a snob!) - but some of my friends did. And some never made it there at all.

racism, bullying, gbh, abh, truancy, teenage pregnancies, smoking, drugs etc were all present at my comprehensive and i'm sure too are present in ALL other state comprehensives to a lesser or greater degree. so to bang on about how great it was to be a product of this kind of education is not a unique feat. if i had a choice, i wouldn't like to have seen or experienced any of it.

it simply didn't make me a better person. and anybody who says it does is wrong. and anybody who thinks it good for bringing up rounded children has a very warped take on life.

Grumm - no they aren't all good things - but life is about contrasts for me - I like having the good and the bad so I can understand how much I really enjoy myself. If everything was good or bad all the time they would seem normal.

I suppose what I meant about being independant really is a statement of boarding schools not Private schools. I've met a lot of mummies boys who were day pupils at private schools and agree.

Private schools also teach you to be independant and look after yourself
That's also highly debatable - some of the ppl I went to uni with from public schools were ridiculous mummy's boys who could barely fry an egg.

I concur. And some of the little Lord Fauntleroys at my Uni were to scared to go out at night, from their halls, in case they encountered Black people. Their sphere of social experience was so small, I actually saw it as a form of deprivation. And imo, too many people from privileged backgrounds, without a broad range of life experiences, go on to run our Nation, our banks, etc...

Granted, academic standards are a lot better in most private schools, but a balance is needed, for a child to grow up with ahealthy, informed view of the world in which they live. I don't think many private schools really offer this enough.

The biggest problem is money. Many poorer kids will not be able to enjoy the better standards which they deserve; they are excluded from having a decent education on purely academic grounds. One of the main reasons I would like to see ALL schools as part of the state system. Such exclusion of worthy pupils prevents people from more disadvantaged classes from benefiting from the higher standards on offer. This is, I'm sure all right-minded people will agree, unfair. And yet another example of our divisive and compartmentalist class system.

Most of the people I know went to state schools. Most of them have pretty decent, fulfilling, rewarding careers. The state system can work, it just needs more effort on the part of everyone, to make it work.

Quite clearly you've a preconceived perception of the products of a private education. Believe it or not Eton, Charterhouse, Repton, Rugby, Stowe are not the [i]only[/i] schools in the private sector.
I've met and have friends from public school (Charterhouse) and yes [i]some [/i]of them do conform to a public school stereotype that you so keenly project as the [i][b]only [/b][/i]kind of people to graduate from a private education. There are hundreds of private schools - not all of them are your so called public schools. And these private schools are within financial boundaries of a middle-class existence.

And these private schools are within financial boundaries of a middle-class existence.

See, there's yer problem, right there; Many people simply can't afford to send their kids to such schools. I was lucky enough to get an Assisted Place at a 'public' school (they're all fee-paying 'private' schools in my book), but I never felt included in that environment.

I feel that the existence of fee-paying schools perpetuates the class divide, and prevents the social mobility of those who have less economic resources at their disposal. That is wrong. Let's have an even playing field.

Or is that simply too scary an idea for the Upper and Middle classes, to have someone from a 'lower' class, who is actually brighter than them, actually achieving something on their own merits?

What HTTP404 said, those people are the only ones you notice. Out of all of my friends at Uni I recon there was only one or two that you could "tell" went to private school and fitted your steriotype. The vast majority are just like normal people and you wouldn't notice or think to even ask.

Notice the word 'some' was used?

I think the point is, that 'some' people from a private education background can be more ignorant about 'real life' than those that had a more rounded education at a state school.

IME, most of the people I've met, who went to private school, have been quite naive and inexperienced of aspects of life outside of their little sphere of comfortable respectability. Some of the most narrow-minded and ignorant people I've ever met, went to private school. That said, the same goes for some I know, who went to inner-city comps. I do feel that mixing with as many different people as possible, is essential in gaining a reasoned, objective view of life. I don't feel that educational exclusivity can really offer this, effectively.

