FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

comprehensive schools are a disaster

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

The Comprehensive schools are directly responsible for stealing the life opportunities of tens of millions of people. The privately educated elite still dominate the upper echelons of power. There is evidence to suggest that social mobility is even falling!

Immigration has exacerbated the situation: many schools have been super-sized to cope with the demand for school places. Also, some schools have kids that can't speak a single word of English. However, none of our politicians send their children to any of these dysfunctional schools. Tony Blair said the Labour Party would cut class sizes down to 20, but they did not.

The comprehensive school is a failed experiment. Personally, I have given up on the idea of having children because I would not want to send any of my children to one.

We have some of the best schools in the world, but they are all private. We have some of the worst schools in the world: the comprehensives.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

You could save and send them to a public school. Doesn't have to be a comprehensive.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West


"The Comprehensive schools are directly responsible for stealing the life opportunities of tens of millions of people. The privately educated elite still dominate the upper echelons of power. There is evidence to suggest that social mobility is even falling!

Immigration has exacerbated the situation: many schools have been super-sized to cope with the demand for school places. Also, some schools have kids that can't speak a single word of English. However, none of our politicians send their children to any of these dysfunctional schools. Tony Blair said the Labour Party would cut class sizes down to 20, but they did not.

The comprehensive school is a failed experiment. Personally, I have given up on the idea of having children because I would not want to send any of my children to one.

We have some of the best schools in the world, but they are all private. We have some of the worst schools in the world: the comprehensives."

You should have gone out tonight, had a few beers, shot the shit with some buddies.....

Are you sure with this thread late on a Friday evening?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"You could save and send them to a public school. Doesn't have to be a comprehensive. "

For most people it unfortunately does.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham


"You could save and send them to a public school. Doesn't have to be a comprehensive.

For most people it unfortunately does."

I know. But your main reason for choosing bot to have kids is education. You have the ability to change that of you wanted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *avidnsa69Man
over a year ago

Essex


"The Comprehensive schools are directly responsible for stealing the life opportunities of tens of millions of people. The privately educated elite still dominate the upper echelons of power. There is evidence to suggest that social mobility is even falling!

Immigration has exacerbated the situation: many schools have been super-sized to cope with the demand for school places. Also, some schools have kids that can't speak a single word of English. However, none of our politicians send their children to any of these dysfunctional schools. Tony Blair said the Labour Party would cut class sizes down to 20, but they did not.

The comprehensive school is a failed experiment. Personally, I have given up on the idea of having children because I would not want to send any of my children to one.

We have some of the best schools in the world, but they are all private. We have some of the worst schools in the world: the comprehensives."

So all comprehensives are rubbish and all private schools are good? That's just nonsense.....sorry

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The comp I worked at had a very high proportion of students not born in the UK or with parents not born in the UK. Students went on to University to become lawyers and doctors amongst other careers. The education is there if you're willing to learn. My nieces friend left her comprehensive school with 9 A* at GCSE and 3 A levels she went on to Oxford l as have other students from that school. Every student who came into the school I worked at who couldn't speak English had help to learn and left being able to speak and write it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The curriculum is the same wherever you go to school. If your child wants to learn he or she will.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The curriculum is the same wherever you go to school. If your child wants to learn he or she will. "

Absolutely agree!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *avidnsa69Man
over a year ago

Essex

63% of Cambridge students went to state schools OP.....hardly suggests all comprehensives are useless does it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hyblueEyesMan
over a year ago

Daventry

There are also some incredibly good secondary comprehensives/academies; just as there are failing private schools.

It's swings and roundabouts.

The issue is that the government keep poking their noses in and implementing new policies that will never work. Or they enforce new ideas and change then as soon as we have implemented them. Let's looks at who is making the changes and they are certainly not education professionals. Their degrees are in politics!

I mean you wouldn't let an accountant operate on your sick relatives so why let somebody who knows nothing about education dictate how we should work

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

West Midlands

What a load of bullshit

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Nothing to do with school, it's the opportunities open to kids when they leave

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *arry247Couple
over a year ago

Wakefield

The secret of good education is good teachers.

If the teachers do not know how to control a class or how to teach the pupils will not learn.

I went to an excellent private school that had class sizes of over 30 pupils in each class and was more inclusive than most comprehensive schools.

The school catered for pupils from all classes from poor to rich, from labourers children to the children of titled gentry.

It included day pupils from the surrounding area (including those who travelled to it everyday by bus or train and boarders who stayed during the term and went home during the holidays.

The exam results were always consistently high and all the children received a good education which not only taught them facts but more importantly taught them how to acquire knowledge the rest of their lives.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

We have some of the best schools in the world, but they are all private. We have some of the worst schools in the world: the comprehensives."

Completely disagree. There are great comprehensives. Academies and grammar schools. None of which are private. Much depends on the headmaster/mistress, size of the school, pupils willingless to learn and having supportive parents.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby


"63% of Cambridge students went to state schools OP.....hardly suggests all comprehensives are useless does it?"

And 93% of children go to state schools.... Hardly suggests that state education is working either, does it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eKoopleCouple
over a year ago

Germany / Manchester

My parents were W.Indian immigrants during the 60's and frowned upon for being in the country in the first place. They had to fight several Grammar schools so that we could get a place and during that time it was rare to have young black boys attend the white middle class establishments but we were well read and my father believed we deserved to be there.

They didn't blame the system, they fought and today, our children have benefited from those principles I learned from my parents. Privilege has to be earned and for many, like my parents, it means going through sacrifice to secure the future of their children.

Many believe being born in Britain gives them an automatic passport to privilege, unfortunately that belief is what has kept those people in the position their in today. -Mr.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm sorry but the opportunities are there if the child wants it and puts the work in.

My son left School with 13 GCSE. 3 of those were iGCSE's at A*. Another A* for 5 more. 5 at B. And an A* in AS level ICT.

By doing his AS level at secondary meant a head start in college.

Through the school he did his MOS certification. And acheived master. They also offered him an apprenticeship.

He is currently studying in Dundee. At Abertay. Studying the same course taught by the same tutors that taught the founder of Rockstar.

So I do not believe that any school private or not could of done more for him. We are not rich people, but they saw potential and nurtured it.

I suggest you get out there and see for yourself the wonderful opportunities out there for kids instead of listening to dailt fail like garbage

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff


"The Comprehensive schools are directly responsible for stealing the life opportunities of tens of millions of people. The privately educated elite still dominate the upper echelons of power. There is evidence to suggest that social mobility is even falling!

