Quite right too - I think it's a bit weird that so-called public schools should have charitable status - in the main they are there for the rich and privileged. Round my way where there are a lot of private schools, the bursaries tend not to be particularly generous - 20% off if that. Most people still can't afford them.

Also, look at Europe where private schools are far less common. Their governments invest much more in the education system, or you pay a percentage according to what you can afford and the rest is topped up by the government, as in Holland as once explained to me by a Dutch friend.

I have a Viennese cousin who teaches in a primary school in a deprived area; I observed her teaching there last year and it was noticeable that the class sizes were much smaller - 22 at the most and far more manageable. We don't really value children enough here or give them what they deserve. Or we have a situation where the better-off can buy their way out - how can that be fundamentally right or good?

lucky045, it's one thing if you can choose any public school you want (i.e. you don't have to go to THE one and only school you are zoned for). If you can't pick and choose which public school you attend, then finding a suitable, affordable private school is about the only way out.

And if you can pick and choose your public school, then what's the difference, in principal, between rejecting one public school for another public school vs. another private school?

It's never about "all" private schools or all public schools, is it? It's always about the actual schools that exist in the area you can commute to...

This is off-topic, for which I apologise, but when one of the political parties realises that small class sizes, and small (I don't mean minute, but about 700 pupils in a secondary school) schools are the way to really improve education in its widest sense I will vote for them. All the money that has been wasted on ill-thought-out education initiatives could have been better spent on the extra staff and buildings needed for smaller schools. It would do away with a lot of the bad behaviour and bullying that is reported to occur.

Sorry, rant over.

I think there are already some plans for this, or at least some charities suggesting it; such as splitting a 2000 pupil school up into 3 or 4. There is a link on the BBC website; I will try to find it as soon as I can.

Oh - my - god. I just found this:

UK Average Class Size 26

Ireland Average Class Size 24

France Average Class Size 22.6

Netherlands Average Class Size 22.2

Germany Average Class Size 22

Cyprus Average Class Size 21.7

Malta Average Class Size 21.6

Estonia Average Class Size 21.1

Czech Republic Average Class Size 20.6

Poland Average Class Size 20.6

Belgium Average Class Size 20.3

Hungary Average Class Size 20.3

Austria Average Class Size 20.1

Slovakia Average Class Size 19.9

Denmark Average Class Size 19.8

Spain Average Class Size 19.3

Slovenia Average Class Size 18.4

Italy Average Class Size 18.3

Greece Average Class Size 18.1

Latvia Average Class Size 17.2

Portugal Average Class Size 16.0

Luxembourg Average Class Size 15.6

Lithuania Average Class Size 15.2


What are we doing? Why do we do it to ourselves???

*shakes head sadly*

All Ears, I hope this isn't too pedantic, but just to point out that in the UK a public school is a posh and long-established private secondary school, such as Eton, Rugby or Marlborough (the sort of school where you put your child's name on the waiting list at birth!) "Ordinary" schools provided "free" by the government are known as state schools.

As I understand it, private schools have to show that they are providing some benefit to the community in order to qualify for their charitable status. In some cases that may be sending older students out to local state primaries to help children with reading, visiting and helping elderly people etc. Schools in our area offer up to 50% means tested scholarships (higher percentages available in cases of genuine need for very bright or talented pupils).

Well I agree that it is unfair that only those who can afford it (or who have children clever enough to get scholarships) should be able to choose whether or not to send their children to private schools, but then it's unfair that the well off can avoid NHS waiting lists by going to private doctors and hospitals.

Over the past years governments (and I'm not just blaming Labour) can't seem to get it right about education - smaller class sizes would be a good place to start!
My husband taught for some years at an independent girls' school. He said one advantage was that discipline was quite good. They were able to suspend and even sack girls if necessary (though expulsion was very much a last resort - firstly they needed the fees and secondly they felt they should be able to sort out most problems). This meant that whole classes were not ruined by one disruptive pupil.

Sticks head above parapet and prepares for barrage...

Why is it so unfair? Everyone makes choices in life about how to earn their living and what to spend their money on. Private education and healthcare are 2 possible choices from a long list. I know people on low incomes who choose to buy these things instead of a house / holidays / car / 40 a day cigarette habit.

