Public school

Oh, it’s private healthcare under the heat of derision as well now is it?
I hear that Venezuela is nice this time of year.

From time to time on GN we have a thread like this, it’s always ridiculous and gives those with large chips on their shoulders an outing.

I'd say that most parents, if they can afford it, will send their children to private school to ensure they are educated in a place where all the children value education and want to do their best.

A classroom full of respectful students whose parents are supportive and have aspirations for them has to be a better learning environment than one where the teacher spends a disproportionate amount of his/her time disciplining those in the classroom who are disruptive (and encourage others to behave in the same way.) It may be entertaining for the others in the class but they are lacking the teachers time and undivided attention and teaching every single school day.

It's a no-brainer.

private healthcare. no objections.

holidays/perfume/big houses are of no interest.

A small elite who are able to use the old boys network and the over confidence money and power give them, I find objectionable.

Why do you keep trotting out the phrase " chip on shoulders" or "virtue signalling" or " sour grapes"?

I suppose if you're paying for your child to be taught in a much more inclusive way then any disruptive pupils are far easier to deal with.

I mentioned that my brother and I both went to independent ‘public’ schools. He hated his, I loved mine. We both sent our children to state schools, liking the idea of more inclusiveness. Their exam results were fine, but now we and they realise there was so much they missed in the way of general intellectual stimulation, serious music and high culture (for want of a better term).. My son has sent his children to good independent schools, and I have to admit I’m pleased. My nephew’s children aren’t school age yet, but I shall be interested to see where they go.

There is a lot more to education than exam grades.

Exactly Grandma70s.

I'd say that most parents, if they can afford it, will send their children to private school to ensure they are educated in a place where all the children value education and want to do their best.
Not necessarily, Day6
There are many state schools which try to ensure this too.

MissA the thing about independent schools is that, in the main, the pupils have to take an entrance examination for which the parents have to pay, and they do not have to keep any disruptive pupils in the school.

What the hell is high culture please? And for that matter serious music?

Brahms and Bach, Beethoven and Grieg rather than Ulvaeus and Andersson?
And knowing and understanding the Impressionists rather than Hockney?

My brothers and I went to public schools back in the 60s, not very happy places then. In complete contrast my grand kids are home educated and have never looked back. My daughter went to a state and did well with a masters from uni.

Jonas Brothers, Ally Brooke, Ariana Grande are pretty good.

Kate Halsall, Matthew McCaslin.

I did enjoy listening to Ulvaeus and Andersson with DGD the other day!

lemongrove ' : Oh, it’s private healthcare under the heat of derision as well now is it?
I hear that Venezuela is nice this time of year.'

please could you explain this comment? Where is the derision? or the extreme socialism?

Everyone should be entitled to a good education and to good healthcare - irrespective of income. No-one should be 'entitled' to a bigger and better house, or car, or holiday, or television. NO, you can't compare the two- really, you can't.

Day6, in countries where excellent education if provided for all, with smaller class sizes (our primary as 20 as an absolute maximum) - parents DO NOT send their kids to private schools- because there is just no need, just no point- and for that reason they don't even exist. No religious schools either, or different types of schools. Kids grow up all mixed, irrespective of parents' jobs, status, income - and learn to respect each other and not have this 'them and us' from the very start.

And 'private health provision' does exist- that means you can get a private room, or a 4* menu, and a view of the Lake or whatever- but the provision is the same- irrespective of 'basic' or 'supplementary' cover. OH is not a left winger but any stroke of the imagination - but when he joined his practice and rose through the ranks- he just slowly disposed of the private part of the practice, and told everyone he would do his best to provide the best he could do- for all.

As for adding extra 'cultural, music, travel, etc, etc, etc' we felt it was out job as parents to provide this.
DD was devastated to have to make the decision to send her kids to private schools - as she felt so bad that the improvements should be for all. But the Government cuts meant they were sending more and more problem kids to the school, making classe size over 30- and with NO extra support to support them. The extra support had to be highjacked to provide essential education, rather than added support.

And as said, once those with more money, more influence, more clout, more everything- opt out- the rest can go even more to pot. When the influential parents have kids at the school, they ensure the education is great for their kids (as is very natural) AND for the other kids at the same time. In the long run- it creates much better relations and communities- respect, understanding and a much better society. Call it socialism if you wish - I call it humanity and commons sense. If the divisions in schools create societies where people who have lots, have a bit less, have less or a lot less- or not much of anything - then everyone will suffer.