Immigration has exacerbated the situation: many schools have been super-sized to cope with the demand for school places. Also, some schools have kids that can't speak a single word of English. However, none of our politicians send their children to any of these dysfunctional schools. Tony Blair said the Labour Party would cut class sizes down to 20, but they did not.

The comprehensive school is a failed experiment. Personally, I have given up on the idea of having children because I would not want to send any of my children to one.

We have some of the best schools in the world, but they are all private. We have some of the worst schools in the world: the comprehensives."

A lot of the reasons for a failing school are down to the attitude of parents and students alike.if you don't have the right attitude then it doesn't matter how good the teachers,and facilities are.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I thought my school was great . It taught me loads . I now have a job with flexible hours and the ability to start a car or enter a property without the proper keys . Comprehensive Schools have done a lot of good to .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

The education system is undoubtedly a mess. There are many fine schools and many fine teachers in both private and public sectors, and many that aren't.

The one size fits all comprehensive system has been a disaster. Bright and gifted children are held back, those with difficulties often get insufficient help and attention.

Anyone who is involved with recruiting will know that standards have been dumbed down. Basic literacy and numeracy is woeful. Whilst I have no doubt that many students work hard, but their work is coached and re-submitted, everyone gets loads of good grades so there is no way of differentiating the excellent from the average and poor. GCSEs are a bit of a joke in this respect.

Whilst the old two tier system of Grammar schools and High schools, with GCE O Levels and CSEs wasn't perfect, I think we've thrown the baby out with the bath water.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

If you don't have kids, why worry?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire


"

We have some of the best schools in the world, but they are all private. We have some of the worst schools in the world: the comprehensives.

Completely disagree. There are great comprehensives. Academies and grammar schools. None of which are private. Much depends on the headmaster/mistress, size of the school, pupils willingless to learn and having supportive parents. "

This and what LeKoople said.

Many parents try to pass on too many of their responsibilities to teachers, and too many children are starting school without the ability to behave, a willingness to learn or even able to hold a proper conversation. This is why many Asian children do especially well in our system, as do the middle classes - they understand.

So OP, whether or not it's best you don't have children...

Mr ddc

Ps. Gove sends his kids to a state school

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Rubbish.

There are a lot of bad parents who are not teaching their kids respect and the value of education who are then coming to comprehensive school and being a disruptive element for all the others around them.

It's easier to kick these types of kids out of private school.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross


"If you don't have kids, why worry? "

Because he lives in this society ?

Levels of education determine the country's place in world economy.

The government didn't get involved in education for the love of children.

Education used to be child centred. That went out years ago. It is simply to prepare young slaves to be older slaves.

Education is what you get after leaving school.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

There are clearly good state schools, some of them comprehensive schools, and bad private schools. It's far to easy to just say comprehensive education has failed, for some it has been a great success. However there is clearly something wrong with the education system over the last 30 years which has led to a reduction in social mobility. In the late 60's and 70's the main political leaders (Harold Wilson, Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, Denis Healy and others) were all Grammar (state school) educated. Now the main political leaders (David Cameron, George Osborne, Tony Blair, Nick Clegg) were all educated privately. This clearly not a move in the right direction.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby


"

A lot of the reasons for a failing school are down to the attitude of parents and students alike.if you don't have the right attitude then it doesn't matter how good the teachers,and facilities are."

Exactly this... one of our daughters is a teacher, in a comprehensive. Funnily enough, the kids that do well are the ones whose parents show an interest in and care about their offspring's education.

Too many parents now don't care, and think that ALL education is down to the school. Learning starts from as soon as a child is born. Many parents don't even bother to sit with their children to read when they are young, preferring to sit their children in front of the tv.

And probably the key reason why private school educated children are generally better educated than state school is because if someone is paying for education, then they have a greater interest in that education being successful.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

My comment above notwithstanding, yes I agree with the parental involvement posts too. My parents read to us at an early age (we could all read and write before we went to school) and continued to help us with schoolwork, ensured we did our homework etc.

I did the same with my sons. The first hour when I got home from work, was dedicated to them, every day, without fail. We did alphabetic jigsaws, puzzles, games, flashcards etc, all in fun, if they got bored, we did something else. This was the minimum. I read to them every night before they went to sleep. They could both read write and do simple arithmetic before they started school, as well as having impeccable manners and standards of discipline. Needless to say, they both flourished at school. One has a first in music, the other on his way to a first in English lit. I'm a physicist, though I've read extensively, and I'm musician - I never forced any particular academic field on them.

(My name is not Brian Cox .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"The Comprehensive schools are directly responsible for stealing the life opportunities of tens of millions of people. The privately educated elite still dominate the upper echelons of power. There is evidence to suggest that social mobility is even falling!

Immigration has exacerbated the situation: many schools have been super-sized to cope with the demand for school places. Also, some schools have kids that can't speak a single word of English. However, none of our politicians send their children to any of these dysfunctional schools. Tony Blair said the Labour Party would cut class sizes down to 20, but they did not.

The comprehensive school is a failed experiment. Personally, I have given up on the idea of having children because I would not want to send any of my children to one.

We have some of the best schools in the world, but they are all private. We have some of the worst schools in the world: the comprehensives."

Don't give up on the idea of having children for that reason. Education starts outside school and a as a lot to do with parents in the form of encouragement, support, interest and engagement with the school. If you feel that you are unable to support any future children that way yourself there are many agencies who will not least the schools themselves.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff


"

A lot of the reasons for a failing school are down to the attitude of parents and students alike.if you don't have the right attitude then it doesn't matter how good the teachers,and facilities are.

Exactly this... one of our daughters is a teacher, in a comprehensive. Funnily enough, the kids that do well are the ones whose parents show an interest in and care about their offspring's education.

Too many parents now don't care, and think that ALL education is down to the school. Learning starts from as soon as a child is born. Many parents don't even bother to sit with their children to read when they are young, preferring to sit their children in front of the tv.

And probably the key reason why private school educated children are generally better educated than state school is because if someone is paying for education, then they have a greater interest in that education being successful."

I went to a welsh comprehensive in the slut wales valleys four years after the pits had shut down.they came from all over the Cynon and Rhondda valleys,from some of the poorest and shitest regions in western europe.a lot of the students couldn't give a flying fuck about school,and learning.more interested in disruptive behavior,goading teachers,and being all round cunts.at the age of eleven you already knew who the scumbags were going to be.this is down to their parents.if their parent cant control them what hope has a teacher got.the kids that did well usually had two parents where work,and education was valued,and came from tidy areas.not shitholes like rhydfelen,glyncoch and the gurnos

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff

South not slut

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

You do post some deep heavy stuff, OP.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I did really well at comprehensive school as did most of my friends and family and the people I work with. If I had kids I'd be happy to send them to most of the state schools in Newcastle. There's also a few I wouldn't touch with a barge pole of course, but then there are also some private schools I'd never send my children to because I don't like their atmosphere or ethos.

