It's no wonder the youth of today are struggling..

[SpikeMac]

See my subsequent edits. And do not forget the scaling factor either (i.e. how many in state, how many in private, relative to whole class of age)

 

I'm not saying the intake is normalised (hence my earlier use of 'notionally' ) between private & state. Just that the perceived (and real I'm sure) difference at the average level is far, far less than people would assume/believe. There is little academic difference between a juvenile delinquent-elect from an estate, and a spoilt-rotten brat with a rich kid attitude. (Seen plenty enough of them in my time, believe you me...they haven't done much with their studies, still less with their life).

 

If you changed "a juvenile delinquent" to "some juvenile delinquents", I'd accept your point. Indeed, it is the same point that I was making when I pointed out that class and wealth are key determinants of academic success.

 

ETA: Just seen your edit. I think that we are roughly on the same page.

[Cyclone]

Why?

 

Notionally, they both have the same input, processes and output.

 

Only resources and their management vary between them.

 

The input varies considerably I'd suggest.

[L00b]

If you changed "a juvenile delinquent" to "some juvenile delinquents", I'd accept your point.

A bit precious, no?

Indeed, it is the same point that I was making when I pointed out that class and wealth are key determinants of academic success.

my turn: if you leave 'class' out (money does not buy you class, and social classes are a meaningless concept in this day and age so far as I' concerned) I'd accept your point (which, incidentally, is the very point I was originally making, after a fashion: the only differential between state and private schools, is money, which buys more resources = 'more education' foisted upon the pupils who, starting from an essentially common base Compared to state school pupils, do better as a result - per your observation).

 

[Cyclone]

academically speaking, they do. 'Rich' kids are no smarter than 'poor' kids to begin with, money does not buy you more IQ. Money *does* buy you more concentrated/bespoke/supported education, though - no point having blinkers about that one.

It's not 'rich kids' per se that is the difference.

It's kids who's parents care about their education enough to spend a large portion of money on it.

On average they are more likely to take an interest, they are more likely to encourage and assist their children, they are more likely to have been teaching them to read and count themselves. It makes a massive difference.

 

---------- Post added 04-09-2013 at 22:06 ----------

 

A bit precious, no?

my turn: if you leave 'class' out (money does not buy you class, and social classes are a meaningless concept in this day and age so far as I' concerned) I'd accept your point (which, incidentally, is the very point I was originally making, after a fashion: the only differential between state and private schools, is money, which buys more resources = 'more education' foisted upon the pupils who, starting from an essentially common base Compared to state school pupils, do better as a result - per your observation).

 

 

If money were the only difference then the children of parents who care wouldn't have an advantage over those that don't. They do have an advantage though, the home environment and attitude towards learning make a big difference to achievement, and social class, which is linked to money, is also linked to that home environment and attitude.

[SpikeMac]

A bit precious, no?

 

Maybe a little. I was suggesting that there are plenty of intelligent delinquents, but far more unintelligent ones.

 

 

my turn: if you leave 'class' out (money does not buy you class, and social classes are a meaningless concept in this day and age so far as I' concerned) I'd accept your point (which, incidentally, is the very point I was originally making, after a fashion: the only differential between state and private schools, is money, which buys more resources = 'more education' foisted upon the pupils who, starting from an essentially common base Compared to state school pupils, do better as a result - per your observation).

 

 

I'm not sure. Money and class tend to go roughly hand in hand. Social class is closely linked to educational attainment. If you are having trouble sleeping, you might want to follow your nose through all of this worthy stuff from the RSA..

 

Class or money. It makes little difference. The academic dice are loaded against poor kids from poor areas.

[L00b]

Cyclone, your points are prescient, but they are less relevant to the debate between state and private schools, than to a wider debate about the merits of parental support in education (regardless of whether state or private): the points you made transcend both.

 

In my experience again, those "spoilt-rotten brats with a rich kid attitude" I posted about earlier were very (most) often the kids of disinterested/dysfunctional well-off households. Sent to a private school because it was the done thing or as a hands-off quick-fix attempt. That they would exhibit the same academic reticence and failings as juvenile deliquent-elects from estates was no surprise howsoever.

[Cyclone]

I suspect that if you measured the proportion of parents that didn't care, or weren't able to help, it would be much lower amongst those who send their children to paid for schools. One of the reasons I think that the inputs to the two types of school are different.

 

I don't think I can tell the future though, which is what prescient means.

[anywebsite]

My old maths teacher barely passed her maths gcse & frequently made mistakes in class. She was good compared to the alcoholic I got trying to teach maths A-level in college. If you can't do, teach.

[Cyclone]

Which is odd, because to teach at GCSE level they are supposed to be qualified themselves at A-level and so on.