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

GagaJo

And as for exams being equal!

Private schools are allowed to teach/examine for international GCSE. Public are not.

International GCSE grades are 2 levels higher than GCSE. I'm an examiner for one of the biggest exam boards. This is a fact.

So a private school student taking IGCSE gets a 9. The equivalent at GCSE is a 7. Two grades lower. Yet both are accepted by colleges/universities. Same for international A Levels.

My son had to have far higher grades to get into Uni with his private education. We had no idea this was the case until he started applying. He was taking 4 A levels and was expected to have 3 A*'s whereas people from State Schools were only expected to have 1 A and 2 B's for the same Uni and course. So you might get more points for the IGCSE but that is evened out when it comes to how many points you need to get in if you are from different backgrounds.
Incidentally, a lot of jobs, including the Civil Service, do not let you apply using your school background or name. Everything is anonymous so that the Application detail does not identify you but allows you to talk about your achievements only. In one place, my son couldn't even put his grades, he just had to say A*-C or similar. There are a lot of misconceptions about Private Education and advantages or the type of people who use it.

What is your opinion on the fairness of that, ICHTB?

Doodledog

What is your opinion on the fairness of that, ICHTB?

Well, when it is your son going through it, it seemed a little unfair because I am a mother lioness but I can see that there is a need if pupils from State Schools can't get an equal education which I would campaign for. As for the anonymous job applications, I think that is an excellent idea because in general I am anti discrimination, positive or negative.

I don't know if I am the only one who has noticed this, but it does seem that some are saying that state education must have everything, regardless of cost, that independent education provides. I would agree that the full cost of what is provided has to be funded but we do need to remember this is state-funded education not mirrors of Eton.

We may even find we want different rather than that provided by the schools of old. People talk about Finish education. This is a list from an article headed "10 Reasons Why Finland's Education is the best in the world". I do wonder what the GN boards would be saying if this was brought in for our schools.

1. No standardized testing
2. Accountability for teachers (not required)
3. Cooperation not competition
4. Make the basics a priority
5. Starting school at an older age
6. Providing professional options past a traditional college degree
7. Finns wake up later for less strenuous schooldays
8. Consistent instruction from the same teachers
9. A more relaxed atmosphere
10. Less homework and outside work required

www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/10-reasons-why-finlands-education-system-is-the-best-in-the-world

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've always advocated less homework, DasiyAnne, especially at primary school level. At those ages, homework simply isn't necessary. I bet most grans on here never did homework while they were at primary school.

Incidentally, a lot of jobs, including the Civil Service, do not let you apply using your school background or name. Everything is anonymous so that the Application detail does not identify you but allows you to talk about your achievements only. In one place, my son couldn't even put his grades, he just had to say A*-C or similar.

Not sure how this statement helps, if a private student's A* is the equivalent of a state student's B. It is still extremely unfair that private students are allowed to do IGCSEs which give them a grade inflation of 2 grades. It's social engineering.

And this statement:
was expected to have 3 A's whereas people from State Schools were only expected to have 1 A and 2 B's for the same Uni and course

If they were international A Levels (which admittedly are less common than international GCSEs, and therefore his would probably have been standard A Levels), his 3 X A* would have been the equivalent of 3 Bs for British A Levels.

The government that underfunds state schools, is deliberately giving private school students even more of an advantage than they already have, by allowing their grades to be artificially inflated. This is nothing to do with funding.

The system is deliberately rigged. Not for nothing is Oxbridge massively weighted against state school students. (Again, improving I know, but not proportionately yet).

volver

Norah

volver

I've only ever heard this view on GN. People using private education (or healthcare) are freeing up a space for another person. They're just saintly, really. It's tantamount to altruism. ?

Guess I should get out more.

Private education and healthcare do free up space.

Well done you, learning.

Do they teach patronising condescension at these wonderful schools? Or is that just something you're born with?

No, just Saintly and altruistic behavious.

Actually, Saints are important at our GC Catholic schools. Religious education, including the Saints of course, is taught.

Can't win for losing. If children are sent to private schools what exactly are they taking away from children in state schools. They are indeed freeing up spaces in (some say) overcrowded public schools.

Same as private healthcare. Not taking from people using NHS.

GagaJo

*Incidentally, a lot of jobs, including the Civil Service, do not let you apply using your school background or name. Everything is anonymous so that the Application detail does not identify you but allows you to talk about your achievements only. In one place, my son couldn't even put his grades, he just had to say A*-C or similar.*

Not sure how this statement helps, if a private student's A* is the equivalent of a state student's B. It is still extremely unfair that private students are allowed to do IGCSEs which give them a grade inflation of 2 grades. It's social engineering.

And this statement:
was expected to have 3 A's whereas people from State Schools were only expected to have 1 A and 2 B's for the same Uni and course

If they were international A Levels (which admittedly are less common than international GCSEs, and therefore his would probably have been standard A Levels), his 3 X A* would have been the equivalent of 3 Bs for British A Levels.

The government that underfunds state schools, is deliberately giving private school students even more of an advantage than they already have, by allowing their grades to be artificially inflated. This is nothing to do with funding.

The system is deliberately rigged. Not for nothing is Oxbridge massively weighted against state school students. (Again, improving I know, but not proportionately yet).

Not sure how this statement helps, if a private student's A* is the equivalent of a state student's B. It is still extremely unfair that private students are allowed to do IGCSEs which give them a grade inflation of 2 grades. It's social engineering.

No, I think you have got the wrong end of the stick of what I am saying. If it was working on points, I'd agree but we are talking about on offers. My son took the same A levels as State School Students but his grades had to be much higher than theirs in order to get into Uni. That is supposed to balance things but some could argue that this is social engineering against the Private School student.

Not sure how this statement helps, if a private student's A* is the equivalent of a state student's B. It is still extremely unfair that private students are allowed to do IGCSEs which give them a grade inflation of 2 grades. It's social engineering.

As nobody gives their grade OR their Exam Board, it is done only on their application form and letter of application. If nobody knows the exact grade, exam board or name, there can be no bias therefore no social engineering.

IGCE's are far more rigorous than GCSE's so the argument against them is a bit spurious too!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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".

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

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.

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.

Fleurpepper

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

And I just answered, below.

Sorry, I forgot to quote below.

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.

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.

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.

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.