Of course everything is not a bed of roses, but that's so much more about the quality of parenting than the quality of teaching in most cases. The difference has always been, and still is, parental ambition for their children. If the parent thinks education is a waste of time then of course the kids aren't going to make any effort at school.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So move, do research and put a child into a school setting that satisfys your needs.

Teach a child yourself.. its not all down to teachers. If as a parent you can not stimulate a childs mind then you've failed surely?

I hate parents who rely on schools for everything! If my child were to leave school with nothing id not blame them, its up to me to prepare my child and encourage more than any teacher

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think it's more to do with work ethic hand how seriously children/teens take their education. You can take as much or as little from the education system as you want really.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think it's more to do with work ethic hand how seriously children/teens take their education. You can take as much or as little from the education system as you want really."

we have the internet so there is a vast of knowledge to be obtained out there if people really want it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Both myself and my oldest daughter - now an adult - are products of a comprehensive education!

I had her early in adult life - so have never really had a career - but am happy, confident and articulate - fully able to converse on every level with anyone - so don't feel 'failed' in any way!

My oldest daughter went to a primary school in the middle of a council estate- was top of the class in everything - and ended up with a first class maths degree in a top 10 university! She already earns far more than I do and I'm thrilled for her! I hope my two youngest children will follow her example!

Yes children need to go to a school with an environment conducive to learning - but they also need a willingness to learn and encouraging - but not overbearing - parents! The school is only a part of it!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well our 2 hate me at times for making them do there homework. I also make them do more than is asked.

I think most of it is down to parents not doing there bit. I also see some of the OPs points. The primary school our 2 go to don't seem to be pushing them very hard.

Him

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The Comprehensive schools are directly responsible for stealing the life opportunities of tens of millions of people. The privately educated elite still dominate the upper echelons of power. There is evidence to suggest that social mobility is even falling!

Immigration has exacerbated the situation: many schools have been super-sized to cope with the demand for school places. Also, some schools have kids that can't speak a single word of English. However, none of our politicians send their children to any of these dysfunctional schools. Tony Blair said the Labour Party would cut class sizes down to 20, but they did not.

The comprehensive school is a failed experiment. Personally, I have given up on the idea of having children because I would not want to send any of my children to one.

We have some of the best schools in the world, but they are all private. We have some of the worst schools in the world: the comprehensives.

So all comprehensives are rubbish and all private schools are good? That's just nonsense.....sorry"

The privately educated dominate British society.

80% of the key positions in British society are held by the privately educated.

44% of leaders, businessmen and politicians were privately educated.

68% of leading figures in public service were privately educated

60% of the senior members in the armed forces were privately educated.

63% of lawyers are privately educated.

The Eton College Boarding school educated 4% of the elite - including David Cameron.

Private schools also dominate the British Olympic team and the media.

10 private schools have produced 1 in 8 of the professional elite: Eton; Winchester; Charterhouse; Rugby; Westminster; Marlborough; Dulwich; Harrow; St Pauls; Wellington.

Only 10% of the the UK's influential people went to a comprehensive school.

Also, social mobility is believed to be falling.

By any reasonable standard, the comprehensive school system has failed.

I don't want to send my children to a comprehensive school for the same reasons why the politicians don't send their children to them. Unlike them, I cannot afford a private educated. Therefore, I won't have children.

I got the statistics from the daily mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235719/Britain-run-private-school-elite-study-shows.html

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

look up the swedish education system. then home school.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire

You never struck me as a Daily Mail reader OP

You know that evil, elitist Westminster crowd, didn't we just chose to send them there?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

A lot of that is about those jobs being heavily to do with who you know and social connections, not what you know. The comprehensive school system in itself is not responsible for that.

I went to a high ranking university to study an academic subject. There were quite a few people on the course who were from private schools who really struggled because they couldn't cope with the self-study involved, as they were being used to being spoon fed and tutored to within an inch of their lives and once that was taken away they weren't up to scratch.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The comp I worked at had a very high proportion of students not born in the UK or with parents not born in the UK. Students went on to University to become lawyers and doctors amongst other careers. The education is there if you're willing to learn. My nieces friend left her comprehensive school with 9 A* at GCSE and 3 A levels she went on to Oxford l as have other students from that school. Every student who came into the school I worked at who couldn't speak English had help to learn and left being able to speak and write it. "

If someone cannot speak English, they should not be allowed in the school. All what they are doing is taking resources and slowing the other kids down.

GCSEs are now ridiculous. It is not much of an achievement to get a grade A at GCSE level. The old O level is far more academically demanding than the silly GCSEs. The teachers will fight to stop the O level from returning because they know the pass rates will go down if it returned.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I totally disagree with the OP... I came out of school with a very good education and I actually got a scholarship to a very good private school and choose not to stay there as I wanted to be with my friends.

My children are aware that I value education above all else and I have moved my children to the best schools for them. Education isn't one size fits all... And as a parent you have to do what's best for them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eMontresMan
over a year ago

Halesowen

Some kids are academically inclined and motivated, some aren't. A lot of that comes from the parents.

But it's not an either or. There are degrees of academic pre-disposition, and some kids develop later than.

This is why a one size fits all approach fails everyone.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The comp I worked at had a very high proportion of students not born in the UK or with parents not born in the UK. Students went on to University to become lawyers and doctors amongst other careers. The education is there if you're willing to learn. My nieces friend left her comprehensive school with 9 A* at GCSE and 3 A levels she went on to Oxford l as have other students from that school. Every student who came into the school I worked at who couldn't speak English had help to learn and left being able to speak and write it.

If someone cannot speak English, they should not be allowed in the school. All what they are doing is taking resources and slowing the other kids down.

GCSEs are now ridiculous. It is not much of an achievement to get a grade A at GCSE level. The old O level is far more academically demanding than the silly GCSEs. The teachers will fight to stop the O level from returning because they know the pass rates will go down if it returned."

What about preschoolers? I've heard some better English out of 3-5years old polish children than most british/english/Scottish born adults! If the children want the knowledge the material is there.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The curriculum is the same wherever you go to school. If your child wants to learn he or she will. "

Many private schools have a different curriculum to the bog standard comprehensives.