The vast majority are just like normal people and you wouldn't notice or think to even ask.

Just like at comprehensive schools then

fee-paying schools perpetuates the class divide

No it doesn't. Again, you're over-simplifying the situation and focussing on a very narrow argument. I'm sorry to shatter your Utopian dreams but for one - a classless society cannot exist where an individual's merit is measured by commercial worth. If you could understand some basics of globalization and some basic economics you would see this.

I'm sorry to say you actually sound very bitter from past your experiences and also with a huge chip on your shoulder.

Btw, I think North Korea could be a place you would enjoy living in.

I'm gobsmacked, Some people have some bizarre misconceptions obviously based on reading the Daily mail rather than actually having experience of what they are talking about.

Opinions by the looks of things based on meeting the odd person who is obviously from a privileged background and whose parents sent them to private school as it was par for the course - most people I have met like this have been tossers - arrogant ****s and make up less than 1% of people who actually have been to private school. I wasn't from a priviledged background - my step father worked as a building services engineer abroad and as part of the contract the HK government paid for a UK education.

The strange thing is most people who went to a private school (or any school for that matter) don't shout about what school they went to - unless you only make friends with people from certain schools and ask them on meeting them??

This is like saying because you've riden Llandegla all trail centres are shit!!!!!!

I particularly like the following gem :-

jonb - Member

Surely you are better off being able to interact with intelligent people than violent thugs.

The most violent thug I have ever known, was a highly intelligent person from what could only be described as a solid middle class background. He was in fact a direct descendent of the Darby's of Coalbrookdale. He was university educated. He just lived for fighting.

I think there's been an awful amount of both snobbery and ignorance displayed on this thread and I can only suggest that a little perspective, the kind you might aquire by attending a state comprehensive school for instance, would be a useful aquisition to the life skills of some forum dwellers.

Well said trailmonkey.

In response to an earlier post I bet I can guess wh went to state school and wh went to feepaying schools with a high degree of accuracy - Dead easy to do from attitudes. Really really simple.

fee-paying schools perpetuates the class divide
No it doesn't.

Yes it does. In other Yerpean countries, where there is far less actual private education, and better funded state schools, there is far less of a 'class' divide. Norway, for example. There are rich and poor, but there is far less class prejudice (until recently, there were no private schools in Norway). Having been to Norway several times, and known many Norwegians, I've been able to gain a perspective on our class system, from the point of view of people who don't really recognise such a thing. That's just one example.

Some of Britain's worst social issues are as a result of the class divide. The way people are openly prejudicial toward 'Chavs' or 'Pikies' is one such worrying issue. FFS, up until recently, people born into the gentry were allowed to sit in the House of Lords, with the power to vote on laws that affected all of us. Hereditary Peers didn't get to that position through merit, that's for sure. So Lord Posonby-Smythe or whoever had power and status in our society, which wasn't earned, or even deserved.

'Chip on your shoulder'. Hmm, now where have I heard that before...?

Better Red, than soft in the head...

jonb - Member

Surely you are better off being able to interact with intelligent people than violent thugs

That was in relation to

TandemJeremy - Member

aracer. My school was not one of the worst but it certainly had its share of troubles. Two stabbings while I was there, daily fights and a couple of big gang fights.

I don't see how giving a child experience of that type of thing is good? That for me would be a definate reason to avoid somewhere. I'm not saying all schools are like that or even that only comprehensives are like that. The stories I hear from friends I know who went to boarding school are just as bad.

Jonb - did you read the rest of my post? I was a very unworldly kid and the wider educational experience of the comprehensive help make me a more streetwise and rounded charectar

bet I can guess wh went to state school and wh went to feepaying schools with a high degree of accuracy - Dead easy to do from attitudes

TJ - given the over-tones of the thread, that's a rather strange and arrogant statement to make.

And attending a state comprehensive school does [i]not[/i] automatically provide somebody with life skills and a balanced perspective.

jonb - Member
Surely you are better off being able to interact with intelligent people than violent thugs.

