Schooliform

[newfhouse]

I don't see how putting the 6% that go to Private school (and I don't agree with brighter) back into the state sector helps anyone.
The wealthy will always spend money to work around and above the status quo to deliver an advantage in whatever way they see fit.
The nations energy should be put into raising the standards in the rest of schooling such that in the 'best' of the state sector, moneyed advantage in terms of educational attainment becomes at best marginal.

Nobody is going to ban politicians that use private schools/health systems and nobody is going to abolish any kind of private education or health system either. All we can do is use our votes, protest, lobby, support our kids and our kid's teachers and our kid's schools. I'd still vote for an extra penny in the pound tax ring-fenced for education.

I was at private schools until around 13/14 years old and then went to state school - I basically span my wheels for nearly 2 years waiting for everyone else to catch-up. The gulf probably still exists.

Rudimentary stuff like, more teachers, more schools, more equipment, smaller class-sizes etc. will take vast amounts of money and will take more than a 2 term government. So we need a long-term cross-party strategy for a modern nation - I see no party offering that.

There is also defining 'best' in terms of education in such a diverse nation? In the the private sector it's easy - narrowly focussed in it's aims their task is pretty simple. Do we have a one-size fits all or do we design a variety of different education systems to mirror the different the needs of communities and people of different background and ambition? What's the role of the parents in education - in the private sector parental engagement is very high indeed. How do we drive ambition and motivation - the desire to learn? What is it we need to be teaching for the world we are entering? What are our competitors doing? What are the barriers to attainment and how do we dismantle them?
Big questions - no focus on answers that I can see other than Private is bad.

Blimey. You’re putting words into my mouth here, Fabbers. All I asked for was some fairness by way of recognition that treating private schools as charities, thereby giving parents an unjustified discount, is wrong.

It’s true that I’d like to see state school pupils have all of the educational and social advantages of the private sector but as I said earlier, half the point for many parents is the exclusivity.

Regarding my ‘brighter’ comment, I think it’s generally true. Private schools, at least at senior level, have entrance exams and of course the handful of bursary places are specifically aimed at poaching the cleverest from the local comprehensive.

 

[newfhouse]

Reckon away, got a link?

What do you think “I reckon” means? It’s based on my belief that someone on £2000 a week will find it easier to pay their bills and make discretionary purchases than someone on £500 a week. Do you really need a link for that?

 

[BoldonLad]

What do you think “I reckon” means? It’s based on my belief that someone on £2000 a week will find it easier to pay their bills and make discretionary purchases than someone on £500 a week. Do you really need a link for that?

I agree, it is your belief, nothing more.

 

[newfhouse]

I agree, it is your belief, nothing more.

Do you disagree? If so, what's your rationale?

 

[BoldonLad]

Do you disagree? If so, what's your rationale?

I disagree. Rationale is that ability to pay is dependant not only on income but also on outgoings. Some outgoings are optional, some are not.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Are you seriously going to tell me private school teachers somehow instinctively have the skills to deal with these children

Tbf I doubt that state school teachers instinctively have these skills. They are learned via training, mentoring and experience.

Private school teachers could learn those skills but it would be a huge culture shock in many inner city schools.

 

[newfhouse]

I disagree. Rationale is that ability to pay is dependant not only on income but also on outgoings. Some outgoings are optional, some are not.

So there's no financial advantage and no additional freedom that comes from wealth? Makes perfect sense.

 

[BoldonLad]

So there's no financial advantage and no additional freedom that comes from wealth? Makes perfect sense.

That is not what I said.

You quoted a couple of arbitrary weekly incomes, was one or both of them "wealth"/

 

[newfhouse]

You quoted a couple of arbitrary weekly incomes, was one or both of them "wealth"/

£100,000 > £25,000 .

£100,000 is comfortably wealthy, yes.

 

[BoldonLad]

£100,000 > £25,000 .

£100,000 is comfortably wealthy, yes.

If you say so.

 

[newfhouse]

If you say so.

Do you disagree? If so, what's your rationale?

 

[multitool]

Tbf I doubt that state school teachers instinctively have these skills. They are learned via training, mentoring and experience.

Private school teachers could learn those skills but it would be a huge culture shock in many inner city schools.

The context of this was the notion that these private school people can 'mentor' state school teachers.

 

[BoldonLad]

Do you disagree? If so, what's your rationale?

Wealth is an ill defined term.

 

[BoldonLad]

The context of this was the notion that these private school people can 'mentor' state school teachers.

Well, perhaps they can, but, not in EVERY aspect of dealing with pupils, perhaps the State School teachers could reciprocate in some areas?, perhaps, some, or even all, of the private school "people" trained at the same places as the "state" people, and, even worked in state schools, initially?

 

[newfhouse]

Wealth is an ill defined term.

70% above the average of the top ten percent of earners seems like a reasonable description of wealthy.