h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I went to what had been a grammar school, that got turned into a comp. It became grant maintained, and in my view, started to offer the best of both worlds. The english, science, humanities and maths faculties continued to behave as if it was a grammar school, while offering cut-down courses for non-academics. A CDT faculty was set up, which offered metalwork, textile, home ec and design and electronics courses. Not academic? Fine, do the bare minimum required academic stuff, then mooch on over to CDT and do art, photography and design stuff. Academic? Great, see our lovely English and Science Masters, they'll sort you out. For a while, we were the only non-public school offering seperate sciences, rather than double or single science. All schools should be like mine

I agree that having motivated parents in the state sector benefits schools, if only for extra fundraising, but I think you're erroneous in assuming that all the private sector teachers would transfer.

Not only that, but those who do may not actually be the best at teaching wide ability ranges and low achievers. There are good and bad teachers in both sectors.

How do you foresee that schools would benefit from 'private school' children being in the state sector?

Well, I've made my views clear on the other thread. I have in my head a detailed and complex philosophical treatment of the issues, which I may one day write (I conclude that there are very good reasons to worry about the ethical issues inherent in private education, though there is one minor gap in my argument).

My contribution here is just to point at that no-one need see this issue as a personal attack. If you went to a fee paying school, the chances are that you had no say in the matter. Your parents or guardians did something that they were legally entitled to do.

If you object to fee paying schools, it doesn't follow that you're just jealous (BTW, if anyone can explain to me what "the politics of envy" means I would be very grateful).

The best level for discussion about this is on the level of public policy, which thankfully is where most of this discussion has been. What should govt's attitude be to private education (or, indeed, education in general), and what steps (if any) should be put in place to correct inequality? No-one need feel that they are under personal attack

Otto

I also saw Chris Woodhead on TV last night and thought that Portillo (who I hasten to add I can't stand, so this is difficult for me) quite neatly analysed the point that Woodhead was trying to make.

Whatever the original intentions behind the system, the reality is that we appear to have a two tier system that is stacked against the lower tier. But appearances can be deceiving and I agreed with the point identified by Portillo. Eliminating the "privilege" of the few attending independent/public schools will NOT raise the standard of education provided in the state system.

Oxford and Cambridge are currently being lambasted for taking a disproportionately high percentage of students from public/independent educational backgrounds. The sad fact is that forty years ago these two universties took a much higher percentage of students from the state educational system and that the decline and bias towards public/independently educated students is due to falling standards in the state system.

Standards have fallen precisely because you can't treat everyone the same and provide exactly the same subjects for study. I was lucky enough to enjoy a curriculum where only half of the subjects were dictated. I also had a broad choice to take between sciences, humanities and languages, with further options on top.

One of my brothers chose to go to the local comprehensive. (I have two brothers and we were all offered the same choice.) The two of us who went through the independent route left with 17 or 18 'O' levels between us (my eldest brother also did 3 'A' levels). Whereas the one who attended the local comprehensive came out with just 5 'O' levels (he now has a degree, is a chartered engineer and lives/works in Detroit - so much for disadvantage!).

We have talked extensively about our experiences over the years and agree that the outcome would have been very different if we had each chosen the alternative. I know that I would have been lucky to have 5 'O' levels had I attended the local comprehensive, mainly because I lacked any desire to achieve. I was educated more by osmosis than by actually doing any work in more than 3 subjects (Maths, Physics and Technical Drawing).

The educational system needs overhaul to provide greater choice and opportunity to pupils. Why is this so hard an objective to realise?

An approach based on one-size-fits-all has already lowered standards to a dangerous degree.

My understanding is that this is because politicians persist in interfering in an area which they don't understand simply for the reasons I gave in an earlier point (their perception of fairness).

Independent schools are run by the best teachers and operate in a manner that is largely free from interference from the LEA, whereas comprehensives (and by the sound of it grammar/secondary modern in Bucks) operate in an environment that is chock full of political interference.

It is certainly time for change, but the last area that needs attention is the bit that actually works.

Actually (i'm the one who started this thread....) I went to an independant fee-paying school as well; 40 odd years ago, back in the 50s & early 60s. The place was awful in every respect: low academic standards, poor accommodation; awful food, sport and leisure facilities that would not nowadays be tollerated by an inner city comprehensive, a head master with homosexual and paedophilic tendencies. I always though Dootheboys Hall sounded rather enlightened and liberal (sorry, one of my favourite sour jokes!).

It was run as a business, with everything done on the cheap, from lack of heating to unqualified staff. Our parents, who(obviously) paid the fees, were being conned in a big way into believing they were doing the best for their sons when in fact they would have been better of at a below-average Sec Mod (pre-comprehensive days, those).

All that aside, I do have a deep-seated belief that there is something wrong with parents being able to buy high class education ( not the kind I had!) for their kids. It makes a total nonsense of meritocracy since the exam results, which is the main thing that is being paid for, don't mirror merit.

It also does no service to the country since it puts a lot of over-qualifed, under-talented nurds with overblownideas about themelves and their fellow OBs (&Gs) into all the most demanding post. A sure fire-recipe for mediocracy if not disaster.

I think your image of private schools is a bit out of date.
I daresay there are some public schools where money is the principle requesite for entry, academic standards are low/mixed and the 'old boy' network rife.

Howver, many private schools have a stiff entrance procedure so that a place is gained on merit. The schools push the pupils hard to get the good results they deserve. Some scholarships may be available for those who cannot afford the fees. These schools are similar in character to the old grammar schools, which is what parents are looking for.
There are also private schools where entry requirements are more modest because they pride themselves on helping those with specific educational difficulties e.g. dyslexia.

Some pupils may emerge with over-blown egos, but I suspect that is as much to do with family culture as schooling.