The Charterhouse school does not do either the GCSE or the A level. It does the international GCSE (GCSEI) and the Cambridge Pre U diploma.

Other schools offer the International Baccalaureate instead of the A level.

Other schools like the Royal Ballet school have educated people like Darcey Bussell (Judge on Strictly come dancing).

The private schools do offer a different curriculum to the state schools and that is why the parents pay the fees.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"The Comprehensive schools are directly responsible for stealing the life opportunities of tens of millions of people. The privately educated elite still dominate the upper echelons of power. There is evidence to suggest that social mobility is even falling!

Immigration has exacerbated the situation: many schools have been super-sized to cope with the demand for school places. Also, some schools have kids that can't speak a single word of English. However, none of our politicians send their children to any of these dysfunctional schools. Tony Blair said the Labour Party would cut class sizes down to 20, but they did not.

The comprehensive school is a failed experiment. Personally, I have given up on the idea of having children because I would not want to send any of my children to one.

We have some of the best schools in the world, but they are all private. We have some of the worst schools in the world: the comprehensives.

So all comprehensives are rubbish and all private schools are good? That's just nonsense.....sorry

The privately educated dominate British society.

80% of the key positions in British society are held by the privately educated.

44% of leaders, businessmen and politicians were privately educated.

68% of leading figures in public service were privately educated

60% of the senior members in the armed forces were privately educated.

63% of lawyers are privately educated.

The Eton College Boarding school educated 4% of the elite - including David Cameron.

Private schools also dominate the British Olympic team and the media.

10 private schools have produced 1 in 8 of the professional elite: Eton; Winchester; Charterhouse; Rugby; Westminster; Marlborough; Dulwich; Harrow; St Pauls; Wellington.

Only 10% of the the UK's influential people went to a comprehensive school.

Also, social mobility is believed to be falling.

By any reasonable standard, the comprehensive school system has failed.

I don't want to send my children to a comprehensive school for the same reasons why the politicians don't send their children to them. Unlike them, I cannot afford a private educated. Therefore, I won't have children.

I got the statistics from the daily mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235719/Britain-run-private-school-elite-study-shows.html"

The previous state system, still in existence in some areas, of Grammar, Technical & Secondary Modern, did improve social mobility but only between the middle and upper classes. Mostly the poorer lower classes didn't get much of a lookin. The Comprehensive system was meant to solve this. Unfortunately it mostly has not and, if anything, has simply reduced the social mobility between the middle and upper classes. We really have to address this social mobility problem.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"There are also some incredibly good secondary comprehensives/academies; just as there are failing private schools.

It's swings and roundabouts.

The issue is that the government keep poking their noses in and implementing new policies that will never work. Or they enforce new ideas and change then as soon as we have implemented them. Let's looks at who is making the changes and they are certainly not education professionals. Their degrees are in politics!

I mean you wouldn't let an accountant operate on your sick relatives so why let somebody who knows nothing about education dictate how we should work"

I have never heard of a falling private school. Why would a parent pay £13,000+ to send them to a failing school when they can save money and send them to a failing comprehensive school?

If a private school fails, it goes out of business.

If a comprehensive school fails, it is allowed to continue teaching.

Teachers in the private schools usually have been to a really good University (Russell group). Unfortunately, not all the teachers that teach at a comprehensive school have been to a good University. Why would an ex-polytechnic educated teacher know anything about education? I would not want my children taught by someone who attended a bad University.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The secret of good education is good teachers.

If the teachers do not know how to control a class or how to teach the pupils will not learn.

I went to an excellent private school that had class sizes of over 30 pupils in each class and was more inclusive than most comprehensive schools.

The school catered for pupils from all classes from poor to rich, from labourers children to the children of titled gentry.

It included day pupils from the surrounding area (including those who travelled to it everyday by bus or train and boarders who stayed during the term and went home during the holidays.

The exam results were always consistently high and all the children received a good education which not only taught them facts but more importantly taught them how to acquire knowledge the rest of their lives.

"

Not all the teachers working in the state schools are good teachers.

Some teachers have good qualifications and some have bad qualifications.

I don't have any problem paying teachers more provided they have good academic qualifications.

Also, the schools should make their teachers qualifications public knowledge. Parents have the right to know the quality of the teacher that is teaching their kids.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby


"

80% of the key positions in British society are held by the privately educated.

44% of leaders, businessmen and politicians were privately educated.

68% of leading figures in public service were privately educated

60% of the senior members in the armed forces were privately educated.

63% of lawyers are privately educated.

Private schools also dominate the British Olympic team and the media.

"

You know what that means, don't you OP? State education is responsible for;

1 in 5 of key positions in British society.

Over half of leaders, businessmen and politicians.

A third of leading figures in public service.

4 out of every ten senior members in the armed forces.

4 out of every ten lawyers.

Domination of footballers - the highest paid sport.

It depends which way you look at it, and your children's education also very much depends upon how you value it and nurture them as a parent.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The Comprehensive schools are directly responsible for stealing the life opportunities of tens of millions of people. The privately educated elite still dominate the upper echelons of power. There is evidence to suggest that social mobility is even falling!

Immigration has exacerbated the situation: many schools have been super-sized to cope with the demand for school places. Also, some schools have kids that can't speak a single word of English. However, none of our politicians send their children to any of these dysfunctional schools. Tony Blair said the Labour Party would cut class sizes down to 20, but they did not.

The comprehensive school is a failed experiment. Personally, I have given up on the idea of having children because I would not want to send any of my children to one.

We have some of the best schools in the world, but they are all private. We have some of the worst schools in the world: the comprehensives.

A lot of the reasons for a failing school are down to the attitude of parents and students alike.if you don't have the right attitude then it doesn't matter how good the teachers,and facilities are."

Some comprehensive schools have terrible facilities. Some state schools do not even have their own field to play sports on. Of those that do, many have had their fields made smaller because the local council sold some off for housing development.

Eton has many plain fields for their pupils to play sport. They even have their own man made lake for rowing.

Perhaps this explains why in the 2012 Olympics that 4 in 10 of British medallists came from the private schools. Also, the majority of the England cricket team that played in the 2013 Ashes attended private schools.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Domination of footballers - the highest paid sport.

"

Ever seen the handwriting and spelling/grammar of some footballers? ..

When I say "some"...I mean a LOT.

Might aswell use crayons.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"The secret of good education is good teachers.

