How soon before the next step to privatising the state schools?

And I have seen it the other way round nanna8. Both very impressive at interview. One who thought they could have a second job, with disastrous results for his teaching and one who walked the walk and talked the talk but couldn’t teach. Both were taken up by private schools. I have no idea how long they kept the man, but I’m still in touch with the woman and she’s still there.

I don’t know if it is the same in the UK but with the private schools here poor teachers are quickly moved on. That does not seem to happen in the public schools. I have personal experience of this and that is just one of the reasons many of us will scrimp and save to put our children through the private school system. We used to coach children from the local public school in English and maths because the teaching was very poor and the kids wanted to pass their exams and get into uni. Not just that particular school ,either.

I think foundation years for a degree course are a great idea too if someone is committed to education and going to university. It is just a shame they are billed at the 9k odd a year too now. Ten years ago they used to much less or even free.

Mollygo

If we’re moving into unfair grades-the case of DD’s school’s examining board meaning to read A level French and Spanish texts in French and Spanish and read and answer questions in those languages and the board used by another school allowing the texts in English is definitely an inequality!

I imagine (although I am out of date ) that the exam fitted the framework for that subject and level in a different way.

All exams have a framework that exam boards must work to so I would be contacting Ofqual if the school cannot explain to you what make them both fit.

growstuff

icanhandthemback IGCSEs certainly are not more rigorous than GCSEs. Like GagaJo, I've was an examiner for both for a number of years and I could compare for myself. It was much easier to achieve higher grades in IGCSE.

iGCSE's are most definitely not more rigorous, neither are international A Levels.

1) They are easier.
2) An iGCSE 8 = GCSE 6.

I examine for both. And for international A Level. Which bears no relation at all to the British A Level in my subject. So much so I'm not really sure it should be called an Advanced Level because it isn't at all.

growstuff

Incidentally, contextual offers (lowering grades for some state school pupils) are usually only two grades, eg. AAA to ABB. The higher grades are also used for pupils from high-performing state schools, not just independent schools.

Universities have data which show that students given contextual offers on average outperform students with higher grades at degree level, which suggests they are right to give some pupils from low-performing schools a chance. In any case, pupils who are given lower offers very often achieve higher A level grades anyway.

This is Bristol Uni's statement on contextual offers:

www.bristol.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/entry-requirements-qualifications/contextual-offers/

That is so interesting growstuff. Thank you for posting the link.

If we’re moving into unfair grades-the case of DD’s school’s examining board meaning to read A level French and Spanish texts in French and Spanish and read and answer questions in those languages and the board used by another school allowing the texts in English is definitely an inequality!

Incidentally, contextual offers (lowering grades for some state school pupils) are usually only two grades, eg. AAA to ABB. The higher grades are also used for pupils from high-performing state schools, not just independent schools.

Universities have data which show that students given contextual offers on average outperform students with higher grades at degree level, which suggests they are right to give some pupils from low-performing schools a chance. In any case, pupils who are given lower offers very often achieve higher A level grades anyway.

This is Bristol Uni's statement on contextual offers:

www.bristol.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/entry-requirements-qualifications/contextual-offers/

icanhandthemback IGCSEs certainly are not more rigorous than GCSEs. Like GagaJo, I've was an examiner for both for a number of years and I could compare for myself. It was much easier to achieve higher grades in IGCSE.

DaisyAnne

America and Scotland seem to use "public" for their State Schools. In England and Wales, Eton, Shrewsbury, Harrow, Winchester, Rugby, Westminster, and Charterhouse, are usually referred to as "Public" Schools. Other fee-paying schools are called Independent Schools. Prep schools are "private". You could almost think it's done to deliberately confuse

If you are suggesting the Independent and Public Schools should be the first to pay more tax many, if not all, are run on a "not for profit" basis so it would be difficult to tax them.

I'm not suggesting taxing any of the schools (public, private, independent, prep, fee based - any of them).

I'm suggesting we all pay tax directed to the state schools. I realize that many say Taxes don't pay for government spending, I feel differently. If state schools were prioritized, money allocated properly, schools could improve. Nothing to do with people paying for fee based schools.

I found a definition: What is taxpayers money used for UK?
"For centuries taxes have been an important fact of national life. Without them it would be impossible to pay for the country's defence services, its health, welfare and social services, its schools and universities, and its transport systems."

winterwhite: "What I find wrong with private schools is that it enables parents with enough money to deliberately buy advantages for their children over those with whom in later life they will have to compete.