Talk to our City Council see if you can make them see sense. I totally agree by the way.

About 2 or 3 years ago they built a super school after merging two comprehensives. First mistake one of the schools had a good reputation but the new school was organised on the site of the other which had a poor reputation. Some Parents in that area tried to avoid the school, the local Catholic school benefitted, as it had low numbers, some of the parents applied and got places. the Catholic High School has a good reputation. The Super school remained low on numbers as I suspect some parents also sought and got places in a neighbouring authority such was their desperation to avoid the stigma of sending their children ot the Super school. Well there's no happy ending to this tale as the Catholic school which is now over subscribed (but small) is under threat of closure. The Head and parents are fighting it but it isn't looking good.

They still haven't got the message that Parents will always vote with their feet.

Why is it unfair? Because education is a basic right for all children and somebody has to collect the garbage, do the cleaning jobs, work at the check-outs etc etc etc. The rest of us would be in a right mess if no one did those jobs, right? So do the children of the people who do those jobs deserve less educationally than the children of the better off?

If you're stuck doing cleaning jobs and all the rest, you can't afford private school, period! We're talking about the real world here!

England is pretty unique with its two-tier education system. England has a pretty pronounced class system too. Perhaps the two are connected and perhaps it aint good.

Success within the educational system, whether private or state, depends on a child making the effort and being supported by their parents. Paying for a private school doesn't guarantee that a child will get a 'better' education or exam results, and as plenty of people have said, many state schools are excellent. Sorry, but I don't have much sympathy with the 'it's not fair' argument, no matter what the context. Life isn't fair, but at least we all have the potential to make the best of our abilities in this country, class system or not.

I'll shut up now.

Well then perhaps you'd like to explain why the percentage of private school students making it to Oxbridge far exceeds the percentage of children actually educated in the state sector? Come on, do you really think all those parents would fork out all those thousands if it didn't make any real difference?!?

And yes many state schools are excellent but try getting into one if you live in London! And actully no we don't all have the potential to make the best of our abilities in this country. If you're born into a 'sink estate' and end up in a large class in a poorly performing school you stand a markedly smaller chance of making a success of your life than if you were born into a wealthy family who can afford to educate you privately. Even if you're considerably more intelligent than the rich child. Some recent research has borne this out and it's a scandal.

I think we all need to wake up to the fact that class and background makes far more difference to the outcome of children's lives in this country than anywhere else in Europe.

[quote

If you're stuck doing cleaning jobs and all the rest, you can't afford private school, period! We're talking about the real world here!


[/quote]

Yes and no. I have a friend whose daughter went to our local comprehensive and was bullied badly during her first year. She was susequently offered a place at at very expensive local school - her mother, who is a single parent and works part time and earns very little - pays absolutely nothing for that. The girl in question is reasonably bright - but certainly not outstanding - she wasn't offered a scholarship, but had an interview and was given a full (means-tested) bursary which includes the boarding fee.

We are also considering sending our girls to private schools (the older one is currently in yr 6 at the local primary) because we are not happy with the local state school, and all the other local ones are over-subscribed (because so many people are trying to avoid the local one). The schools offer means tested bursaries, but we earn too much to qualify for one of those - though nowhere near enough to pay full fees for two children. We are therefore hoping for a scholarship - However, the two schools we have applied for offer 25% in one case and 33% off in the other, so it will still be a real struggle. There will also be a lot of competition for the scholarships - not least from the children at the prep schools who have been educated for the last 7 years in classes of 10-12, whereas my daughters have been in classes of 30 and at worst 34 (the class size pledge of 30 relates to infant pupils - not juniors...)

Some places have brilliant state schools - I just wish I lived in one of them...

[quote name='Violinia' date='Jan 10 2008, 09:45 PM' post='654229']
[quote name='SueHM' post='654149' date='Jan 10 2008, 06:43 PM']
Success within the educational system, whether private or state, depends on a child making the effort and being supported by their parents. Paying for a private school doesn't guarantee that a child will get a 'better' education or exam results, and as plenty of people have said, many state schools are excellent. Sorry, but I don't have much sympathy with the 'it's not fair' argument, no matter what the context. Life isn't fair, but at least we all have the potential to make the best of our abilities in this country, class system or not.