If the teachers do not know how to control a class or how to teach the pupils will not learn.

I went to an excellent private school that had class sizes of over 30 pupils in each class and was more inclusive than most comprehensive schools.

The school catered for pupils from all classes from poor to rich, from labourers children to the children of titled gentry.

It included day pupils from the surrounding area (including those who travelled to it everyday by bus or train and boarders who stayed during the term and went home during the holidays.

The exam results were always consistently high and all the children received a good education which not only taught them facts but more importantly taught them how to acquire knowledge the rest of their lives.

Not all the teachers working in the state schools are good teachers.

Some teachers have good qualifications and some have bad qualifications.

I don't have any problem paying teachers more provided they have good academic qualifications.

Also, the schools should make their teachers qualifications public knowledge. Parents have the right to know the quality of the teacher that is teaching their kids."

Whereas I'm happy to see the qualifications of all teachers teaching in a school being published I think you're deluding yourself if you believe this will improve the teaching ability of the teachers. In my limited experience the quality of the teacher has little to do with the quality of their qualifications and more to do with the quality of their personality and mind.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

80% of the key positions in British society are held by the privately educated.

44% of leaders, businessmen and politicians were privately educated.

68% of leading figures in public service were privately educated

60% of the senior members in the armed forces were privately educated.

63% of lawyers are privately educated.

Private schools also dominate the British Olympic team and the media.

You know what that means, don't you OP? State education is responsible for;

1 in 5 of key positions in British society.

Over half of leaders, businessmen and politicians.

A third of leading figures in public service.

4 out of every ten senior members in the armed forces.

4 out of every ten lawyers.

Domination of footballers - the highest paid sport.

It depends which way you look at it, and your children's education also very much depends upon how you value it and nurture them as a parent.

"

The way I see it is that 7% of those at school are privately educated and that tiny percentage remarkably dominates Britain. The remaining 93% have to fight over the crumbs that the privately educated don't want.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"

80% of the key positions in British society are held by the privately educated.

44% of leaders, businessmen and politicians were privately educated.

68% of leading figures in public service were privately educated

60% of the senior members in the armed forces were privately educated.

63% of lawyers are privately educated.

Private schools also dominate the British Olympic team and the media.

You know what that means, don't you OP? State education is responsible for;

1 in 5 of key positions in British society.

Over half of leaders, businessmen and politicians.

A third of leading figures in public service.

4 out of every ten senior members in the armed forces.

4 out of every ten lawyers.

Domination of footballers - the highest paid sport.

It depends which way you look at it, and your children's education also very much depends upon how you value it and nurture them as a parent.

The way I see it is that 7% of those at school are privately educated and that tiny percentage remarkably dominates Britain. The remaining 93% have to fight over the crumbs that the privately educated don't want."

So how do we improve the state system to compete?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The secret of good education is good teachers.

If the teachers do not know how to control a class or how to teach the pupils will not learn.

I went to an excellent private school that had class sizes of over 30 pupils in each class and was more inclusive than most comprehensive schools.

The school catered for pupils from all classes from poor to rich, from labourers children to the children of titled gentry.

It included day pupils from the surrounding area (including those who travelled to it everyday by bus or train and boarders who stayed during the term and went home during the holidays.

The exam results were always consistently high and all the children received a good education which not only taught them facts but more importantly taught them how to acquire knowledge the rest of their lives.

Not all the teachers working in the state schools are good teachers.

Some teachers have good qualifications and some have bad qualifications.

I don't have any problem paying teachers more provided they have good academic qualifications.

Also, the schools should make their teachers qualifications public knowledge. Parents have the right to know the quality of the teacher that is teaching their kids.

Whereas I'm happy to see the qualifications of all teachers teaching in a school being published I think you're deluding yourself if you believe this will improve the teaching ability of the teachers. In my limited experience the quality of the teacher has little to do with the quality of their qualifications and more to do with the quality of their personality and mind."

To teach at the £35,000 a year Eton College, the teachers have to have a phd. The pupils at Eton get to be educated by the best academic minds. I am confident that this contributes towards their academic success.

I would not feel comfortable with an ex-polytechnic educated teacher teaching my kids.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"The secret of good education is good teachers.

If the teachers do not know how to control a class or how to teach the pupils will not learn.

I went to an excellent private school that had class sizes of over 30 pupils in each class and was more inclusive than most comprehensive schools.

The school catered for pupils from all classes from poor to rich, from labourers children to the children of titled gentry.

It included day pupils from the surrounding area (including those who travelled to it everyday by bus or train and boarders who stayed during the term and went home during the holidays.

The exam results were always consistently high and all the children received a good education which not only taught them facts but more importantly taught them how to acquire knowledge the rest of their lives.

Not all the teachers working in the state schools are good teachers.

Some teachers have good qualifications and some have bad qualifications.

I don't have any problem paying teachers more provided they have good academic qualifications.

Also, the schools should make their teachers qualifications public knowledge. Parents have the right to know the quality of the teacher that is teaching their kids.

Whereas I'm happy to see the qualifications of all teachers teaching in a school being published I think you're deluding yourself if you believe this will improve the teaching ability of the teachers. In my limited experience the quality of the teacher has little to do with the quality of their qualifications and more to do with the quality of their personality and mind.

To teach at the £35,000 a year Eton College, the teachers have to have a phd. The pupils at Eton get to be educated by the best academic minds. I am confident that this contributes towards their academic success.

I would not feel comfortable with an ex-polytechnic educated teacher teaching my kids."

The biggest difference in the qualifications of most private schools and states schools is that stat schools tend to put a higher regard on formal teaching qualifications whereas private schools tend to employ people who are qualified and have practiced in the field they teach.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

80% of the key positions in British society are held by the privately educated.

44% of leaders, businessmen and politicians were privately educated.

68% of leading figures in public service were privately educated

60% of the senior members in the armed forces were privately educated.

63% of lawyers are privately educated.

Private schools also dominate the British Olympic team and the media.

You know what that means, don't you OP? State education is responsible for;

1 in 5 of key positions in British society.

Over half of leaders, businessmen and politicians.

A third of leading figures in public service.

4 out of every ten senior members in the armed forces.

4 out of every ten lawyers.

Domination of footballers - the highest paid sport.

It depends which way you look at it, and your children's education also very much depends upon how you value it and nurture them as a parent.

The way I see it is that 7% of those at school are privately educated and that tiny percentage remarkably dominates Britain. The remaining 93% have to fight over the crumbs that the privately educated don't want.

So how do we improve the state system to compete?"