I know this is probably from a lot further back, but it does seem to be what some base their argument on. It seems so extreme. How far should we take this? Must all children be dressed the same, have the same homes and access to the same hobbies and parental care. How would you make this happen?

This doesn't mean, before the voices go up a pitch, that I don't want the best education possible provided by the state; I do. That is exactly why I started this thread.

America and Scotland seem to use "public" for their State Schools. In England and Wales, Eton, Shrewsbury, Harrow, Winchester, Rugby, Westminster, and Charterhouse, are usually referred to as "Public" Schools. Other fee-paying schools are called Independent Schools. Prep schools are "private". You could almost think it's done to deliberately confuse

If you are suggesting the Independent and Public Schools should be the first to pay more tax many, if not all, are run on a "not for profit" basis so it would be difficult to tax them.

DaisyAnne

Norah

Other than pulling children out of their schools - taxes need to be raised, public schools should be prioritized by the government.

That would be brilliant to my view.

Equality by working with what we have to make it equal.

Nobody else is posting the same, but I know I'm not the only GP paying for schooling, nor were my parents.

Taxes don't pay for government spending Norah. (I just thought I would save you repeating it yet again Maizie)

Do you mean public schools as in the American meaning for public schools or the British one? I'm not sure which you want to prioritise.

I meant public= state.

Private= fee based.

Different wording/definition to how I was raised, but I was attempting to use the wording most prevalent on this thread.

For instance, Mollygo: "Where would the extra funding for schools come from if private school parents are already paying into the system through taxes as well as paying school fees?"

winterwhite: "What I find wrong with private schools is that it enables parents with enough money to deliberately buy advantages for their children over those with whom in later life they will have to compete.

And others.

Norah

Other than pulling children out of their schools - taxes need to be raised, public schools should be prioritized by the government.

That would be brilliant to my view.

Equality by working with what we have to make it equal.

Nobody else is posting the same, but I know I'm not the only GP paying for schooling, nor were my parents.

Taxes don't pay for government spending Norah. (I just thought I would save you repeating it yet again Maizie)

Do you mean public schools as in the American meaning for public schools or the British one? I'm not sure which you want to prioritise.

Fleurpepper

Yes, so many people have explained this, again and again.

And I just answered, below.

Sorry, I forgot to quote below.

Other than pulling children out of their schools - taxes need to be raised, public schools should be prioritized by the government.

That would be brilliant to my view.

Equality by working with what we have to make it equal.

Nobody else is posting the same, but I know I'm not the only GP paying for schooling, nor were my parents.

M0nica

I think these sandards work for Finland, but it doesn't follow that it will work for every other country. You have to factor in a whole lot of things about the country and its culture including parenting styles, the fact that it has a very thin population density and lots of small communities well spaced. It mean that schools are much smaller and that children are more embedded and known within those communities.

All the things in that list come from the community and are not imposed teaching methods.

Whether you could engender these qualities in huge schools in the deprived inner cities in many parts of Britain where communities at every level are larger, less communal. We live in a completely different environment.

It is like saying all children would benefit from going to forest schools, where all examples studied are in rural areas in real woodland and then think that if you plant a few trees in an inner city park and take the children from local schools there one afternoon a week, they are getting something that even approximates to forest schooling.

I actually don't need to consider the differences between countries, M0nica. Children are children and this is about children learning. If Finland has worked out, with real children, a system that works, why would anyone think someone unconnected with this system has "opinions" that would make it better?

It's not as if we think we have been a success is it? We have people on here wanting to stop some citizens from choosing to spend their money on their children's education. They say this is because we do it so badly that they have come, to the counter-intuitive conclusion that taking something away from some will improve things for others.

No M0nica, just as I didn't go for the changes the conservatives suggested many moons ago when they found out just how much the "winners" spend on their system of education, I don't think anyone can change things until they have actually tried the one that works.

Yes, so many people have explained this, again and again.

"If children are sent to private schools what exactly are they taking away from children in state schools."

I might suggest you read the posts on this thread explaining why that is Norah. If I had to use one word, I might say "equality".

I think these sandards work for Finland, but it doesn't follow that it will work for every other country. You have to factor in a whole lot of things about the country and its culture including parenting styles, the fact that it has a very thin population density and lots of small communities well spaced. It mean that schools are much smaller and that children are more embedded and known within those communities.

