Schooliform

[icowden]

. If you want to compare Euro schools, then you have to consider every difference, and one of the huge differences is the absence of significant private school systems in countries like Finland (often cited as the gold standard). Another might be the social status of teaching professionals themselves within society, how they are presented in the media, are they treated with respect or disdain, their pay, their qualifications required etc. But I think you also need to consider socio-economic factors outwith the secondary education system, such as wealth inequality, the Labour Market (zero hours etc), higher Ed uptake etc.

Some good points there. One of the issues is funding.

Finland spends about £14,600 per student per year on education (That's only a little less than the private school fees I pay after scholarship adjustment)

The UK Government spends £7,460 on average. Half what Finland invests.

The difference that that makes is absolutely huge. Finland do pay their teachers more, but not a lot more. Their teachers are able to spend more time per pupil as they have smaller class sizes on average (20 students per class instead of 30).

In fact Finland's schools are very similar in funding and class size to our public schools.

I have said before that instead of Labour ending charitable status or trying to close public schools, they would be far better invested in increasing the budget to state schools. The best way to end the dominance of public schools is to change things so that there is no real benefit in going to one. If I had a local single sex senior school with small class sizes, good pastoral support and good facilities, I wouldn't have bothered with a public school.

 

[BoldonLad]

Some good points there. One of the issues is funding.

Finland spends about £14,600 per student per year on education (That's only a little less than the private school fees I pay after scholarship adjustment)

The UK Government spends £7,460 on average. Half what Finland invests.

The difference that that makes is absolutely huge. Finland do pay their teachers more, but not a lot more. Their teachers are able to spend more time per pupil as they have smaller class sizes on average (20 students per class instead of 30).

In fact Finland's schools are very similar in funding and class size to our public schools.

I have said before that instead of Labour ending charitable status or trying to close public schools, they would be far better invested in increasing the budget to state schools. The best way to end the dominance of public schools is to change things so that there is no real benefit in going to one. If I had a local single sex senior school with small class sizes, good pastoral support and good facilities, I wouldn't have bothered with a public school.

Is that differential in teachers pay taking into account differences in cost of living, between to the two countries?

"not a lot" is subjective, the recipients may have a different view.

Wouldn't ending charitable status provide at least some of the cash to increase the budget of state schools?

I didn't attend a fee paying school, nor did any of my children, but, one of my grandchildren does. I suggest that the difference in performance is slightly more complex than just funding, although, I do agree funding is a factor. Just my "anecdotal evidence".

There is, in my view, more to good outcomes than School Uniform Policy, as per your list of "requirements", (bolded above) but, of course, not everyone would agree with every item in your list

 

[multitool]

This is diverging from the thread topic, but there are very strong arguments in favour of abolishing public schools that have nothing to do with exam performance. The utter predominance of ex-public school students (mostly men, naturally) in the top positions of UK institutions (law, military, government etc) despite only accounting for 6% of all people is an unequivocal indication that the 'system' is rigged in favour of them...which in turn is why the wealthy send their children to these schools.

If we want the rich to be allowed to buy unearned advantage and privilege then we should keep public schools open.

If not...

 

[BoldonLad]

This is diverging from the thread topic, but there are very strong arguments in favour of abolishing public schools that have nothing to do with exam performance. The utter predominance of ex-public school students (mostly men, naturally) in the top positions of UK institutions (law, military, government etc) despite only accounting for 6% of all people is an unequivocal indication that the 'system' is rigged in favour of them...which in turn is why the wealthy send their children to these schools.

If we want the rich to be allowed to buy unearned advantage and privilege then we should keep public schools open.

If not...

I would agree to an extent, but, the objective has to be to level UP, not DOWN. Will not say any more, it is, as you rightly point out, drifting off topic.

We have these ill defined terms creeping in again "the rich", "the wealthy". Is @icowden one of "the rich", "the wealthy", is my Son no1 one of the "the rich" or "the wealthy" ?

 

[multitool]

I would agree to an extent, but, the objective has to be to level UP, not DOWN.

Think you need to spend a bit more time thinking that through...

We aren't talking about people outperforming others.

 

[BoldonLad]

Think you need to spend a bit more time thinking that through...

We aren't talking about people outperforming others.

Where did I say that?

It was, unless I miss-read your post, it was you who was talking about the "output" from Public Schools disproportionately obtaining top jobs. I have no doubt that SOME of the "output" from the schools you object to are not capable, but, that is hardly true of ALL of them.

 

[multitool]

Where did I say that?