I'll shut up now.
[/quote]

Well then perhaps you'd like to explain why the percentage of private school students making it to Oxbridge far exceeds the percentage of children actually educated in the state sector? Come on, do you really think all those parents would fork out all those thousands if it didn't make any real difference?!?



I'm never too successful at quoting sections at a time...
First paragraph of Violinia's post: Maybe this is something to do with the fact that those parents who pay for private education keep a close eye on how that education is going. I'm not saying that others don't, and this is a gross generalisation, but on the whole, the more you invest in something, the greater the return that you will demand from from it. The attitudes of others around children and young people will have a bearing on expectations too; if the greatest aspiration of anyone in your school is to make it to be a supervisor in a shop, then it's likely that your own attitude will be coloured by this. I would guess that the reason that many choose private education is in order to ensure that the goalposts are high as possible. They won't be any more achievable if the child doesn't have what it takes, but chances are that the child is more likely to aim higher if others around are doing the same, and therefore be more likely to fulfill potential. Attitude, I feel, has more bearing on 'success' than intelligence, and it's this pervading attitude that many are paying for.

(I do have to throw in here that success is a subjective thing, and a prestigious career may not bring happiness, but that's another story...)

And for many middle class parents, this works fine, as their own education helps fill in any gaps encountered in state schools. Unfortunately, children whose own parents were not well educated, cannot benefit from their support in the same way, so they really have their work cut out to succeed. I believe the old grammar schools worked far better for this type of child than our modern comprehensives.

Many private schools, and selective state schools, are still modelled on the grammar schools, and I believe this is one reason why children educated in them are more likely to go to Oxbridge. Another reason is the gradual bleeding of the better teachers out of the state system where they face all kinds of abuse from unruly kids who don't want to learn, into the private sector where they have an easier and more fulfilled life.

A friend of mine who used to teach part-time in the school where I work went full-time just over two years ago, and moved to a girl's private school. She assures me that a full time job in the private school is far less stressful than her old part time job in a mixed state comprehensive. Until this state of affairs is addressed, parents will continue to pay for private education if they can possibly afford it.

Not a teacher again, but as a student, I have to say I agree with Violinia. I argued that there wasn't necessarily more bullying in state schools, but it's undeniable that private school educated children get better exam results, and honestly, I don't think anyone can logically argue that that's just. I mean it's just perpetuating the vicious circle of poverty - poor parents can't afford a good school, don't have the support to get good exam results, nor the intelligence to get them without the extra support (yes, some do have that intelligence, but they're relatively few). This means they can't get skilled jobs, and thus can't afford to send their children to private schools with small class sizes.

It's just a way of perpetuating the class divide, which is widely agreed to be more evident in Great Britain than any other country. Sure, some comprehensive school students succeed - but do you truly believe that if a private school student gets straight As, they necessarily have the same high level of intelligence that a state school student has? They might, of course, but surely if you are pro-private schooling, it's because you believe that children who go there have a better chance at getting straight As? So how is that fair?!

I know. Life isn't fair. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight so that it's as fair as possible. Why simply accept unneccessary injustice?

I wonder how many parents from 'sink estates' would choose to send their kids to private schools even if they could?

Worth thinking about! Like I said earlier, attitude is more important than intelligence with regard to 'success', and human nature is to fall into line with one's social circle. (I'm using the word 'social' in its other sense, by the way - not with regard to 'class'.) The aspirations of those around us taint our own - with or without parental support, sometimes - which is why more aspire to Oxbridge in private schools than in council estates.

Couldn't agree more. No, life isn't fair but there are unavoidable unfairnesses and there are gross unfairnesses built into the very fabric of certain societies. Britain is one of those societies, which is ironic given our fondness for the idea of 'fair play'.