Is quite clearly a statement making a generalization. The only point you made is some intelligent people are also violent. I think the point made still stands.

[i]I feel that the existence of fee-paying schools perpetuates the class divide, and prevents the social mobility of those who have less economic resources at their disposal. That is wrong. Let's have an even playing field.[/i]

Actually quite agree with this but it is fairly redundant as when most people become parents, even if they may have had some social conscience, this reverts to a selfish and more primitive drive to get what they would consider the very best start in life for their children regardless of others.

...this might be harsh but life, for the main, is also harsh so most parents will want to do the very best they can for their kids with the money and resources available.

Yes, It seems that you were bullied and put in a school where violence was common place. Granted you mixed with different levels of society.

I was just trying to play devils advocate and say why is it better to go to a comprehensive to meet a broad range of people rather than go to a private school. I got the impression from your post that your and other peoples idea of varied people was violent people and bullies.

I went to a normal primary school but only have experience of the one secondary, private. But the people there were very broad in their backgrounds. Out of my closest friends, one was the son of a director of a very big utilities company, one was the son of a vicar (on a full scholarship), one was the son of an indian doctor and like me the vast majority just had parents who made sacrifices to send their kids there and did realtively normal jobs (dad worked his way up to maangement level after starting with the company as a milkman at 18. Mum was a primary Teacher (had to return to work to pay for my siblings and I to attend school). It was [url= http://www.boltonschool.org/SeniorBoys/ ]this one[/url] if you want to know.

I found out about the alumni while I was there. One of the things that inspired my interest in chemistry was reading about Sir Harry Kroto and his Nobel prize. Looking at other ex pupils it gave me the impression that anything was possible as plenty of them had gone on to do great things. Surely better than learning how to deal with knife bearing thugs.

I don't see how giving a child experience of that type of thing is good?

If a child is growing up in that environment, then they'll be subject to that sort of thing sooner or later anyway. The point that TJ is making is that exposure to that, is part of the education of many urban school children. But, it's not the point. Your original post seems to be saying, and it only echoes what others are implying, is that we can stereotype the children in state schools as unintelligent, violent, under priveliged and likely to handicap the education of intelligent, passive children. This is very wrong and quite disturbing that people feel that way.

I wouldn't decide which school to send my children (not that I have any) to based on broad generalisations and stereotypes. I'd look at the school in question. If I considered the local state school to be good then I'd send them there (and spend the money on bikes 😉 otherwise I'd go private or consider moving house (which amounts to the same thing in that you pay for access to a better school). Probably wouldn't send my kids to boarding school though, bit like outsourcing your parental responsibilities.

I went to state schools which was a decision my parents made as they felt it was appropriate - philosophically and politically. Both my parents were teachers in the state sector - but my father was also on the regional exam board and involved in government education policy.
My secondary school was 80% non indigenous and had some issues like all schools, and sometimes things weren't very pleasant.
The biggest difference I find as I work in a profession very populated by private/ public school educated people is in the outward manifestations of confidence, and thats about it. But then my opinion probably doesn't really matter as the main argument appears to be going on between people who've already made their minds up.

Ap - You've hit the nail on its head - many people seem closed minded and unable to understand that stereotypes are not the norm...
.
.
.
.
....perhaps the side effect of a State education!!! 😉

HTTP404 - back to your original question - no you're not - you are just looking out for your kids as a responsible parent.

Sorry aP, but I love the way...........................

The biggest difference I find as I work in a profession very populated by private/ public school educated people is in the outward manifestations of confidence,

Is followed by..................

But then my opinion probably doesn't really matter

It's Ok, we believed you,without you having to prove it within the same paragraph. 😉

😛

Evidence shows that on average state school teaching is better than that on offer in private schools. The differences in achievement arises from the kids' backgrounds, you tend to get 'poor schools' in poor areas. However there are some really good state schools that take kids from all backgrounds and give them the opportunity to fulfil their potential. I went to a school like that and it produced some real successes in different ways, Stephen Harris (of Iron Maiden) was in my class, Jonathan Ross was a few years behind, another guy there went on to become a history professor, plus it produced a few villains and villeins. In my experience what the top private schools give their alumni is supreme self-confidence, often among people who are too thick to know their own limitations, but it can certainly help people get on.

