Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

If I Keep Wondering 'how Can People Afford Private School?'


Recommended Posts

I went to a rough school...we bunked off, smoked behind the prefab sheds...we lived life, saw life and learned from life....just because you have the time of your life does not mean you are thick and stupid....too many kids are wrapped up in cotton wool imo......a stable and loving family that trusts and supports, allows you freedom to grow and is there for you is worth more than certain formal education can offer......wake up.! ;)

Ok, we have crossed wires here methinks.

Why is having a low IQ so onerous? I don't think it is at all, IQ is a gift and not a muscle that can be trained. And high IQ isn't all that much fun, lots of people suffer from being the hated geek in their childhood.

Someone with a low IQ needs a different education than someone with a normal IQ and they in turn will not enjoy the pace of education that a child with a high IQ requires to keep them entertained.

And why not give a gifted child the education they need -- why hamper them with the idea that the rest of the class will catch up whilst they humble wait because morally it's the right thing? (it's not, it's just petty sabotage and everyone loses out).

And what it is with that idea that gifted children should teach the less able ones and so lift the education performance of the entire class and thus they cannot be let go into their own class with their peers to learn at their own pace? Why are they viewed as natural mini teachers instead of a just another little knowledge seeker who should learn instead of being shoehorned into the teachers job?

I think that people are labouring under a huge chip on their shoulder about education in general in the UK -- and are far too occupied with keeping people 'equal' instead of enabling them to excel in their given potential.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok, we have crossed wires here methinks.

Why is having a low IQ so onerous? I don't think it is at all, IQ is a gift and not a muscle that can be trained. And high IQ isn't all that much fun, lots of people suffer from being the hated geek in their childhood.

This has nothing to do with IQ....but much to do with common sense....I have had the pleasure to take under my wing a highly qualified graduate.....who had the common sense of a doormouse.

Different people work in different ways and are good for different things....all we require is an education system that recognises that,can spot potential opportunities and enhance the talent within.....instead of trying to push square pegs into round holes...... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good private school helps turns out well balanced, confident kids who have a real ability to communicate naturally at all levels. At least that's what I've seen with my eldest lad and his mates. Of course they don't work miracles but they do help maximise potential.

Ironically from what I've seen they place less attention on exam results and far more on the whole person. The amount of sport they do is staggering.

This stuff about them being socially inept is a complete reversal of the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice a lot of the most twattish behaviour on the recent Student protests was from kids who attended Public Schools.

Well rounded individuals do not come from a small subsection of the community. That is a definition of an elite.

These places just breed the future leaders that they always were intended to. They create people who will do well financially in life but generally are part of the problem in this country, namely nepotism, elitism and 'who you know' culture rather than an egalitarian society where the brightest and best rise to the top.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?

Genuine question - I'm interested in the theory behind that. Or at least an executive summary thereof.

Well I could go and extract the academic papers produced on the subject - I assure you they exist, but basically when you try to teach a, say, young 4 year old to read you are grappling with concepts, abstractions and neural connections that are fairly alien to the early developed brain, involving as they do use of context, motivation, awareness of self etc. When the child is conversing fluently and comfortable with these concepts, introducing reading is a natural next step, codifying in words and sentences knowledge they are already grasping from natural social interactions. Thus a UK nose-to-the grindstone from 3 child works away at a system that is essentially the equivalent of running before walking, or driving a car having never been a pedestrian or watched the movement of traffic. Typically the reading level at which a child in the UK working for several years to get at by age 7 is achieved by the 'read later' learning system within 6 months. That's why the proponents of the 'later' system think we're nuts to waste precious classroom time in this way when there are more valuable area where the child can be learning profitably. Of course some children read early and enjoy it and get a head-start in this way, but for most it's not an efficient system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I could go and extract the academic papers produced on the subject - I assure you they exist, but basically when you try to teach a, say, young 4 year old to read you are grappling with concepts, abstractions and neural connections that are fairly alien to the early developed brain, involving as they do use of context, motivation, awareness of self etc. When the child is conversing fluently and comfortable with these concepts, introducing reading is a natural next step, codifying in words and sentences knowledge they are already grasping from natural social interactions. Thus a UK nose-to-the grindstone from 3 child works away at a system that is essentially the equivalent of running before walking, or driving a car having never been a pedestrian or watched the movement of traffic. Typically the reading level at which a child in the UK working for several years to get at by age 7 is achieved by the 'read later' learning system within 6 months. That's why the proponents of the 'later' system think we're nuts to waste precious classroom time in this way when there are more valuable area where the child can be learning profitably. Of course some children read early and enjoy it and get a head-start in this way, but for most it's not an efficient system.