I see it with family in South Africa- where those who are better off have to live behind electric fences, with 'trespassers will be shot' signs- and be driven everywhere. I certainly don't want this, for sure.

Did everyone miss the point of the article? It isn't that there shouldn't be public schools or that they should be shut down. It is simply that in order to restore balance certain steps should be taken. Firstly that such schools should be stripped of their charitable status. It is a well known fact that most of the "charity" involves offering scholarships to pupils whose familes are temporarily in financial difficulties. And secondly that the Russel Group should stop offering so many places to public school students. It wouldn't cost anything and it might actually produce a few more politicians with wider experiences in the real world.

Jalima1108 - thank you for your definitions, which aren’t far from mine. I might count Hockney as high-ish culture, though.

By high culture (and I don’t like the term, but ‘culture’ has many interpretations) I suppose I mean symphonic or chamber music, much opera and ballet, art galleries, Shakespeare, Radio 3 rather than 1 or 2, literature.

Isn't it up to the individual to decide how they want to spend their money?
If someone has sufficient money to be able to afford to have their children privately educated, isn't that a decision for them? Some choose private health care. Some choose to invest in property. Some gamble or drink their money away. So why not public school for their children if they can afford to do it?

Jalima I subscribe to the unpopular opinion that Ulvaeus and Andersson are the greatest songwriting partnership of the 20th century.

Oh I think Hockney is about as high culture as you can get. But then a lot of artists are -even Banksy
Strangely enough as well I think Public schools are not only concerned with high culture now. They realised after the 60s that there was a fair amount of money to be made in popular culture and so we have very posh bands like Cold Play and very posh actors like Benedict Cumberbatch. In fact it's hard for working class kids to make it now. No more Michael Caines or Albert Finneys.

Have just caught up on a weeks worth of GN, 2 of our C went to Independent Schools - the advantages- not only can they blasphem splendidly- they can spell the blasphemous words correctly!!

Chewbacca 'Isn't it up to the individual to decide how they want to spend their money?
If someone has sufficient money to be able to afford to have their children privately educated, isn't that a decision for them? Some choose private health care.'

Well yes, and no. Did you read my post. A civilised society should provide good education and healthcare for all. and then people could buy extra on top, like a private room, a colour TV, 4* meals. But the healthcare itself should be good for all, same for education. The mark of a civilised society. And you'll find that if excellent healthcare and education is provided - as in many countries- very very few choose private- and most just choose a top up- whid does not affect the basic 'service'.

I don't mind if you choose to drink Champagne, or the best Bordeaux Claret - as long as all have good healthy drinking water.

Hmmmm... in a perfect, equal world I would agree with you 100% jura. But it's not a perfect, or equal world is it? From time immemorial, some have had more than others. And others had still less. I quite agree with you that, ideally everyone should be able to access good healthcare and education. But those of us who have that bit more disposable income, however it's obtained, will always opt to have that little bit better healthcare and education and "go private". And it's their perfect right to do so because they can spend their money however they want to can't they? Unless of course you want to level everyone to the same income level so that we all have the same? So shop assistants, teachers, manual workers, doctors, cleaners etc all have exactly the same income? Now that would be true equality wouldn't it? But would some of those agree to reduce their incomes so that they were all on a par? I think not!
There will always be inequality. That's life.

I could well afford to send my children to private schools but I chose not to.Like others on here I believe that all children should get a good education regardless of how much cash their parents have in the bank.I extend that right to higher education too .Its a sad day when youngsters leave university with huge debts ,in a wealthy country ,at least that doesn't happen in Scotland . I think the charitable status of these schools is a disgrace especially when state schools struggle financially .

Not one single person in my extended family could have ever afforded private education. We are all traditional working class and Geordies to boot !

I felt elated when we won the appeal for me DGD to get into a good state school close to home, rather than the rubbish, failing school they wanted to send her to. I don’t know what we would have done had we lost as we would never be in the position to afford private education (or healthcare) but do I blame others for doing so? Of course not. We all just want the best for our families and if you have the money to do this, well good luck to you.

That's exactly how I feel too gillybob.