HTTP404 - back to your original question - no you're not - you are just looking out for your kids as a responsible parent.

So why mention the appearance of other kids or parents, or think that their names are an issue?

Seems that the OP, whilst wanting a decent education for his kids (fair enough), would rather they go to a school where the other pupils and their families fit into his idea of respectability.

Which seems quite narrow-minded and snobbish, imo.

HTTP - may be a bid odd and arrogant but its fairly easy to tell IMO.

I think its important to consider not just the generalities but also the specific - which is why I said earlier in thethread that in the situation the OP is in he can only make up his mind based on what his kids are like and what the schools in question are really like.

There is a lot of info in this thread to help you make up your mind. IMO state schools are best for most kids to get a rounded education. The money spent on fees could do an awful lot outside of school for the kids

This is from a [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latymer_Upper_School ]Wiki piece about the public school I went to for 2 years[/url]:

Pupils come from a wide area of London. After the Blair Government's abolition of the Assisted Places Scheme for the children of poorer families, the social range has narrowed and the relatively small number of bursary places that are subsidised by the School is not able to compensate for this.[2] In particular, Hammersmith's substantial Polish and Afro-Caribbean communities are significantly under-represented.[3][4] The Sixth Form has been co-educational since 1996, and the main school became fully co-educational, with the introduction of girls into Year 7 for the first time in 2004. With that year's entry moving into in Year 11 it became fully co-educational in 2008. The Good Schools Guide said "This is an urban inner-city school that still has a grammar school feel and parents value the social mix that comes from taking in plenty of state school children at 11."[1]

It concerns me, that this fine educational establishment, with some of the best resources to be found in any school, does not serve many of it's local children. Ironic, then, that it was in fact set up to educate the poor. With fees now at over £12000 a year, many people are simply excluded. This, imo, is unfair. That you can only get the best education for your kids, if you can afford it. A situation made worse by the scrapping of the AP scheme, which enabled me to go there. This hinders social mobility. The social divide is ever-widening.

Latymer is one of the less 'exclusive' schools, too. But it's still a 'posh school' for 'posh kids'.

"a classless society cannot exist where an individual's merit is measured by commercial worth."

Funny isn't it that the children given a much better chance at winning on the commercial scale later in life tend to have had a hell of a lot more spent on their education.

But that's not really of interest to you , is it?

He is entitled to do what he sees best for his kids, I moved away from London as I didn't want to raise my family there, is it any different to sending your kids to private school?

I'm not a snob but I want my kids to grow up into people who have a good perspective on life and a good chance in life to do the same for their kids.

Imagine how good state schools could be if all the money ppl pay in fees to private schools went into state education, and all the parents who apparently care so much about their children's education got involved with PTA etc at state schools.

Don't get me started on religious schools btw - not sure how come public money can be used to fund a school which blatantly discriminates on religious grounds.

Toowundred!

TandemJeremy - Member
Well said trailmonkey.

In response to an earlier post I bet I can guess wh went to state school and wh went to feepaying schools with a high degree of accuracy - Dead easy to do from attitudes. Really really simple.

Put up or shut up TJ, your opinionated & vocal, so show us your worth please.

your opinionated & vocal, so show us your worth please.

Your opinionated and vocal what? Uncle? Best mate? Pet frog?

I prefer TJ's vocal opinions to some others on here...

I went to a dreadfull state school and hated it. We had all the chavs and a girl who ended up 'Well preggerz' at the grand age of 14, because she didn't want to do her GCSEs. Don't forget the few children that ended up on house arrest at the age of 16.