I'm very glad your was not the prevailing philosophy when I was younger. I might have missed the chance to read and learn early. I know you mention those who take to it but the good ones can slip through the net.

My parents taught me to read very early I have devoured my way through libraries of books in my life. The idea that at 7 I would be stuttering my way through Janet and John rather than reading proper books fills me with a kind of horror.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very glad your was not the prevailing philosophy when I was younger. I might have missed the chance to read and learn early. I know you mention those who take to it but the good ones can slip through the net.

My parents taught me to read very early I have devoured my way through libraries of books in my life. The idea that at 7 I would be stuttering my way through Janet and John rather than reading proper books fills me with a kind of horror.

It's not really my philosophy except that I think it's a pity wasting of time struggling at 3 or 4 when you could be learning more age-appropriate skills. And I think the point the read-later people would make would be that you wouldn't have Janet and John or hungry caterpillar to read because your learn-to-read books would be age-adjusted. Starting at 6-7 gives you plenty of library-devouring time with the rest of your life, some kids are demotivated in their reading and lose confidence because of being forced too early. It tends to be an unhealthy competitive-parenting obsession in this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very glad your was not the prevailing philosophy when I was younger. I might have missed the chance to read and learn early. I know you mention those who take to it but the good ones can slip through the net.

My parents taught me to read very early I have devoured my way through libraries of books in my life. The idea that at 7 I would be stuttering my way through Janet and John rather than reading proper books fills me with a kind of horror.

Indeed, he creditably avoided saying one-size-fits-all.

My parents taught me to read early. Specifically they read me "The Hobbit" (what a wonderful book for children!), then told me about "Lord of the Rings" but refused to read it to me. So I had a real motivation to learn, and had devoured LotR several times over (as you do when young) before starting school.

But that turned out to be a double-edged sword, and came back to bite me at school when they tried to teach us to read. I was too young to rebel teenage-style, but inwardly I must've been doing something like that: I was utterly disgusted about being expected to waste my time on Janet-and-John stuff, and reacted against this ritual humiliation. So a child reacting very negatively at being taught to read ... evidently seen by teacher as failing to learn to read, and humiliated all over again in a vicious circle!

Fast-forward to the end of primary school and they've evidently got a target every child to read a book before leaving. But they wouldn't let me bring in a book from home or the library, and the school books were ... well, childrens books. The least degrading to pick up would've been a Biggles-book, but I'd long-since read them all, and in any case by the time this ritual humiliation came to the crisis-point of teacher absolutely insisting on the vile things, the school's two or three Biggles-books were all out with my contemporaries.

I guess my conclusion is that what's really damaging is an insensitive system with one-size-fits-all expectations, and I was interested to learn whether current theory looked like that. Roadtoruin's executive summary still leaves room for doubt: how many children are going through the same ritual humiliation today?

But composing this post brings to mind an essay by Tolkien, which I must've read sometime in my teens, in which he explains that you should not talk down to a child. Now there's an authority on education who got it right!

Edited by porca misèria
Link to post
Share on other sites

A good private school helps turns out well balanced, confident kids who have a real ability to communicate naturally at all levels. At least that's what I've seen with my eldest lad and his mates. Of course they don't work miracles but they do help maximise potential.

Ironically from what I've seen they place less attention on exam results and far more on the whole person. The amount of sport they do is staggering.

This stuff about them being socially inept is a complete reversal of the truth.

