Eleven Plus Exam

As I said, POGS, you are naive if you think that the government does not affect you and your family. It affects everybody else in the country, so how come not you?

"Around 7 per cent of the UK population is privately educated but in Westminster this figure is much higher. A 2010 study showed 54 per cent of Tory MPs went to a fee paying school, as well as 40 per cent of Lib Dems and 15 per cent of Labour MPs."

This answers you as well, Ana. If Cameron did a reshuffle he would find it hard to have fewer privately educated MPs on the front bench. I'd quite like to see a representative front bench from him, with only 7% privately educated, but he'd probably keep his Eton cohort.

for granjura for her post at 14.12 today. I enjoy your posts granjura, even the ones I don't agree with, but this one today was spot on, so thanks.

Pogs, last thing I'd want is for class warfare to ... continue- so sooner the better stop the division of schools...

Are you really saying that people, and the way their later tick, think and behave, is not influenced by about 11, 13 or 17+ years of education- escpecially when segregated? I respect your post and opinion, but I am afraid I'd say it is naïve. I know many young people who are, and who have been to top public schools- and they have no idea about how the other half (well 90%) live- at all. They may have gone on a charity trip to Nepal or Timbuctu- but never to their local estate or to, say, Bradford.

I see nothing hypocritical either with people who have had a great private, 'Public' or Grammar School Ed- to say that it was not fair that they got the chance, and not others- because their parents had money or they passed a very artificial exam on one day when 11.

Having taught in several comprehensives though, I always felt very uncomfortable with colleagues, especially at Senior level, or Heads and Deputies- who chose to send their own kids to private school. Felt that if the school they taught at (and me- and where my own kids went) was not 'good' enough for their kids, why should it be for other kids (and my own- the difference being that I could have afforded, due to DH's salary, not mine to send them to private school had I believed it was best for them- which I didn't).

oooppps Iam64, thanks- posts crossed. So glad to see we can agree to disagree at times ;)

I am sorry, I am passionate about state education and state health service- and we both dedicated our lives to both. Can't help it. And there is absolutely NO jealousy from my part at all- as I could have afforded to send out kids private, but genuinely believed it was not in their best interest- and they have done very very well professionally.

The table I looked at showed a much higher percentage of Labour ministers as having been privately educated, and a lower percentage of Conservatives but I won't bother giving a link (even though it's from the Guardian!) because it would make no difference to your mind-set, durhamjen.

I'll leave you to it.

Another thought- I know many people who went to Catholic schools- and are now saying they should be abolished. Is that hypocritical too?

Good thought granjura. The private school I went to was a Church of England one, and I not only think private education should be abolished, but all schools should be secular.

This Guardian article was obviously not the one you were talking about, then, Ana.

"Despite the fact that around only 7% of British children are privately educated, 34% of MPs went to fee-paying schools, and the figure for Tory members of parliament is 54% (the Labour figure, to put that in perspective, is a mere 12%). People who have had expensive educations dominate journalism, law, finance – and, of late, even the supposedly meritocratic powerhouse that is British pop music (witness Mumford and Sons, Florence Welch, Lily Allen, Laura Marling et al). "It is remarkable how many positions of wealth, influence, celebrity and power in our society are held by individuals who were privately educated," said the education secretary, Michael Gove, in May last year."

This puts Labour as even lower.

As I said, I'll leave you to it...

But you didn't , did you?

Only because you had to get the last word in, didn't you?

I have only just got in, so is it ok to ask some questions further back granjura and others?

1. Why are not the cities like Geneva and Zurich, the same as the rest. I dont understand what expats have to do with it.
Which leads me to question

2. Is it illegal to have private schools in Switzerland?

3. Do some parents find a way round it by sending kids abroad, home schooling, setting up their own schools etc.

4. What do you decide is "successful" education wise [you dont need to give personal details]

5. Do they have a uni system similar to ours? I suppose what I am asking is their segration according to wealth further along the education system.

Yes, Ana.

Of course, secular all the way is the way to go for schools- religion is a private matter, not a state one, nor a school one.

Those figures from the Guardian are quite clear, aren't they?

Look at the terrible crisis caused by the adrenalin fired coke heads in the City who gambled millions of our money- and lost. Who is paying the price now? Them... oh no- we are not 'all in this together'. State schools and the NHS can both go down the pan- but they don't care, because their kids are in private/Public/boarding schools, and they all have private health insurance for the best treatment and no queues.

Very very few of the top people in the City are from State comprehensives- and most are not from minor private schools but the old boy's network of Public Schools (even the very few women there). I only know of one top financial partner in the City who went to a Comprehensive.

Sorry Soontobe, posts crossed, Will try and answer asap- very complex, as usual, but will try my best.

(Well done, durj)

Very, very interesting, grandjura! Thank you. It is always good to find out how other countries manage systems. I found a good thread:

www.swissworld.org/en/education/general_overview/the_swiss_education_system/

which explains things well.

OK here goes.

