Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Rising Numbers Of Private Pupils Forced Into Tough State Schools As Parents Struggle To Afford Fees


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#16 jackpot06

jackpot06

    HPC Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 271 posts
  • Location:Dorset

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:13 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk...dorset-17204703

http://www.guardian....it-cricket-ball

#17 cartimandua51

cartimandua51

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,508 posts
  • Location:Wiltshire

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:16 PM

Based on what?


Try a Google search on academic results of home-schooled kids. Generally, they do pretty well (not least because they have, almost by definition, dedicated parents. There are of course exceptions - those schooled by fundamentalist Christian nutters who don't want their kids minds polluting by anything that might possibly imply the Bible isn't literal truth, for example.
Posted Image

#18 jackpot06

jackpot06

    HPC Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 271 posts
  • Location:Dorset

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:20 PM

http://www.portchest...nemouth.sch.uk/
http://www.thesun.co...playground.html

#19 iLegallyBlonde

iLegallyBlonde

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,464 posts
  • Location:North

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:24 PM

You do know that is illegal.


It is not illegal, although plenty of LEA's would have you believe it is but then they are paid £2400 per pupil at primary school so it wouldn't be in their interests to encourage it.

What happened to the voucher scheme that parents were going to be given to spend on the education of their choice ? Plenty of countries give a tax rebate on private schooling, but then they are equally confident that the vast majority wouldn't choose it as the state provision is so good. No doubt that's why GB couldn't stomach the idea, state schools would be getto's within a few years.

#20 talkinpeace

talkinpeace

    HPC Poster

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 04:09 PM

Well this thread takes the biscuit for the max amount of uninformed gobbledegook ever

Nationally 93% of children go to state schools.
Children are sorted into sets and streams from the age of 6 to 18
In areas with the vicious circle of kids being sent to private resulting in state school results falling, anything that brings the motivated families back into the state system will be good for the whole economy

#21 Dave Beans

Dave Beans

    HPC Guru

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,180 posts
  • Location:Somerset
  • About Me:Groping The Sands Of Time

Posted 01 March 2012 - 04:16 PM

I'm no expert of the education system, having left school long ago, but am led to understand that a major cause of the problem in being able to achieve high standards is that (at secondary school at least) pupils of all abilities are lumped together in classes at random? There is no 'streaming' by ability? and teachers have to structure/deliver their lessons to cater for the ineviatble large range of abilities/aptitudes and also enthusiasm (or lack of!) of individual students. I belive it's called 'differentiation'?

In my day, at O-level age, classes were streamed according to ability - and that was a comprehensive school.

I understand that this is still done in private schools, and probably plays a non-trivial part in their being able to churn out higher grades in higher numbers - as pupils with interest/aptitude are not distracted/dragged down/led astray by their, no doubt nice, but less able/cooperative pupils.

Even in the poorest, most deprived areas their will be capable, intelligent and willing to learn pupils with all the right sort of values instilled in them. Surely if they were placed in appropriate classes then even poor performing schools, often in deprived areas, would perform even better.

The less academically inclined shoudl not be forced to learn E=mc2 and such like and have whatever interests/aptitudes they do have identified early on - and pushed in that direction as deemed appropriate.

Thus, all these 'unfortunate' academically inclined Tarquins and Jemimas of the world would not have to end up sitting next to all the propsective army cannon fodder.


My comp "setted" students from the 2nd year onwards. They used the 1st year to assess each students ability, then from the 2nd year onwards, each year was split into sets for each subject, so kids of the same ability learnt at the same speed. Those who improved, were moved up.
"Wont someone please think of the children"

The Sad Faces Of Wronged Mail Readers

Eurocleese De Zouch

#22 Democorruptcy

Democorruptcy

    .

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,786 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 04:28 PM

Those kids should be glad they can still go to school. It could be the workhouse soon.

A leading banker has today advised the government to reduce the minimum working age and allow children of any age to go to work.

The banker said “In today’s high inflationary economy it is absolutely ridiculous that children sit at home while both parents have to work increasingly longer hours to try keep the family solvent”.

“When I was a child my mother was able to stay at home to look after me and my sisters Tabitha and Hortensia but now an increasing number of women have to work. In 1997 when house prices were £60k, a 25 year mortgage at 6% was £380 a month but now the average house costs £160k+ the mortgage has ballooned to £1,030. That extra £650 a month represents an increase of 170%, similar to the rise in house prices. Remember that increase is just on an average house and who wants to live in one only worth that much? These extra mortgage payments are crippling families all over the UK. They are no longer able to spend as much money in the economy and the outlook for UK consumption is bleak. While my pay and bonuses are escalating, due to the government diverting money to bankers from savers via low interest rates, I really worry for CEO’s in the retail sector. Where are their future bonuses going to come from, when the public are left with little or no disposable income? How long can the government go on devaluing sterling, so that foreigners can come here to buy things that people in the UK can no longer afford themselves?