We have had both the conservatives and labour governments. If the state schools are not competitive now, the reality is that they will not be competitive in the future.

I think parental choice is important. The private schools offer a wide range of schools that specialise in many fields: academics; music; sport; theatre. The people who can afford a private education for their children have the luxury of providing their children with the education that they want rather than what the politicians and the teachers want.

It costs an average of £5,000 a year to educate a pupil at a state school. Give the money to the parents and not the schools. The parents get a £5,000 school voucher that can be used at any school of their choice including private schools. I think this will get new private school providers coming into the market to give the parents what they want.

The key is what PARENTS want!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The secret of good education is good teachers.

If the teachers do not know how to control a class or how to teach the pupils will not learn.

I went to an excellent private school that had class sizes of over 30 pupils in each class and was more inclusive than most comprehensive schools.

The school catered for pupils from all classes from poor to rich, from labourers children to the children of titled gentry.

It included day pupils from the surrounding area (including those who travelled to it everyday by bus or train and boarders who stayed during the term and went home during the holidays.

The exam results were always consistently high and all the children received a good education which not only taught them facts but more importantly taught them how to acquire knowledge the rest of their lives.

Not all the teachers working in the state schools are good teachers.

Some teachers have good qualifications and some have bad qualifications.

I don't have any problem paying teachers more provided they have good academic qualifications.

Also, the schools should make their teachers qualifications public knowledge. Parents have the right to know the quality of the teacher that is teaching their kids.

Whereas I'm happy to see the qualifications of all teachers teaching in a school being published I think you're deluding yourself if you believe this will improve the teaching ability of the teachers. In my limited experience the quality of the teacher has little to do with the quality of their qualifications and more to do with the quality of their personality and mind."
.

Absolutely correct.

Most people regardless of what they do, work better in better conditions.

That's why with anything the sum of the whole always out weighs the single biggest factor

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

The biggest difference in the qualifications of most private schools and states schools is that stat schools tend to put a higher regard on formal teaching qualifications whereas private schools tend to employ people who are qualified and have practiced in the field they teach."

The pupil still has to have the brain capacity to learn in the first place.

Regardless of who teaches them/what school they went to.

Some just don't have it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"

80% of the key positions in British society are held by the privately educated.

44% of leaders, businessmen and politicians were privately educated.

68% of leading figures in public service were privately educated

60% of the senior members in the armed forces were privately educated.

63% of lawyers are privately educated.

Private schools also dominate the British Olympic team and the media.

You know what that means, don't you OP? State education is responsible for;

1 in 5 of key positions in British society.

Over half of leaders, businessmen and politicians.

A third of leading figures in public service.

4 out of every ten senior members in the armed forces.

4 out of every ten lawyers.

Domination of footballers - the highest paid sport.

It depends which way you look at it, and your children's education also very much depends upon how you value it and nurture them as a parent.

The way I see it is that 7% of those at school are privately educated and that tiny percentage remarkably dominates Britain. The remaining 93% have to fight over the crumbs that the privately educated don't want.

So how do we improve the state system to compete?

We have had both the conservatives and labour governments. If the state schools are not competitive now, the reality is that they will not be competitive in the future.

I think parental choice is important. The private schools offer a wide range of schools that specialise in many fields: academics; music; sport; theatre. The people who can afford a private education for their children have the luxury of providing their children with the education that they want rather than what the politicians and the teachers want.

It costs an average of £5,000 a year to educate a pupil at a state school. Give the money to the parents and not the schools. The parents get a £5,000 school voucher that can be used at any school of their choice including private schools. I think this will get new private school providers coming into the market to give the parents what they want.

The key is what PARENTS want!!!"

The actual average cost per pupil per year is £9000 for both state and private schools.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

80% of the key positions in British society are held by the privately educated.

44% of leaders, businessmen and politicians were privately educated.

68% of leading figures in public service were privately educated

60% of the senior members in the armed forces were privately educated.

63% of lawyers are privately educated.

Private schools also dominate the British Olympic team and the media.

You know what that means, don't you OP? State education is responsible for;

1 in 5 of key positions in British society.

Over half of leaders, businessmen and politicians.

A third of leading figures in public service.

4 out of every ten senior members in the armed forces.

4 out of every ten lawyers.

Domination of footballers - the highest paid sport.

It depends which way you look at it, and your children's education also very much depends upon how you value it and nurture them as a parent.

The way I see it is that 7% of those at school are privately educated and that tiny percentage remarkably dominates Britain. The remaining 93% have to fight over the crumbs that the privately educated don't want.

So how do we improve the state system to compete?

We have had both the conservatives and labour governments. If the state schools are not competitive now, the reality is that they will not be competitive in the future.

I think parental choice is important. The private schools offer a wide range of schools that specialise in many fields: academics; music; sport; theatre. The people who can afford a private education for their children have the luxury of providing their children with the education that they want rather than what the politicians and the teachers want.

It costs an average of £5,000 a year to educate a pupil at a state school. Give the money to the parents and not the schools. The parents get a £5,000 school voucher that can be used at any school of their choice including private schools. I think this will get new private school providers coming into the market to give the parents what they want.

The key is what PARENTS want!!!

The actual average cost per pupil per year is £9000 for both state and private schools."

Then the voucher would be £9,000.

I did not realise it was that high. If it is true, the people who run the comprehensive schools should be ashamed. It is appalling that the schools get so much and deliver so little.

It is well documented that the average price for a private education is £13,000 a year. However, the BBC says that it is £14,000.

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-24334356

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"

80% of the key positions in British society are held by the privately educated.

44% of leaders, businessmen and politicians were privately educated.

68% of leading figures in public service were privately educated

60% of the senior members in the armed forces were privately educated.

63% of lawyers are privately educated.

Private schools also dominate the British Olympic team and the media.

You know what that means, don't you OP? State education is responsible for;

1 in 5 of key positions in British society.

Over half of leaders, businessmen and politicians.

A third of leading figures in public service.

4 out of every ten senior members in the armed forces.

4 out of every ten lawyers.

Domination of footballers - the highest paid sport.

It depends which way you look at it, and your children's education also very much depends upon how you value it and nurture them as a parent.

The way I see it is that 7% of those at school are privately educated and that tiny percentage remarkably dominates Britain. The remaining 93% have to fight over the crumbs that the privately educated don't want.

So how do we improve the state system to compete?

We have had both the conservatives and labour governments. If the state schools are not competitive now, the reality is that they will not be competitive in the future.