It was, unless I miss-read your post, it was you who was talking about the "output" from Public Schools disproportionately obtaining top jobs. I have no doubt that SOME of the "output" from the schools you object to are not capable, but, that is hardly true of ALL of them.

That is irrelevant.

We aren't talking about people getting jobs because they are more competent. We are talking about people getting jobs because of the old boy network.

Correcting this is not "levelling down". It is removing unfair advantage.

 

[BoldonLad]

That is irrelevant.

We aren't talking about people getting jobs because they are more competent. We are talking about people getting jobs because of the old boy network.

Correcting this is not "levelling down". It is removing unfair advantage.

Let us imagine a utopian situation:

There are no more Public Schools

All Pupils attend above State Schools.

This will not end the "old boy (or girl) network", it may change the tie, but, little else.

 

[multitool]

Not true.

 

[icowden]

Is that differential in teachers pay taking into account differences in cost of living, between to the two countries?

No.

The average cost of living in Finland ($1580) is 22% less expensive than in the United Kingdom ($2017). Finland ranked 25th vs 12th for the United Kingdom in the list of the most expensive countries in the world.

So although Finnish teachers earn on average 2k more, they are already a 5th better off.

Wouldn't ending charitable status provide at least some of the cash to increase the budget of state schools?

It would, but it also makes it even harder for those that can only just afford it to attend. I'll admit my position is biased but I went to public school off the back of an assisted place and a bursary. Both of my daughters have had scholarships all the way through which has enabled us to just about afford it along with some luck on the housing market. There is a sector of children at my daughters school where the parents are not completely loaded, and I often think that the Labour party forget this.

If they were to end the charitable status, then they need to look at ways of doing it that aren't going to massively disrupt children's education.

I didn't attend a fee paying school, nor did any of my children, but, one of my grandchildren does. I suggest that the difference in performance is slightly more complex than just funding, although, I do agree funding is a factor. Just my "anecdotal evidence".

I agree. There can be a world of difference in how the schools are run.

There is, in my view, more to good outcomes than School Uniform Policy, as per your list of "requirements", (bolded above) but, of course, not everyone would agree with every item in your list

Also agreed.

 

[icowden]

We aren't talking about people getting jobs because they are more competent. We are talking about people getting jobs because of the old boy network.

I'm not sure that that is really a thing unless you are at Eton and even then probably mostly applies to politics and the law. I've never managed to get a job thanks to the old school tie.

Correcting this is not "levelling down". It is removing unfair advantage.

The unfair advantage is that public school children tend to have a degree of expectation, if not arrogance, in expecting to be able to do something. My older daughter is are not just studying A-Levels, she is also expected to take on leadership and mentoring positions in the school, look after lower years (big sister, little sister), work collectively to produce booklets on things like revising for your GCSEs so that they can feed back the things that helped them. She is also taking part in young enterprise where a group of them will start their own mini business. The school has purchased a careers package whereby all the 6th formers will be expected to do 4 days of work experience next summer. etc etc.

The schools expectation is that their pupils will not just have good results to get a University Place but also be equipped to achieve well. They can do this because they have the advantages of money, small classes and good facilities.

We need to be doing more of this in state schools and also reconsidering the advantages of single sex schools.

 

[multitool]

I'm not sure that that is really a thing unless you are at Eton and even then probably mostly applies to politics and the law. I've never managed to get a job thanks to the old school tie

Yes, we are talking about the prestigious public schools here, rather than 'independent' schools. But it isn't just limited to Eton. There are many. Just look for the little gold pinkie ring.

And it isn't just limited to politics and law...

https://www.theguardian.com/society...-in-hands-of-private-school-elite-study-finds

 

[BoldonLad]

Not true.

Lots of things are not true.

Did you have something specific in mind?

 

[multitool]

Lots of things are not true.

Did you have something specific in mind?

Yes.

Your comment I was replying to

Private schools create a social elite. 94% of people don't go to them. Of the schools that house those 6%, many are as Ike suggests, not that prestigious.

At an estimate, I think we have less than 25 schools dominating the top jobs. Not through ability, but through elitism.

 

[BoldonLad]

Yes.

Your comment I was replying to

Private schools create a social elite. 94% of people don't go to them. Of the schools that house those 6%, many are as Ike suggests, not that prestigious.

At an estimate, I think we have less than 25 schools dominating the top jobs. Not through ability, but through elitism.

The "reply" button would have it made it clear, and, saved us both some time and wasted typing.

There are roughly 2,500 private schools in UK. So only 25 are elite?, ie 1%