“If children went straight to work when leaving school it solves a lot of problems in the UK. There would be a reduction in anti-social behaviour with less children roaming the streets. The money they earn would increase household incomes. Another advantage of children working is that many retired grandparents currently take on child care duties. With children working this childcare would not be necessary so this would free up the grandparents to find work of their own. Even though their own mortgages may be paid up these retirees could contribute a large portion of their new incomes towards their children’s mortgage. All this extra income would mean there be less mortgages underwater and people could even pay a lot more for their next house”

“In order to fully maximise the mortgage paying potential of the higher earning households, the UK should abolish what little financial regulation it still pretends it has. At the moment 70% of mortgages granted in the UK had to have income verified compared to 50% in 2007. However once children were allowed to work, income verification would not be necessary at all, as parents could keep popping out wage earning children to meet any mortgage shortfall. In addition, with life expectancy increasing, if children started working earlier, mortgage terms could be extended to 60 or 70 years, to give them longer to pay their mortgage interest.”

“So what would work would all these children do? Well I would suggest that children cannot start learning about how to get in debt early enough. At the height of the housing boom it became obvious that mortgage broking required little or no skill. Just being able to see that people were not showing signs of rigor mortis was enough to be able to grant them mortgages. Therefore every Primary school could open up it’s own mortgage broking office for their pupils. This could be manned 247 on a shift system, to keep the children gainfully employed. ”

“I feel very confident that the dark clouds that have gathered over the UK, would be blown away if my ideas were adopted. It doesn’t matter how many hours, days, weeks, months, years you have to work, if people know that when they get home and go to bed, those four walls are worth a lot more. With another housing boom on top of our current housing boom, the UK would then have the largest banks in the world and the public would be safe in the knowledge that banks of that size are too big to fail”.


Democorruptcy
If you say "Democorruptcy" quickly, it sounds a bit like "Democracy". In a "Democracy" people vote for politicians who represent their interests. In the UK's "Democorruptcy" people can only vote for expense fiddling thieving MPs who are in the hip pocket of big business and the finance sector.

Governbankment
A "Governbankment" is a Government that has no line between itself and banks. It diverts public money (our taxes) to private companies (banks). George Osborne's Help to Buy Bail Banks, will see our taxes go to bankers to cover their losses on mortgages that default. The UK's Governbankment will even pay bankers "reasonable repossession fees" on Help to Bail Bank mortgages that default.

The Funding for Lending Scheme (FLS) is stealing from savers to make them pay for crimes by bankers. Via lower interest on savings, all the bank fines for PPI, LIBOR, interest rates swaps, etc. are being paid by savers so that bankers can keep pocketing bonuses. 

"We need to make a really big change: from an economy built on debt to an economy built on savings" - David Camoron Jan 2009
"Printing money is the last resort of desperate governments when all other policies have failed" - George Osborne Jan 2009
- So what do Camoron & Osborne do? Print money and leave interest rates at 0.5% when inflation is over 5%

If it is asserted that civilization is a real advance in the condition of man -- and I think that it is, though only the wise improve their advantages -- it must be shown that it has produced better dwellings without making them more costly; and the cost of a thing is the amount of what I will call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run.
http://classiclit.ab...en-Part-2_4.htm

I want to tell you my secret now.... I see debt people


#23 tricksters

tricksters

    HPC Regular

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 852 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 05:30 PM

You do know that is illegal.


Which law would that be?

#24 albimac

albimac

    HPC Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 456 posts
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 01 March 2012 - 05:34 PM

Something tells me this banker hasn't experienced a normal upbringing, with sisters called Tabitha and Hortensia. I can imagine they have horse like features.

#25 easy2012

easy2012

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,719 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 06:30 PM

Which law would that be?


Education act 1996 which basically says sufficient education provision needs to be made. But home school is perfectly legal although I believe the bureaucrat reserves
the right to inspect.

I was assuming hotairmail was joking as we are not quite USSR yet.

#26 iLegallyBlonde

iLegallyBlonde

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,464 posts
  • Location:North

Posted 01 March 2012 - 06:45 PM

Education act 1996 which basically says sufficient education provision needs to be made. But home school is perfectly legal although I believe the bureaucrat reserves
the right to inspect.

I was assuming hotairmail was joking as we are not quite USSR yet.