It was full of useless kids that just disrupted the education of others, the education itself was pretty shoddy probably because the teachers spent all their time sorting out the troubled children.

If I have kids and have the money they they will be straight to private school with good education and proper people. Don't worry I will get my own back when it comes to picking nursing homes.

proper people

Oh dear...

What's the opinion on state Grammar schools that feed from local comps at age 14, and if you do well at 15 or at your GCSE'S at 16 you can come join the streamed fun for A-levels or whatever alternatives are offered these days? Do they have them in Britain?

Your opinionated and vocal what? Uncle? Best mate? Pet frog?

I prefer TJ's vocal opinions to some others on here...

Fred, from someone who used to pretend to be black, just to get a reaction, I find that quite amusing.

If TJ says he can tell who has been to which type of school, then let him prove it. I'm sure he doesn't need gobshites to speak for him.

TJ's responses have been fine, he always argues his points IMO.

grumm - Member

Imagine how good state schools could be if all the money ppl pay in fees to private schools went into state education, and all the parents who apparently care so much about their children's education got involved with PTA etc at state schools.

Don't get me started on religious schools btw - not sure how come public money can be used to fund a school which blatantly discriminates on religious grounds.

People who send their kids to private school are also paying taxes so pay for other peoples kids to go to state schools. They are in effect paying twice for their childs education.

Does money make a good school? It obviously helps but will throwing money at a child raise their IQ or change their attitude to learning?

Can TJ also tell how much someone earns or who is gay or who prefers to ride a singlespeed?

Fred, from someone who used to pretend to be black, just to get a reaction, I find that quite amusing.

I find that statement utterly hilarious!

How long d'it take you to think that one up? Well done!

'Pretend to be Black'! LOL! 😆

Got any more like that?

2 unfit to ride - how can I show this on the forum? I am fairly sure I can do this in real life. It needs rather more than forum posts. All those little subliminal signals that you get in real conversation
Jon / rudeboy - thanks.

I thought Fred was brown? we have seen pics of him. Not black nor whirte but a sort of midbrown colour ( I'm pinkish)

"but will throwing money at a child raise their IQ..? "

Why do better off parents need to spend more on their children then?

...

"or change their attitude to learning?"

What was your attitude to learning at 10 years old? Were you aware of such a concept?

TJ is very vocal on a small amount of subjects, I would say I agree on some, disagree on others. I would never normally challenge someone on here, but such a bold statement just reeks of self worth.

And besides, I can't tell, so I'm interested in how he can.

Can TJ also tell how much someone earns or who is gay or who prefers to ride a singlespeed?

Are you suggesting there is some kind of correlation between these things? 😛

People who send their kids to private school are also paying taxes so pay for other peoples kids to go to state schools. They are in effect paying twice for their childs education.

Good - they can obviously afford it, which means they clearly aren't paying enough tax! 😉

Does money make a good school? It obviously helps but will throwing money at a child raise their IQ or change their attitude to learning?

Isn't that one of the main benefits that people have been suggesting public schools give you?

Fred, you know, I just pull them out of the hat sometimes 😉 Your posts have always had me enthralled, its been fun watching you change over the years.
You used to have a bag of spuds on your shoulder, now your down to a potato or two, not long before it becomes a mere chip.

I'll rephrase the question,

What does the extra money provide? In many cases private schools offer a selection procedure based on "academic ability" the money covers the fact that this excludes them from government funding (or that they opt out). What would giving more money to a comprehensive change that would make it a better school?

At ten years old I loved learning, I liked maths and science, quite enjoyed school. Didn't like English or French but worked hard at it because I wanted to be good/better. I'd read books on things I liked, had things like mocroscopes and chemistry sets to play with. Learning was just fun/interesting for me.

Your posts have always had me enthralled

That's funny; 'cos yours haven't!