I think parental choice is important. The private schools offer a wide range of schools that specialise in many fields: academics; music; sport; theatre. The people who can afford a private education for their children have the luxury of providing their children with the education that they want rather than what the politicians and the teachers want.

It costs an average of £5,000 a year to educate a pupil at a state school. Give the money to the parents and not the schools. The parents get a £5,000 school voucher that can be used at any school of their choice including private schools. I think this will get new private school providers coming into the market to give the parents what they want.

The key is what PARENTS want!!!

The actual average cost per pupil per year is £9000 for both state and private schools.

Then the voucher would be £9,000.

I did not realise it was that high. If it is true, the people who run the comprehensive schools should be ashamed. It is appalling that the schools get so much and deliver so little.

It is well documented that the average price for a private education is £13,000 a year. However, the BBC says that it is £14,000.

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-24334356"

You're correct, on closer examination my figure are from 2008. I would guess the figure for state education is probably now closer to £13,000 to £14,000. I'll try to find actual up to date figures.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"

80% of the key positions in British society are held by the privately educated.

44% of leaders, businessmen and politicians were privately educated.

68% of leading figures in public service were privately educated

60% of the senior members in the armed forces were privately educated.

63% of lawyers are privately educated.

Private schools also dominate the British Olympic team and the media.

You know what that means, don't you OP? State education is responsible for;

1 in 5 of key positions in British society.

Over half of leaders, businessmen and politicians.

A third of leading figures in public service.

4 out of every ten senior members in the armed forces.

4 out of every ten lawyers.

Domination of footballers - the highest paid sport.

It depends which way you look at it, and your children's education also very much depends upon how you value it and nurture them as a parent.

The way I see it is that 7% of those at school are privately educated and that tiny percentage remarkably dominates Britain. The remaining 93% have to fight over the crumbs that the privately educated don't want.

So how do we improve the state system to compete?

We have had both the conservatives and labour governments. If the state schools are not competitive now, the reality is that they will not be competitive in the future.

I think parental choice is important. The private schools offer a wide range of schools that specialise in many fields: academics; music; sport; theatre. The people who can afford a private education for their children have the luxury of providing their children with the education that they want rather than what the politicians and the teachers want.

It costs an average of £5,000 a year to educate a pupil at a state school. Give the money to the parents and not the schools. The parents get a £5,000 school voucher that can be used at any school of their choice including private schools. I think this will get new private school providers coming into the market to give the parents what they want.

The key is what PARENTS want!!!

The actual average cost per pupil per year is £9000 for both state and private schools.

Then the voucher would be £9,000.

I did not realise it was that high. If it is true, the people who run the comprehensive schools should be ashamed. It is appalling that the schools get so much and deliver so little.

It is well documented that the average price for a private education is £13,000 a year. However, the BBC says that it is £14,000.

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-24334356

You're correct, on closer examination my figure are from 2008. I would guess the figure for state education is probably now closer to £13,000 to £14,000. I'll try to find actual up to date figures."

Strangely enough the only stats I can find for 2013-14 suggest a figure of £4,800 per pupil. Seems odd that to me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

80% of the key positions in British society are held by the privately educated.

44% of leaders, businessmen and politicians were privately educated.

68% of leading figures in public service were privately educated

60% of the senior members in the armed forces were privately educated.

63% of lawyers are privately educated.

Private schools also dominate the British Olympic team and the media.

You know what that means, don't you OP? State education is responsible for;

1 in 5 of key positions in British society.

Over half of leaders, businessmen and politicians.

A third of leading figures in public service.

4 out of every ten senior members in the armed forces.

4 out of every ten lawyers.

Domination of footballers - the highest paid sport.

It depends which way you look at it, and your children's education also very much depends upon how you value it and nurture them as a parent.

The way I see it is that 7% of those at school are privately educated and that tiny percentage remarkably dominates Britain. The remaining 93% have to fight over the crumbs that the privately educated don't want.

So how do we improve the state system to compete?

We have had both the conservatives and labour governments. If the state schools are not competitive now, the reality is that they will not be competitive in the future.

I think parental choice is important. The private schools offer a wide range of schools that specialise in many fields: academics; music; sport; theatre. The people who can afford a private education for their children have the luxury of providing their children with the education that they want rather than what the politicians and the teachers want.

It costs an average of £5,000 a year to educate a pupil at a state school. Give the money to the parents and not the schools. The parents get a £5,000 school voucher that can be used at any school of their choice including private schools. I think this will get new private school providers coming into the market to give the parents what they want.

The key is what PARENTS want!!!

The actual average cost per pupil per year is £9000 for both state and private schools.

Then the voucher would be £9,000.

I did not realise it was that high. If it is true, the people who run the comprehensive schools should be ashamed. It is appalling that the schools get so much and deliver so little.

It is well documented that the average price for a private education is £13,000 a year. However, the BBC says that it is £14,000.

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-24334356

You're correct, on closer examination my figure are from 2008. I would guess the figure for state education is probably now closer to £13,000 to £14,000. I'll try to find actual up to date figures.

Strangely enough the only stats I can find for 2013-14 suggest a figure of £4,800 per pupil. Seems odd that to me."

This figure is consistent with what I wrote earlier.

To the best of my knowledge, the average annual spend per pupil in England is about £5,000. The average annual non boarding school fee for a private school is £13,000.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ogistical NightmaresCouple
over a year ago

Manchester Area


"The Comprehensive schools are directly responsible for stealing the life opportunities of tens of millions of people. The privately educated elite still dominate the upper echelons of power. There is evidence to suggest that social mobility is even falling!

Immigration has exacerbated the situation: many schools have been super-sized to cope with the demand for school places. Also, some schools have kids that can't speak a single word of English. However, none of our politicians send their children to any of these dysfunctional schools. Tony Blair said the Labour Party would cut class sizes down to 20, but they did not.

The comprehensive school is a failed experiment. Personally, I have given up on the idea of having children because I would not want to send any of my children to one.

We have some of the best schools in the world, but they are all private. We have some of the worst schools in the world: the comprehensives."

(M) when I first saw this I thought it was a Thursday rant till I saw when it was posted... a d*unken Friday night wind up post perchance

Speaking as someone who went through school in the first year of local comprehensive education and more than a few years later has a degree level qualification, runs a successful international consultancy business and in another sphere regularly mixes with Hollywood "A" listers and international sports stars and musicians, having a son who has graduated and a daughter who is just about to (both the products of a comprehensive school)... I personally don't think the comprehensive education system is too shabby..... and breathe

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"My parents were W.Indian immigrants during the 60's and frowned upon for being in the country in the first place. They had to fight several Grammar schools so that we could get a place and during that time it was rare to have young black boys attend the white middle class establishments but we were well read and my father believed we deserved to be there.