And the person who mentioned grammar schools, oh yes - they were much better than comprehensives - for the 20% who were lucky enough to get a place. Shame about the other 80%, large numbers of whom could have just been having an off-day on the morning of the exam (when they were 11).... What the unlucky 80% got was considerably worse than a comprehensive school! You couldn't stay on past the age of 16 and you could only take CSEs! They were mostly terrible! I know a few people who went to them and have managed to pull themselves up by the bootstraps since, going to night school etc etc, or with lucky breaks - but there are millions of people out there who got trapped in low wage jobs from the age of 15 back then and never found their way out. It's very sad.

Nobody should wish for those days back again.

N.I. still has the 11-plus system - at the moment. Last year the statistic was that in the region of 85% of people got into their first choice of secondary-level school. Can that be said of the comprehensive system in England - or does it depend on where you live? It's easy to moralise about the comprehensive system being 'fairer' when you come from an area in which your local comprehensive is a 'good school'. At least under the 11-plus system there was a chance to break out.

Nothing is improved by cutting off at the top. But things MAY be improved by offering opportunity at the bottom to REACH for the top.

You're right Dulciana, not many people from 'sink estates' would opt to send their children to private schools even if they could, but like you say, it's because they'd fear the consequences for their children - the bullying because they had the wrong accent, the fact their kids would be embarrassed to ask their classmates home - and lets not beat around the bush - it's class as much as social circle - the two often amount to the same thing anyway. A friend of mine from a very working class background passed the 11+ and went to grammar school and even there (not private school) suffered badly from feeling he didn't 'fit' with his accent, his home life etc etc. He never quite recovered from the experience even though he got into art school and has lived a sort of middle class life ever since.

As for private school aspirations re Oxbridge - too right. Children from some private schools get the chance to go to Oxbridge debates and are helped enormously with Oxbridge applications - the whole thing is heavily weighted in their favour, more than I think a lot of us realise. A friend of mine who went to boarding school rang me recently to talk about Benazir Bhutto's death, telling me she once saw her on one of her school visits to an Oxford debate, ahem. In those sorts of circles this sort of access is taken for granted. It's about privilege buying more privilege and so it goes on.

In Toby Young's book 'How to win friends and alienate people' he actually talks about how he prefers our elite system (of which, as a Rt Hon, he is a benficiary) to America's meritocracy, where if you're poor you're a loser no matter what background you come from, whereas here you're seen as a loser even if you're a millionaire (but come from the 'wrong' background) and vice versa.

Ho hum. Not that I think much of the American way either!

This thread is way way way off topic now............give it a rest folks - these are all old arguments from last year - and nobody won then either.........

My husband failed his 11+ in the early '60s and went to a boys' secondary modern school. However, he got good O levels, and was the 1st boy in the history of the school to get A levels and on to University. So it could be done even then, but he had to be pretty determined.

I would love a grammar school for my children. HOWEVER, my sister lives in Buckinghamshire, where they have them, and is already starting to worry about her children (oldest is 8) getting through the 11+. Not because they aren't bright, as they are, but because of the alternatives if they don't. Some primary schools teach for the 11+. Others don't on principle, so those who get through aren't necessarily the most able. In her area there are masses of prep schools who sell themselves on getting pupils through the 11+ and in some parts of London in particaulr, there is a thriving market in private tutors. The sort of intensive tutoring that goes on in with parents driving their children incredibly hard to try to secure places at to the London grammar schools fills me with absolute horror.

Apologies for continuing off-topic, but then, it would be misleading to the allow suggestion that there is no meritocracy in the comprehensive system to remain unchallenged. Many students do suceed and acheive equally outstanding results in comprehensives, as many of the teenagers on these forums demonstrate. Equally it can be said that those who supposedly "underacheive" simply have other aims in life (like my friends with young children) and don't prioritise Uni education. Personally I think being a mother is as valuable a career as being an engineer. Education is not the same as merit.

I honestly don't believe I could have acheived more in a private school than I did in my comprehensive, nor would I have the same outlook as I have now, or the ability to hang on to my "council estate" friends.

Japan's public education system is incredibly fair - everybody gets exactly the same education, whether they can cope with it or not.

Talents, LDs, they make no difference. If you can't keep up, you're letting the side down and obviously not trying; if you can keep up with ease, you must have some kind of anti-social elitist attitude.