TandemJeremy - Member
2 unfit to ride - how can I show this on the forum? I am fairly sure I can do this in real life. It needs rather more than forum posts. All those little subliminal signals that you get in real conversation

I'm sorry, I thought you were posting on a forum, boasting about being able to tell which type of school people went to. I didn't realise you meant you could only tell if you had actually met the person, & asked them where they went to school 😉

grumm - Member

[i]Can TJ also tell how much someone earns or who is gay or who prefers to ride a singlespeed?[/i]

Are you suggesting there is some kind of correlation between these things?

I was more trying to think of things that there are sterotypes for but are all irrelevant when you look at the person rather than the label. Does it really matter if someone has been to public school? I know people who have and haven't and some are good, some are bad - I don't know what the point was that TJ was trying to get across.

Hadn't thought of any correlations - but let me think... 😆

What would giving more money to a comprehensive change that would make it a better school?

Smaller class sizes? More learning support? Better equipment/more books etc? More activities/trips on offer? More/better training for teachers? Er...

RudeBoy - Member
That's funny; 'cos yours haven't!

I bet you come up with something, I know you won't let it lie.

More/better training for teachers? Er...

This gets better. So now the teachers are rubbish at state schools too ?

2 unfit - sory for the confusion - yes it needs more than a forum post. I dunno what point I was trying to make now either.
Gays - you can tell by the shirts, the way they walk and the aftershave

( thats a joke btw)

This gets better. So now the teachers are rubbish at state schools too ?

Er.... where are you getting that from? I went to a state school and the teachers were generally pretty good.

Just saying that if you had a bigger budget, you can afford more training for your staff, which is probably a good thing. Which part of that do you fail to understand?

I was just arguing that there would be clear benefits to more money for state schools - not just schools that only benefit the already priveleged and exacerbate divisions in society.

Can someone remind me what the OP was??

Which part of that do you fail to understand?

OK, don't have a cow. My mistake, thought you were having a pop at an already undervalued proffesion.

Sorry just had a cow. Literally.

jonb - not gonna respond to how more money might benefit comprehensives eh? 😉

I don't think private schools exacerbate divisions in society - historically we have had a seriously crazy class society and I think a lot of that will always be ingrained. I don't agree with it but at the same time it is hard not to see it in society.

I also don't think that putting more money in state schools will work - as many posters have said there are disruptive influences in schools which stop teachers teaching. What you need is a method of dividing up children into people who want to learn and people who don't...

"What does the extra money provide? In many cases private schools offer a selection procedure based on "academic ability"

I had that in a state school in N.Ireland. Debate the merits of selection.

"What would giving more money to a comprehensive change that would make it a better school?"

Well here's a suggestion...

"(I) had things like mocroscopes [i](sic)[/i] and chemistry sets to play with. Learning was just fun/interesting for me. "

One between thirty students in my state comp.

Are you any closer to an understanding now?

I was really wondering if it is purely money that makes the difference?

My parents bought me the microscope. It was a while ago and it was no means a top of the range affair, they're about £20 in argos now [url= http://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Search?storeId=10001&catalogId=1500001501&langId=-1&searchTerms=microscope&Submit=GO+%3E ]link[/url]
so not going to break the bank of anyone on this forum I assume. I do appreciate that proper research ones can cost a little bit more than that!

there are disruptive influences in schools which stop teachers teaching.

What if those disruptive influences could all be given appropriate 1-2-1 support if/when they needed it?

What you need is a method of dividing up children into people who want to learn and people who don't...

I don't agree with that at all - what is really needed is finding the right things/approaches that will stimulate different people. We are starting to get much better at this I think but there is a long way to go.

Does anyone have a reliable source as to what the government spends on education per child? The current fees for where I went are (a lot more than they used to be) £8000 per year assuming you don't get any sort of help.

"I was really wondering if it is purely money that makes the difference?"

Well, please share your opinion on whether [b]it may help[/b], in a school environment.

Did you read the whab waving post a few weeks back regarding incomes? If you did you would know that the income of many that post on this forum is not very representative of the median income in the uk.

And regardless of that fact, wouldn't you say that all children should be given an [b]equal chance in life[/b], to succeed or fail, regardless of their parental income?