Re ; sports . My girls go to the local primary school, which is rated slightly above average. They compete in cross country against local fee paying schools and excellent local schools, both of these enter a very high number of pupils. Due to this they normally win the team events but rarely the individual medals.

Alot of time goes into sport at fee paying schools and they must believe it is important for development. But true talent and a free spirit actually wins the medals.

Steve Redgrave - one CSE in woodwork, 5 Olympic gold medals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is competition that drives these actions and to stop it you have to regulate.

Wealthier parents will always be able to buy their children some advantage in life and get over it. Given that people in the UK choose to use private schools due to the benefit, if you ban private schools and drag all UK children down the lowest common denominator then you're simply disadvantaging them against children from other countries. We aren't going to see a world wide ban of paid for education, so you're not going to stop it by regulation.

A far more effective solution is to accept how things are and look for changes that are plausible to make. If children going to private school helps bring work to the UK, and by removing the children from the state system subsidises other childrens education then, as it is, then removing it entirely isn't an improvement.

The only way you can stop parentage affecting how likely a child is to succeed is to remove children from their parents at birth. Otherwise dumb old Tarquin's loaded parents will still find a way to help him, that smart little Crystals poor, lazy and ill-educated parents can't afford.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor kids.

that is what they are after all. kids.

If you havent got the "right" trainers, the "right" phone, the "right" whatever, you will be looked down upon. Maybe your parents dotn want you to fall victim to the consumerist brainwashing, whatever, you are told by those that have the "right " badges that they are better than you.

If the fee paying pupils dont have this attitude drilled OUT of them, then they will NATURALLY view themselves as superior to those that dont have parents with the wherewithal to PAY for their place.

No wonder many in politics continue to see ENTITLEMENT as a right.

And there is no doubt that its not what you know, its WHO you know that wins out everywhere...bankers know this, and exploit it...with hard, cold cash.

You see, having money makes you a worthwhile person in this society.

Edited by Bloo Loo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Re ; sports . My girls go to the local primary school, which is rated slightly above average. They compete in cross country against local fee paying schools and excellent local schools, both of these enter a very high number of pupils. Due to this they normally win the team events but rarely the individual medals.

Alot of time goes into sport at fee paying schools and they must believe it is important for development. But true talent and a free spirit actually wins the medals.

Steve Redgrave - one CSE in woodwork, 5 Olympic gold medals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/news/7132024/Third-of-British-2012-Olympic-athletes-privately-educated.html

A third of the medal winners in the last British Olympic team went to independent schools, including Chris Hoy.

I suspect that if you add on those who went to University it would be around 50%.

I believe that those who attend state schools are often just as talented and able, but without the necessary encouragement and development, end up achieving less.

I also suspect that most of the highest achievers in lucrative/pestigious areas of life went to independent school, except footballers.

There will always be exceptions who buck this, but overall I would say that it is not necessarily the most talented that wins. It is often the best developed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good private school helps turns out well balanced, confident kids who have a real ability to communicate naturally at all levels. At least that's what I've seen with my eldest lad and his mates. Of course they don't work miracles but they do help maximise potential.

Ironically from what I've seen they place less attention on exam results and far more on the whole person. The amount of sport they do is staggering.

This stuff about them being socially inept is a complete reversal of the truth.

+1

What is worth remembering is that not all independent schools are Eton, and don't breed toffs. On the whole they are full of children from affluent middle class backgrounds, most likely living in nice suburban areas. There are also a few children who come from less privileged backgrounds with the aid of scholarships and bursaries.

I have found most, if not all, of the children I have met who attend independent schools to be socially adept and engaging.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you havent got the "right" trainers, the "right" phone, the "right" whatever, you will be looked down upon. Maybe your parents dotn want you to fall victim to the consumerist brainwashing, whatever, you are told by those that have the "right " badges that they are better than you.

If the fee paying pupils dont have this attitude drilled OUT of them, then they will NATURALLY view themselves as superior to those that dont have parents with the wherewithal to PAY for their place.

No wonder many in politics continue to see ENTITLEMENT as a right.

And there is no doubt that its not what you know, its WHO you know that wins out everywhere...bankers know this, and exploit it...with hard, cold cash.