By age 12 in our local schools, any time I visited the school, I would see 15-20% of students absent - most of them hardcore absentees who were several years behind in schoolwork, unable to read and write past 9 year old level. They were treated perfectly fairly, neither pampered nor singled out by unfair treatment such as remedial programs, though every now and then a teacher might make a furtive home visit (mustn't be seen to be treating one child differently) and beg the child to come back to the classroom.

In the classroom, the teachers stand in front of their classes of 40, teaching, quite fairly, exactly the same quite demanding material at exactly the same fairly fast pace to every student...or possibly to none of the students.

After all, you only need to attend to graduate, and if you actually want a reasonable grade on your report card, you only need to hand in your exercise books, which are never marked or given unfair individual attention, but simply stamped "seen".

So admirably fair - this IS the ideal, isn't it?

Sorry - just had to respond to that in some way!

Something that hasn't come up yet is market forces, as a general concept. If people don't like what's available, be it a product or a service, for whatever reason, they will look at other options, and if the option isn't there it will be created to supply the market. That's just how it is in a free society - and even when it's not a free society. Just look at Prohibition. So we are not going to get anywhere by simply saying that private schooling in 'unfair' to those who don't or can't pay for it. It will always exist and there will always be elitism, depending on one's aspirations. Even if our state schools were exemplary, it is human nature to want more.

ARGH. Sounds like my idea of educational ######!

Thank you Dulciana - yes, very well put.

But why not compare ourselves with some of the more enlightened European countries, like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany etc where their educational standards and university entrance levels put ours to shame? Private schools are notable for their absence as far as I know in those countries, or there are so few to be barely worthy of mention.

In those countries classes are smaller and far more is invested into education, hence I guess not much need to look around for alternatives. Why not compare ourselves with them and question why we don't reform our education system along those lines?

From what I can remember of the German system, it is pretty much decided at the age of 10 whether you are going to university or into a trade. I wouldn't want that replicated here... yes the 11 + used to do that (and still does in certain areas) but in Germany it is very rare to go to university if at the age of 10 your teacher decides you aren't very academic.

OK then, not Germany but how about Scandinavia and countries like Holland? I have a friend who lived in Holland for a few years (and sent her children to school there) and she told me there are a number of different types of secondary school there, all following a varied academic curriculum as well as other specialisms. The state pays most and the parents pay the balance according to what they can afford, on a sliding scale. This sounds pretty fair to me.

In England we currently seem to have a lottery system - we never seem to be able to get it right! If you live in a middle class area you'll probably be OK but if you live in an area with a lot of social problems you child could end up in what's commonly called a 'poorly performing school' and you may prefer to opt out. But private schooling is very expensive and if you live in an area of high unemployment - well you get the picture. Some children have absolutely NO chance of getting into a school where their classmates come from aspirational homes, and this just can't be right.

And actually, if the German system you remember is anything like the old Austrian system, my uncle was deemed suited to the local 'Technische Schule', which in the UK would be seen as some kind of dumping ground for non academically-minded children. Not in Austria it wasn't. He got an excellent education there and went on to train as an architect, and later a scientist. He ended up a Professor of Physics and a scientific inventor in the US, so I wouldn't be too hasty to write off these 'non-academic' schools in German-speaking Europe.



Perhaps part of our problem here is that we're so class-ridden that we see the idea of 'technical schools' as somehow of a lower order than more academically-based schools, whereas in Europe they're much less likely to make this distinction. Culturally there's an enormous divide in the UK between people who see themselves as 'middle class' and people who don't. And this is a big part of the problem, and probably the reason 'vocational education' will never really work here in the way it seems to in Europe.

Yes!!!

(Personally, there have been times when I've wished I was a plumber rather than a music teacher.) Seriously, though, a plumber is likely to be able to afford a house in a better area than a family whose main income comes from music teaching. But this doesn't make his/her children more likely to aspire to Oxford/Cambridge. So it's more than a money issue, and it's not because others look down on the plumber - so it's more than a class issue too. Some people just have a tradition of wanting a certain type of education. And not everyone would WANT what the other wants if they could have it.