Nope they do not have the right to inspect, they can request a meeting and examples of work being done but the LEA cannot force anything unless they suspect abuse and would still need proof.

#27 thombleached

thombleached

    HPC Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Location:Lichfield

Posted 01 March 2012 - 06:50 PM

+1 I'm a strong believer in grouping classes by ability from a young age - you've already set out the advantages, the disadvantages are labelling children as 'failures' and grouping all the worst children together would make it rather difficult to teach them anything since the worst children are often the most disruptive. Nevertheless, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

My girlfirend is a teacher in state primary school year 4 and believes her current class are about a year behind on average and this is partly due to the extreme disruption caused by one special little boy who attends 2 days a week;. If the parents of the other children knew that, I'm sure they would wholeheartedly agree with me.

What's the little darling getting up to then? If the kids are behind a whole year because 40% of their time is being shared with him/her...

#28 tricksters

tricksters

    HPC Regular

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 852 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 06:51 PM

Education act 1996 which basically says sufficient education provision needs to be made. But home school is perfectly legal although I believe the bureaucrat reserves
the right to inspect.

I was assuming hotairmail was joking as we are not quite USSR yet.


OK - I missed the irony.

#29 cock-eyed octopus

cock-eyed octopus

    HPC Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 673 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 08:14 PM

I'm no expert of the education system, having left school long ago, but am led to understand that a major cause of the problem in being able to achieve high standards is that (at secondary school at least) pupils of all abilities are lumped together in classes at random? There is no 'streaming' by ability? and teachers have to structure/deliver their lessons to cater for the ineviatble large range of abilities/aptitudes and also enthusiasm (or lack of!) of individual students. I belive it's called 'differentiation'?

In my day, at O-level age, classes were streamed according to ability - and that was a comprehensive school.

I understand that this is still done in private schools, and probably plays a non-trivial part in their being able to churn out higher grades in higher numbers - as pupils with interest/aptitude are not distracted/dragged down/led astray by their, no doubt nice, but less able/cooperative pupils.

Even in the poorest, most deprived areas their will be capable, intelligent and willing to learn pupils with all the right sort of values instilled in them. Surely if they were placed in appropriate classes then even poor performing schools, often in deprived areas, would perform even better.

The less academically inclined shoudl not be forced to learn E=mc2 and such like and have whatever interests/aptitudes they do have identified early on - and pushed in that direction as deemed appropriate.

Thus, all these 'unfortunate' academically inclined Tarquins and Jemimas of the world would not have to end up sitting next to all the propsective army cannon fodder.


I went to a school operating that system, although the headmaster insisted on calling it 'bi-lateral' (or somesuch) to differentiate it from comprehensive, which was just coming in, & where there was no streaming for the first 3 years.

I have never seen the problem with this system. Since the streams co-exist, it was possible for pupils to move up, which occasionally happened, or down, which I don't recall ever occurring. The top two streams were called grammar streams, & were expected to take 7 or more 'O' levels, children in lower streams would take varying numbers depending on aptitude.
I never noticed any variations in academic ability causing friction; of much greater import was physical attractiveness &, as a hierarchical marker between the boys, sporting prowess.

In adult life I tried teaching for a while. I found it impossible. I taught at a school catering for 13 - 18 year olds where the first 2 years were mixed ability classes. Pitching a lesson to them was a nightmare; the more able were bored & drifted away, while those who found it difficult needed constant attention &/or were a continual source of disruption.
One class I found a dream to teach. They were my biggest (36 I think) but, because, by sheer luck, they were of similar ability, I had no problems getting the level right.

I really cannot see any disadvantages to a streamed comprehensive system, as operated where I was taught. Why it always has to be separate Grammar & Secondary Moderns, or fully mixed Comprehensives, I fail to understand.

Edited by cock-eyed octopus, 01 March 2012 - 08:49 PM.

If the doors of perception were cleans'd, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.

Wm. Blake: The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

"I've fallen off my chair, Brian"

J. Cleese et al.

#30 TheBlueCat

TheBlueCat

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,692 posts
  • Location:Toronto

Posted 01 March 2012 - 08:47 PM

Children are sorted into sets and streams from the age of 6 to 18

I don't think that is generally true - may be mostly true at the older end, but I know of many counter-examples. Pre-12 setting is actually very uncommon from what I can see.

Separately, I went to a comp in the 70s that didn't stream anyone for anything and it was an utter disaster. There were loads of smart kids there who failed pretty much everything due to chaotic classes and teachers who spent what time they had with the lower ability kids. Mixed ability teaching at anything other than the youngest ages is a catastrophe.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users