Private school fees (merged)

sjaypink

i meant making personal remarks ie. offensive. i dont believe i have.
i have not 'jumped to conclusions', as i said i am an open minded person and will quite happily consider others viewpoints, my position is never set in stone! as i said, i live, and therefore write from my instincts..........

emsywoo123

sjaypink wrote: »

i meant making personal remarks ie. offensive. i dont believe i have.
i have not 'jumped to conclusions', as i said i am an open minded person and will quite happily consider others viewpoints, my position is never set in stone! as i said, i live, and therefore write from my instincts..........

Ok well thank you, I take your view on board.

emsywoo123

Not that it is actually anybody's business how I pay my school fees!

sjaypink

emsywoo123 wrote: »

Not that it is actually anybody's business how I pay my school fees!

i never suggested it was my business how anyone pays their school fees, merely aired my feelings regarding the possible scenarios. i never demanded anyone disclose such information, so im surprised and sorry that you appear so defended about this.

little_lily

I have always been looked down on by parents of kids in private schools as being inferior. its as if private school is a staus symbol. That may not be you at all, obviously, but the people i know who do have kids in private schools are very like that.

Discodee, if you have been looked down on by parents with children in the private system, stick two fingers up at them - and please don't imagine that we're all like that! Sadly, there are of course parents who believe they are superior to mere mortals because they can afford to send Rufus and Henrietta to this school or that school, but I don't for a minute believe they are representative of most of us.

I look down on plenty of people - those who park in disabled spaces when they are able-bodied, those who talk on mobile phones in restaurants, those who say 'pacifically' instead of 'specifically - but please God may I never look down on someone who can't afford school fees.

setmefree2

Hi Tim,

I checked the dictionary definition of Apartheid:-

Apartheid

1. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
2. The condition of being separated from others; segregation.

To me this is all Grammar schools are. Sorry if that offends you but that's how I view it.
If I misread your "sink" schools reference I'm sorry about that. Maybe I'm over sensitive after some of the comments made on this thread.

Nevertheless, the general thrust off your argument I disagree with. I think the state sector works well. Of course, goverenments can always continue to improve things. Most teachers work hard. Many children don't have the life chances to achieve high academic results - not because of the schools - but because their parents have little to pass on in terms of education themselves. It's the Matthew Effect:-


The "Matthew effect" takes its name from a line spoken by "the Master" in Jesus' parable of the talents in the biblical Gospel of Matthew:
"For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." (Matthew XXV:29, King James Version.)

Kids who have well educated parents have a head start - full stop. Sadly, many children don't start out with educated parents. Most state High Schools try to accommodate everyone. Good schools provide a good education for all. So, I don't see State High Schools as needing fixing. They can always use more money though.;)

Lunar_Eclipse

setmefree2 wrote: »

I think the state sector works well.

I'm curious about this statement. What specifically do you think works well? And upon what basis?

And having read that you are anti Grammar schools, why is this? (Sorry if I missed it.) Is it simply that you disagree with separation by ability? Is it because of how people get in or don't get in?

Are your beliefs influenced by your own children's ability and experience?

I'll stop there.

Coupon-mad

Tim_L wrote: »

But unless you are living on a completely different planet, you have to accept that there are very poorly performing schools in this country, and that certain schools in the state sector are viewed as being better and attract many more applicants. In Brighton, there are 2 out of about 9 schools which are in this category, a couple in the middle viewed as being on the slide, and others viewed as "sink" schools, which means they have a very poor record of achievement and are associated with various social problems. It may well be that from a relative point of view the schools improve the lives of many of the children who go to them, so might be viewed in some senses as successful, but they may very well fail children with different aspirations. The system is crap, not necessarily the schools.

.

I can't ignore this post without comment Tim. I don't live on a different planet, I live pretty near you (can you teach me how to gamble on the horses please?:D ). :rotfl:

But you state that 2 out of nine state schools are better and attract more applicants?

Only 2, and the others are on the slide or failing - are you sure?

AFAIK there are less than 9 state schools in Brighton itself, unless you are including other areas - in which case there are more than 2 good schools out of the nine...:cool:

Tim_L

Apartheid is a specifically South African Boer term with a specific connotation. Referring to apartheid is specifically invoking a spectre to make an association, i.e. it's a rhetorical trick. You really can't wriggle out of using it is by folding back on a dictionary definition that no-one actually uses.

I probably miscounted the schools in Brighton and Hove and surrounds: in point of fact the schools I was interested in when we were making the choice were the two good ones and the alternatives of which there was at least one on the slide and three which were dire.

And yes, I can teach you to make money gambling - just visit the gambling board here for a starter guide - anyone can make 500 to a grand without a great deal of work. School fee amounts are a bit more of a committment.

setmefree2

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

I'm curious about this statement. What specifically do you think works well? And upon what basis?

And having read that you are anti Grammar schools, why is this? (Sorry if I missed it.) Is it simply that you disagree with separation by ability? Is it because of how people get in or don't get in?

Are your beliefs influenced by your own children's ability and experience?

I'll stop there.

Hi Lunar Eclipse,

I appreciate that this thread seems to move along at breakneck speed. Indeed, there seems to be a dozen "conversations" going on at once.:p To recap though, when Tim entered (I think) he said he had bad experiences of the state sector with his own children and would like to go back to the Grammar system (apologies Tim if that's wrong). I, however, disagree with this as I don't believe in separating children by ability - as in putting them into separate schools. Grammar schools are divisive in so many ways:- between families (one sibling gets in, the other doesn't), between friends and above all they mostly consist of children whose parents have the ability to buy expensive tutors (and these days send them to expensive prep schools). Thus, you end up with a system in which children spend years with tutors being taught how do pass the 11+. The tutors get rich - the children get bored and few poor children get in to boot.

I like an all inclusive state system that caters for everyone within the same schools. I do agree with "setting" as practiced in most primaries and secondaries. I live in London and my children are in High School now. My experiences of primary school were excellent. There are many good schools in our borough both at primary & secondary. Academically my children are doing well. They have lovely friends. They are really happy. Why would I want to go back to Grammar schools? I'm perfectly happy with what we've got.:D