1. - expats from UK and USA or other Anglo-Saxon countries are mainly in those 2 large towns, Geneva and Zurich and the smaller financial services/lox tax, Zug. Many have a 'parrallel' life-style, never learn the language, and spend most of their time hanging around together. One reason is that they are often sent by their company for a limited number of years and do not come to live here permanently. As the Swiss and European school system is so different- especially at 16+ (UK with 4 subjects in Year 12, and 3 in Year 13- whereas here and in Europe in general, the 16+ system remains very broad up to the Baccalaureate at 18/19)- expats prefer to educate their kids separately, studying for GCSE's and preparing for A'Levels. Even at secondary school- kids are split into vocational and academic, based on all subjects- but with one main subject being the local language, eg German for Zurich and Zug, French for Geneva. And that means that kids arriving after, say, the age of 8, do not have time to acquire the necessary fluency in spoken, let alone written language before that separation takes place. In the UK for instance- kids can continue into a very narrow A'level system, even if they do not achieve C grade in English and maths- and then take those GCSE's again alongside AS and As. They can also choose subjects which are easier, or less demanding from the language point of view- be it IT, Design, a foreingn language they already have a good grounding or are fluent in, etc.- which is just not possible here- where all main subjects have to be studied by all, and the exam passed as a whole (fail one subject and re-take all).
Many companies also offer to pay for private education for expats, as a carrot.

2.- no private schools are not illegal (some Counties do make it illegal to home-school, but not all do- you have to be qualified to do so though). But only a tiny minority choose to send their kids to private school. Again, more in Zurich and Geneva. In my County- the % is absolutely tiny. A private British school was opened a couple of years back, as there has been a big increase in foreign firms here- but the take up was so small, they closed. In my region- we have many multi-millionaires who are the CEOs and owners of prestige watch making firms and other businesses too- as of course solicitors, doctors, architects, etc, etc,- they all send their kids to the local school. Because the local schools are great, well funded, etc- and because they make sure they use their influence that continues. They actually believe an excellent education system benefits all - including their own- and I can assure you NONE of them are socialists or communists.

3.- no... some expats do. The only 2 kids I knew in my day who went to Public Boarding (very famous) Public School in the UK were my cousins- whose parents worked for the United Nations in Geneva (she Swiss, he British, having gone to same school). Why would they do- when the local schools are great?

It sounds a bit like when the counties were in control of education, except that there was always the fee-paying system in the background, and the Tories could never trust the Northern Labour control of the schools, which is why it all changed. Also, the finance was controlled by the government and handed down to the councils.

Sorry, that was in response to Ariadne's link.

4. I agree' successful' education is so subjective. So is the concept of a 'good' school, of course. Sucessful, for me- means that potential is allowed to flourish- and that elusive concept 'well-rounded' and also develops an open-mind, due to encountering all sorts of people, from very different backgrounds, social circumstances, etc, etc. One that does not segregate, the mind, religion, circumstances, class, race, etc- but allows the academic students to strive and thrive too.

When our daughter first went to Uni, she happened to share accom with a group of people (great bunch btw)- who had all gone to private or public school. They were so used to being 'sat upon' via prep, etc, they could not organise themselves for toffee, and were all late with deadlines, etc. And of course went crazy with drugs, sex and rock and roll (well garage and house, I think) - which she found amusing (as she had gone past that stage very quickly ;) ).

Sorry, it is a long answer. Lots of questions.

5. The university system is similar, but quite different too. A/ for most subjects, anyone with a C and above for the Baccalaureate can go to Uni (exception for medicine) and study. No UCAS application or interview, provisional places, etc. The first year is quite a general studies one, where a good proportion is selected to continue. I think it is daft, and very wasteful and expensive. Most students stay at home to study- in a way I find it a great shame- as going away is a great lesson in life, 'kids' have to learn to share digs, budget, cook, clean and wash clothes (mind you, the house our daughter shared was a total tip!)- but it is hugely expensive. Nowadays many students in the UK end up with huge debts- and this is a great shame, but a large % of this is due to expectations which are (sorry) ridiculous- latest gadgets, holidays abroad, expensive clothes, running a car, expensive clubbing, etc, etc (not for all, but many).

So uni students here have much lower expenses and low or no fees- and that means it is much much more accessible to a much higher %.

Also there are great apprenticeships, very well respected- unlike in the UK, and also good links between the apprenticeship system and on to a shorter baccalaureate and then access to uni.

No sure if I've answered your questions- and apologies for length. Fire away if you have more.

Only read part so far. Thanks for answering in depth.
Do you think part of the key is that the schools are well funded?
I should imagine that if our schools for all were well funded, that ,ight make a big difference.

You also said that at secondary, kids are split into vocational and acedemic.
Is not that a bit Eleven Plusish by the back door?

But I see that uni is still open to apprenticeship students too so that is good.

I think I like the Swiss eduacation system better than ours.

I wonder how much more funding per pupil they get compared to our pupils.

And I am also begining to wonder how many other countries have the private and public education system that we have.
I used to be of the opinion that a lot of countries worked like ours.
But my kids are now working in a variety of different countries. And it is surprising to me how the countries can have many different systems to ours, even the countries that are seen as westernised. And sometimes, their systems are better than ours.
Not the NHS though, in my opinion.

Yes, but the point I am trying to make- is that when the rich and those with influence go/use the same system, and do not opt out to private- they put priority on it being well funded- do you see what I mean? When the rich and those with influence can and do opt out- they do not care any longer what happens to the rest, consciously or unconsciously. Why should it be a priority for them- when their own kids are not affected?

Indeed, most counties do have selection at 11- not via an exam though, but the year's results. Many counties now are challenging this- 30 years late compared to UK. My local County (Canton) has stopped this now, and only stream for maths, German and English (I think).

Another big difference is that here classes are taught as a 'class'- in the UK in all the schools were I taught- a class was a social and administrative group, with a form tutor- but after registration and PSE, etc- then went on to different classes based on streaming- with a child being, say, in Set 1 for maths, set 2 for French, set 1 for..... etc, and mixed groups for, say, humanities and PE. Kids moved to the teachers- here the teachers move to the class, which is taught together for all subjects- so has to be more or less homogeneous/at same level.