aliceBB Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 After 30+ years' experience of working in education with all age groups from 5-18 in a variety of types of schools, I have come the following conclusions. A child's achievement throughout school and his or her future prospects depends to some extent on natural ability and aptitude, but far more on parental attitude, encouragement and involvement than on which school they go to or their parents' socioeconomic status. You do not make sacrificial lambs of your children on the altar of your political principles, but nor should you delude yourself that sending them to a private establishment will make up for the time you are not spending with them - the encouragement and interaction you should be making time for, day in day out. The kids who grow up into confident and high achieving young adults with good prospects always come from homes where they are valued as individuals, talked with, and taught to respect be interested in others for who they are, not how many A*s they get. None of that costs money, unless your time is counted in money, I suppose. The teachers in private schools (who do not have to be qualifed teachers, btw) are not miracle workers. They cannot make up for a lack of parental /family involvement and they cannot turn a 14 year old who shares his parents' fundamental lack of respect for education or teachers, into one who values those things. If you and your child do not value education, they will not get the most from it. (This is why I feel so strongly about the issue of parents removing kids from classes to take them on holiday - the unspoken message you are giving them is : 'School is not that important'). I have several friends who work in the private sector and they often told me that parents made huge 'sacrifices' to send their kids there. Often this sacrifice involved both parents working very long hours to earn enough to pay the fees. Sadly this meant they spent hardly any time with their kids, or they were too stressed and exhausted at weekends to enjoy family life. The kids would have been better off in a smaller house, at a state school, with parents who could then afford to be a part of their growing up. Whilst it is natural to want 'the best' for one's child and one can sympathise with any parent who feels their child is square peg in a round hole at school, 'the best' is not necessarily about paying extra for education, whether it is in a private school or by engaging private tutors. Many private schools in England and Wales have high-achieving pupils, but the chances are that those pupils would have achieve highly in a state school, too. Statistically there is no difference now between the A level exam results of highest-ability state vs privately educated pupils nationwide (as identified by their CAT tests at age 11 - a measurement fo raw ability/potential, as opposed to learnt knowledge). Privately educated students have a higher drop-out rate at universities and (as noted before) achieve fewer first class degrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 We've been through all this before. Private/grammar schools do not always provide the best education, lot's of kids flunk. What they do do is associate people. So you say your old man was unemployed and you went to grammar school, what does that prove? Yes, there are examples of poor people getting into these types of schools but they'd stand a better chances in their parents were paying their fees or for extra tuition. The poor cannot afford to do that. For the well off it is self-perpetuation Mecky, we all know you're a bit dim but, please, do yourself the decency of reading the post I was responding to before you make more of a fool of yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyper Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I can't really argue with anyone that wants to buy the best they can afford whatever it is. If it just so happens to be their children's education ...its their money and the option exists. Basically it comes down to personal choices and priorities and money, which you either have or you don't. If your children are really bright and you you think they would benefit from receiving an education you can't afford there are a lot of fee paying schools that offer the opportunity to apply for scholarships; which may partly or even fully cover the fees. Investigate the options and apply as early as you can and as early as they will let you. The people that make most noise about there being fee paying schools are usually people that believe life ought to be fair. Wake up! It is not and never will be. So I can see nothing wrong in trying to give your children an edge or a leg up. Complaining that someone else has, or is getting, something you can't get sounds a little too much like jealousy to me. Generally if you want the best of anything you have to either pay for it or persuade someone else to pay for it for you, and that as they say is all there is to it. I'd also point out that the children that are generally gain most from their education and go on to to do well in HE and life generally are the ones where parental expectation is high, and the children feel supported; regardless of public or private sector or income. . . have to agree Tommo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Mecky, we all know you're a bit dim but, please, do yourself the decency of reading the post I was responding to before you make more of a fool of yourself. Look who's talking ---------- Post added 19-06-2014 at 13:42 ---------- Grammar schools were free & selected on ability. It proves there's no easy way out for the poor now unless you can play football, the lack of grammar schools gives private schools a bigger advantage. I don't despute that were free, well they're not actually because they were state funded and that means taxation which most of us pay, and selected on ability. What I said was if your parents paid for tuition of extra tuition it probably increased your chances of getting into grammar school over those that couldn't afford additional tuition. ---------- Post added 19-06-2014 at 13:45 ---------- The