I don't believe people send their children to independent school just to view themselves as superior. More often it is done to maximise the academic achievement.

Nepotism is everywhere, and who you know will always have some influence in your life. I got by without job interviews for much of my life, as I used my contacts to get work. However if I wasn't able to do the job I would not obtain work.

I think the idea that all independent schools do is create a ruling elite is misguided. Maybe places like Eton may think like that (I doubt it), but if you look at the alumni of most independent schools they are in many areas of society and at many levels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice a lot of the most twattish behaviour on the recent Student protests was from kids who attended Public Schools.

Well rounded individuals do not come from a small subsection of the community. That is a definition of an elite.

These places just breed the future leaders that they always were intended to. They create people who will do well financially in life but generally are part of the problem in this country, namely nepotism, elitism and 'who you know' culture rather than an egalitarian society where the brightest and best rise to the top.

But what happens to the brightest and the best? They go to schools where they end up being dragged down to the lowest common denominator. Schools do not help the brightest and the best. At our primary school, those with special needs and low achievement get the attention. the brighter, enthusiatic kids are left to their own devices.

I had a wake up call about a year ago when my son who is in the top sets in English & Mathematics at his primary was only able to get 5% (Five per cent) on a entrance examination that was not particularly demanding. We had noticed he had lots of unfinished work when we met teachers, yet none ever looked at why nor how to improve things. They were happy with his level.

Since then, I have spent evenings and weekends to get him up to the standard that most 11 year olds should be at. Now he is at the point where he would score around 80-90%.

He is one of the brightest and the best but was going nowhere. And I don't believe that educating people to do well financially is part of the problem in the UK. The true problem is that the education system is not doing enough of this. That's why where I work they recruit from the rest of Europe. It's not that they are cheaper (they aren't), they are simply superior.

Many people are sending their children to independent schools just so they have a chance of competing for jobs in the future, not to rule.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A good private school helps turns out well balanced, confident kids who have a real ability to communicate naturally at all levels. At least that's what I've seen with my eldest lad and his mates. Of course they don't work miracles but they do help maximise potential.

Ironically from what I've seen they place less attention on exam results and far more on the whole person. The amount of sport they do is staggering.

This stuff about them being socially inept is a complete reversal of the truth.

Yap - just look at Mr Cameron and Mr Milliband's performance at PMQ (available on iplayer...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/news/7132024/Third-of-British-2012-Olympic-athletes-privately-educated.html

A third of the medal winners in the last British Olympic team went to independent schools, including Chris Hoy.

I suspect that if you add on those who went to University it would be around 50%.

I believe that those who attend state schools are often just as talented and able, but without the necessary encouragement and development, end up achieving less.

I also suspect that most of the highest achievers in lucrative/pestigious areas of life went to independent school, except footballers.

There will always be exceptions who buck this, but overall I would say that it is not necessarily the most talented that wins. It is often the best developed.

Possibly because some of them get offered scholarships to private schools due to their talent?

Tom Daley

Edited by mitchbux
Link to post
Share on other sites

But what happens to the brightest and the best? They go to schools where they end up being dragged down to the lowest common denominator. Schools do not help the brightest and the best. At our primary school, those with special needs and low achievement get the attention. the brighter, enthusiatic kids are left to their own devices.

I had a wake up call about a year ago when my son who is in the top sets in English & Mathematics at his primary was only able to get 5% (Five per cent) on a entrance examination that was not particularly demanding. We had noticed he had lots of unfinished work when we met teachers, yet none ever looked at why nor how to improve things. They were happy with his level.

Since then, I have spent evenings and weekends to get him up to the standard that most 11 year olds should be at. Now he is at the point where he would score around 80-90%.

He is one of the brightest and the best but was going nowhere. And I don't believe that educating people to do well financially is part of the problem in the UK. The true problem is that the education system is not doing enough of this. That's why where I work they recruit from the rest of Europe. It's not that they are cheaper (they aren't), they are simply superior.

Many people are sending their children to independent schools just so they have a chance of competing for jobs in the future, not to rule.