I agree on the 1-2-1 - but the point I was trying to make was that it isn't just down to money - it is about the community and until you get the support of the pupils and their parents - teaching is going to be a tough job and results will not be as good as they could - Its a team effort and everyone needs to push in the right direction but a lot of places people aren't focused on education and achieving the results.

My other comment was slightly taking the michael as currently the way of dividing them up is to either leave the people who are disruptive in low ability classes and penalise them academically or take the people who want to learn out of states schools and put them in to private schools.

However I agree - you need to find things to stimulate them into learning but its not that easy. I personally was not a great student and only left school with 5 GCSEs at A-C. That was nothing to do with the teachers or the type of school I went to or how much money any of my schools had but my focus on education at the time.

Being a slack bugger there were many points during my school days when I didn't want to learn, especially in my "bad" subjects. It wouldn't have done me any good at all if I had been separated off from the pro learners.

Just to throw my hat into this decidedly British debate; I went to a decent comprehensive, with it's fair share of dodgy kids and large class sizes, but the teaching staff were great and the policies far sighted enough to give priority to activities that encouraged social integration and fun like music, drama etc. This did come at the expense of sport though; I don't think I played more than a couple of games of team sports whilst I was there.

Those children at fee paying schools who I knew at the time (family friends etc) seemed like they thought rather more of themselves than my mates, although in retrospect it was more likely due to them having more in common with the other kids at these gatherings (lame summer parties etc) as they were also from independent schools, than them being toffs.

It was amusing at uni, where there really were some poshos, to confuse those who had never met anyone from a comp who was not serving them in some way. The stories I heard from many of my friends at that time convinced me that a comprehensive education was the way forward.

For my own children we recently moved to an area where the local school has a decent rep but I don't think my principles on the matter would stand up if I didn't have that option. Lord knows how we would afford it though! One of my friends in particular is changing, with regard to his views on schooling, from being a rabid socialist through pragmatism to a pro fee paying school, sad really as he did so well from his own comprehensive education (and that was at a much rougher school than mine).

What they need to deal with the disruptive students is a different kind of syllabus, clearly they do not get on the current sit on the chair and write stuff syllabus.

If they had a more parctical or vocaltional type of subject with English, Maths and a bit Science built in then you would find a lot of the trouble goes away. Where they get to build and learn other skills. But the education department have yet to realise this and instead they think every child has to sit on a chair and learn dates. A little more diversity in education wouldn't go a miss and you can do this while including a bit of the subjets above.

Yes money would help, although I think the childs ability has something to do with it. E.g. No matter how much money you spend on me I will never make it as a good musician. The thing that would be needed to be done would be to find the childs talents and interests and nuture it. Still money cannot cure all problems, a large part of a childs education is (should be) done at home, schools can't be there all the time. I know from experience that even at my private school there were issues, not with violence to the level of knife crime but things weren't always rosy.

All children should be given a equal start in life, but they're not and as some people have said above, no one want to sacrifice their child to fight to get this so will do the best they can. Even those sending their children/or wanting to send their children to comprehensives were doing it because they thought it would give a better rounded education not through some political ideal. Or at least that was my understanding.

"historically we have had a seriously crazy class society and I think a lot of that will always be ingrained. I don't agree with it but at the same time it is hard not to see it in society."

Christ, reading that is depressing. Are all Brits who recognise this equally exhausted and willing to "accept" the inequalities of the "class society"?

probably on the wrong forum for that question though, eh? 😀

None of the proponents of public schools seem to be mentioning the other apparent benefit of them - the 'old boys network'. Is that not another consideration when deciding where to send your kids? Or does that not exist any more?

"I was really wondering if it is purely money that makes the difference?"

(29mins pass...)

"Yes money would help,"

You answered your own question in the space of 30 mins. You don't have a clue about the state school versus privately funded issue, do you?

"All children should be given a equal start in life, but they're not "

Ever wondered why?