teachers in private schools (who do not have to be qualifed teachers, btw) are not miracle workers. They cannot make up for a lack of parental /family involvement and they cannot turn a 14 year old who shares his parents' fundamental lack of respect for education or teachers, into one who values those things. Correct, there are some right rich/celebrity duffers about who received private or grammar education but flunked yet they did ok for themselves through the contacts and friends they formed in those places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosey Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 In any case, doing charitable work doesn't make them a charity. I've no problem with the existence of private schools, but we need some honesty here. They are businesses that sell advantage and privilege. Fair enough if that is how you choose to spend your money. But they are a business not a charity. At the moment, they are just another tax break for the wealthy. I just wanted to go back to this last sentence as someone else has mentioned taxes. You say that the "wealthy" get tax breaks by the charitable status. You are aware that part of my taxes, a fair chunk in fact I suspect, goes to fund state schools? State schools I won't use as we pay for education. I could say the same for healthcare as I have BUPA. Swings and roundabouts. I don't complain about being taxed on something I don't use so if this is a benefit then so be it. Fair's fair. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I just wanted to go back to this last sentence as someone else has mentioned taxes. You say that the "wealthy" get tax breaks by the charitable status. You are aware that part of my taxes, a fair chunk in fact I suspect, goes to fund state schools? State schools I won't use as we pay for education. I could say the same for healthcare as I have BUPA. Swings and roundabouts. I don't complain about being taxed on something I don't use so if this is a benefit then so be it. Fair's fair. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android The difference for you is that it's your choice. Most people do not have that luxury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 The difference for you is that it's your choice. Most people do not have that luxury Absolutely. Add into the mix the fact that Private Schools are clearly not charities and the case is closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 ...there are some right rich/celebrity duffers about who received private or grammar education but flunked yet they did ok for themselves through the contacts and friends they formed in those places. That works well as an argument for closing such institutions down overnight. The fewer rich celebrity duffers we have as role models/tax evaders, the better. Besides, the market for 'rich celebrity duffers' in this country is probably saturated. It is however a distraction. We are talking about the fairness or otherwise of some people being able to buy what they perceive as a better education than that which the state provides. There are two ways of looking at this : 1. 'It's my money; I can do what I want with it. If I would rather give my kids a chance to be in smaller classes, with better equipment, but with teachers of more variable quality than in the state system, I should not be criticised for that. If I blew it all on a gambling holiday in Las Vegas, nobody would mind, would they, even if they couldn't afford that themselves?' 2.'By sending your kids to private schools you are being elitist - you are trying to buy privilege and unfair advantages. You are undermining and damaging the state system which most people have to use. If your money and your kids went into state schools, they would be better places for everyone. It's not the same as spending your money on holidays or big TVs because education and health are not material possessions - they are basic rights. Everyone should have an equal chance of excellent provision in education and health'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Correct, there are some right rich/celebrity duffers about who received private or grammar education but flunked yet they did ok for themselves through the contacts and friends they formed in those places. Can you name a few? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 That works well as an argument for closing such institutions down overnight. The fewer rich celebrity duffers we have as role models/tax evaders, the better. Besides, the market for 'rich celebrity duffers' in this country is probably saturated. It is however a distraction. We are talking about the fairness or otherwise of some people being able to buy what they perceive as a better education than that which the state provides. There are two ways of looking at this : 1. 'It's my money; I can do what I want with it. If I would rather give my kids a chance to be in smaller classes, with better equipment, but with teachers of more variable quality than in the state system, I should not be criticised for that. If I blew it all on a gambling holiday in Las Vegas, nobody would mind, would they, even if they couldn't afford that themselves?' 2.'By sending your kids to private schools you are being elitist - you are trying to buy privilege and unfair advantages. You are undermining and damaging the state system which most people have to use. If your money and your kids went into state schools, they would be better places for everyone. It's not the same as spending your money on holidays or big TVs because education and health are not material possessions - they are basic rights. Everyone should have an equal chance of excellent provision in education and health'. Good post Alice I agree that is the current situation in a nutshell, there should however be a third one: 3.'The reason you are sending your kids to private schools is because the state is not providing good enough education for your child. We understand this frustration and will change the actual educational system to be more appropriate, rather than fiddle about with how we mark stuff and rank schools.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.