Good for you boy. And it is not just competing for jobs with fellow British, they are competing with the best and brightest of the world.

Many governments have state schemes that select the best and devote resource to them - not sure that the British society who rejected the Grammar system can swallow this of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe people send their children to independent school just to view themselves as superior. More often it is done to maximise the academic achievement.

Nepotism is everywhere, and who you know will always have some influence in your life. I got by without job interviews for much of my life, as I used my contacts to get work. However if I wasn't able to do the job I would not obtain work.

I think the idea that all independent schools do is create a ruling elite is misguided. Maybe places like Eton may think like that (I doubt it), but if you look at the alumni of most independent schools they are in many areas of society and at many levels.

That wasnt my point...the parents aim is to get the best for their child....one wonders if this were not so, then there would be no market for a fee paying school.

I have a friend who sent his boy and girl to fee paying schools, and yes they are both now confident and have a "spark"...then again, their parents do also, so maybe the spark is natural to them.

No, the point I was trying to make was that a general feeling of "better than you" would need to be drilled out of these kids by the school...for the reasons i pointed out, it would be only natural for kids to feel superior in the same way as having the latest igadget putsone above the kid with a 1 year old Nokia, and deffo above one with no gadget at all...Oh and the stigma of free school lunches....I remember the ribbing I got when I took sandwiches in...it wasnt that I prefered sandwiches, it was because we were poor....the reality was the reverse, but for an 11 year old it is hard not to conform and peer pressure is enormous...

This tendancy is there, and its there from both sides...the privileged and the under privileged...( not how even the English form is UNDER privileged).

Money is the root of all evil...there is no doubt about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasnt my point...the parents aim is to get the best for their child....one wonders if this were not so, then there would be no market for a fee paying school.

I have a friend who sent his boy and girl to fee paying schools, and yes they are both now confident and have a "spark"...then again, their parents do also, so maybe the spark is natural to them.

No, the point I was trying to make was that a general feeling of "better than you" would need to be drilled out of these kids by the school...for the reasons i pointed out, it would be only natural for kids to feel superior in the same way as having the latest igadget putsone above the kid with a 1 year old Nokia, and deffo above one with no gadget at all...Oh and the stigma of free school lunches....I remember the ribbing I got when I took sandwiches in...it wasnt that I prefered sandwiches, it was because we were poor....the reality was the reverse, but for an 11 year old it is hard not to conform and peer pressure is enormous...

This tendancy is there, and its there from both sides...the privileged and the under privileged...( not how even the English form is UNDER privileged).

Money is the root of all evil...there is no doubt about it.

I know of children that are receiving the best education possible.......the risk is they mix with the rich and entitled, they start thinking they are better than the rest of society and are 'rather special' important and deserving.....it is very important that they learn and understand they are no better than any other child...or they could well wake up to life with a long and hard shock...be humble. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

.. not sure that the British society who rejected the Grammar system can swallow this of course.

I'm not sure British society rejected it, it is politicians. We initailly sent our son to a tutorial group in order to improve him. It started small but grew enormously in about a couple of months. Parents were preparing their children for the 11+ and prepared for their children to travel over 30 miles to attend them. We withdrew our son as the initial effect wore off when all the children were doing were being drilled in verbal and non verbal reasoning (neither of which he would be tested on).

The one grammar school in our area is heavily over subscribed with about 1000 applicants for the 120 places on offer. Assuming that people only apply if they believe their children have a reasonable chance of passing there is a high demand for grammar schools.

If there were more grammar schools, then I suspect the demand for independent schools would fall dramatically.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the point I was trying to make was that a general feeling of "better than you" would need to be drilled out of these kids by the school...for the reasons i pointed out,

I have always felt superior to others and if anyone tried to drill it out of me, I'd tell them where to stick it. And I was brought up in a council estate in Hackney.

At independent schools, children are actively encouraged to be involved in charities and to help those less fortunate than themselves.

I don't believe those who attend independent schools do necessarily think themselves superior. Most of them are simply getting on with life, making friends, studying hard, trying to do their homework and so on. Working hard and achieving their potential should be what they try to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.