All the things in that list come from the community and are not imposed teaching methods.

Whether you could engender these qualities in huge schools in the deprived inner cities in many parts of Britain where communities at every level are larger, less communal. We live in a completely different environment.

It is like saying all children would benefit from going to forest schools, where all examples studied are in rural areas in real woodland and then think that if you plant a few trees in an inner city park and take the children from local schools there one afternoon a week, they are getting something that even approximates to forest schooling.

M0nica

being slightly flippant. Even as a child I was an early riser. I would hated to have had to go to school later. At one point, living outside the UK, I started school at 8.00am and finished at 1.00pm., with only one short break. I loved it. On the other hand Finland has little or no light in winter and little or no dark in summer. Does this affect things?

A number, 3,4,9, seem fairly common in the UK

8, is in the lap of the gods, whether teachers stay in a school long term. Apart from the atmosphere in the school, it depends on the availability of the right staff. I can remember in one school year having 4 not very good teachers in one subject until the right person was found, the same happened to DC and from talking to my DDiL, something similar happened to one of my DGC - and they still have some years at school to go.

I am very ambivalent about starting school later. What exactly does it mean? Nothing until 6 or 7? Simply calling child educational provision under the age of 6 or 7 something else. Children going into separate institutions at 6 or 7 like the primary/secondary divide.

We are a family of self-taught very young readers and that that caused problems when both children started school. Fortunately, in both cases they were in a group with one or two other children. Both groups were moved into a higher class, which solved the problem for the reception class, but then caused problems when decisions had to be made about leaving them in another class for 2 years. What happens to children like that, if they do not start school until they are 6/7?

I knew this would happen. You can't pick and choose if you are telling us we need the same gold standard education as Finland has. The reason they are gold standard is because they do all those things.

M0nica
I am very ambivalent about starting school later. What exactly does it mean? Nothing until 6 or 7? Simply calling child educational provision under the age of 6 or 7 something else. Children going into separate institutions at 6 or 7 like the primary/secondary divide.
Unless you’ve been in European preschool (7) you don’t realise how much formal stuff the children are taught over there before they start school all disguised under the heading of preschool.
One of the biggest problems in introducing EYFS here was parental expectation. No matter how often they were told about learning through play, developing schema, socialisation etc. what they wanted -and many still do, is for their child to come out of Reception reading, preferably on a higher level than the other children, and writing legibly.
But if you buy any of the ‘home learning books abroad, parents seem to be encouraged to do formal stuff with their children.
The other aspect which I’m seeing more of is wanting your child to start school later. I feel for those parents who think their summer-born 4 year olds are not ready-12 months September to August is a huge difference. If home provision or nursery provision is good, they might benefit, but if your 4 year old isn’t speaking or interested in playing or listening after 4 years at home with you, or at nursery, the stimulation of school is often really valuable. I’ve seen non toilet trained, reluctant speakers and players develop really quickly in the first few weeks of school.

Helps to if your father grandfather and g g f belong to the same Lodge too!

Gagajo, not all private schools take internation GCSEs or A'Levels. My GD has achieved 7 x 9, 2 x 8 and 1 x 7 (from memory) but they were standard GCSEs. But she got them with 100% education through Covid, lots of pre exam support, etc, etc. So yes, at a huge advantage as compared to other children. And it would be fair enough for Unis to take that into account.

Np-one has mentionned Ye Olde School network. One of my brightest nephews just sailed through everything, and did not put any work or effort into his A'Levels. He did not achieve the great grades he and his parents were expecting (at top private school) - but his grandfather said ' hey, no problem, I phoned one of my ex Public School friends in the City and he will take him on. That's how it works. Who you know at the top.

Norah

Joseanne

I think it is taking it a bit far to suggest that parents at fee paying schools are busy polishing their halos at freeing up a space for another pupil. I've never read any questionnaire answers, to why have you chosen a private education, which say, "because we are so selfless we want to free up a place for another child."

A few pages ago these same parents were actually criticised for being callous, and not giving a caring thought to other working class children.
It seems to me people just want to take a pop at them from every direction.

Indeed. Popping from every direction.

No halo polishing and no part of the decision process on where to send the children. But obviously spaces are opened in public schools by some children attending private schools.

Not really as by law the State has to provide an education place for every child.