They didn't blame the system, they fought and today, our children have benefited from those principles I learned from my parents. Privilege has to be earned and for many, like my parents, it means going through sacrifice to secure the future of their children.

Many believe being born in Britain gives them an automatic passport to privilege, unfortunately that belief is what has kept those people in the position their in today. -Mr."

This

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Even with vouchers you wouldn't be guaranteed the school you want,they will be able to pick and choose just like the grammar schools could. You would still have the elite schools where politicians,lawyers and the parents in the higher classes send their children. They have the connections to get their children into the jobs you mentioned. They will want their exam passes to be 100% and lots of them. Not everyone is capable of achieving that. Until you have children you won't know what they are capable of.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

25 years ago I left a shit comp. Although it was shit it was the best available to me.

I still managed to get to one of the top universities and am doing fine.

Don't just blame the school.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"

80% of the key positions in British society are held by the privately educated.

44% of leaders, businessmen and politicians were privately educated.

68% of leading figures in public service were privately educated

60% of the senior members in the armed forces were privately educated.

63% of lawyers are privately educated.

Private schools also dominate the British Olympic team and the media.

You know what that means, don't you OP? State education is responsible for;

1 in 5 of key positions in British society.

Over half of leaders, businessmen and politicians.

A third of leading figures in public service.

4 out of every ten senior members in the armed forces.

4 out of every ten lawyers.

Domination of footballers - the highest paid sport.

It depends which way you look at it, and your children's education also very much depends upon how you value it and nurture them as a parent.

The way I see it is that 7% of those at school are privately educated and that tiny percentage remarkably dominates Britain. The remaining 93% have to fight over the crumbs that the privately educated don't want.

So how do we improve the state system to compete?

We have had both the conservatives and labour governments. If the state schools are not competitive now, the reality is that they will not be competitive in the future.

I think parental choice is important. The private schools offer a wide range of schools that specialise in many fields: academics; music; sport; theatre. The people who can afford a private education for their children have the luxury of providing their children with the education that they want rather than what the politicians and the teachers want.

It costs an average of £5,000 a year to educate a pupil at a state school. Give the money to the parents and not the schools. The parents get a £5,000 school voucher that can be used at any school of their choice including private schools. I think this will get new private school providers coming into the market to give the parents what they want.

The key is what PARENTS want!!!

The actual average cost per pupil per year is £9000 for both state and private schools.

Then the voucher would be £9,000.

I did not realise it was that high. If it is true, the people who run the comprehensive schools should be ashamed. It is appalling that the schools get so much and deliver so little.

It is well documented that the average price for a private education is £13,000 a year. However, the BBC says that it is £14,000.

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-24334356

You're correct, on closer examination my figure are from 2008. I would guess the figure for state education is probably now closer to £13,000 to £14,000. I'll try to find actual up to date figures.

Strangely enough the only stats I can find for 2013-14 suggest a figure of £4,800 per pupil. Seems odd that to me.

This figure is consistent with what I wrote earlier.

To the best of my knowledge, the average annual spend per pupil in England is about £5,000. The average annual non boarding school fee for a private school is £13,000."

Further clarification:-

The £13,000 average for private schools is the total average spent per pupil per year, as was the £9,000 figure for both state and private in 2008. The £4,800 figure for state schools in 2013-14 is the average Direct School Grant (that is the amount of money a school gets paid per pupil before any other money such as special needs or other pupil premiums), it does not include capital expenditure or maintenance and some other running costs.

As the actual schools budget per pupil was guaranteed by the coalition up to 2014-15 although not guaranteed to have fallen in real terms, the only thing we can day for sure is that the current average expenditure per pupil per year for state schools is at or above the 2008 figure of £9000.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Went to a comprehensive and turned out fine thanks.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

See I'm lucky enough to have gone to a private school.... not Eton or anything half as fancy. We were all from London and classed as having emotional problems. If I hadn't I'd probably been shat on by comprehensive schooling in much the same way as I had by primary school. A report said I wouldn't pass any qualifications when I left primary. This was because they had failed to listen to my mum who told them I had hearing problems. Also I was blamed as being disruptive for being bullied. Things have changed and improved but still some kids fall through the gaps especially with autism.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Pay your money, take your choice. If a kid is bright they will succeed wherever they go if they are given sufficient support at home and there is a good working relationship between school and family.

Private schools seem to embrace a more holistic approach to education with a larger focus on things like sport, music and drama, but maybe because they pay teachers much higher salaries they have the time outside of academic lessons. There is also a culture at these schools of competition and streaming, which creates an environment where the kids want to succeed and are pushed to achieve their potential.

There are plenty of things in terms of best practice that comprehensives could learn from the private sector that would help all of our children.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Comprehensive schools are directly responsible for stealing the life opportunities of tens of millions of people. The privately educated elite still dominate the upper echelons of power. There is evidence to suggest that social mobility is even falling!

Immigration has exacerbated the situation: many schools have been super-sized to cope with the demand for school places. Also, some schools have kids that can't speak a single word of English. However, none of our politicians send their children to any of these dysfunctional schools. Tony Blair said the Labour Party would cut class sizes down to 20, but they did not.

The comprehensive school is a failed experiment. Personally, I have given up on the idea of having children because I would not want to send any of my children to one.

We have some of the best schools in the world, but they are all private. We have some of the worst schools in the world: the comprehensives."

My sister's daughter attends Nottingham High School - one of the top 5 public schools in England...

This school uses the same curriculum as the city/comprehensive schools.

I went to a comprehensive, as did my siblings - 3 of us (myself included) went on to uni.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I will admit to not having read all of this thread. I don't think I could without going ballistic.

I passed the 11+ with ease and the grammar school was nearby so no problem. I was the second, if not third cleverest person in that year. I then left at 15, took my first "O" levels at evening classes when I was 26, started my degree by remote learning when I was mid 30's.

Became self employed when I was in my early 20s and have never been employed by anyone else since then.

My work brought me in contact with the upper echelons of Government and the Civil Service - mostly grammar school and public school educated - all with the benefit of university degrees.

The number of decent and intelligent people I met during the time was one. Just one. I don't know what changed them, they weren't born that way.

Grammar / Public school may be better but I was not impressed by the "whole person" I encountered. Maybe it was a small sample, maybe it was the power, maybe it was the environment - I don't know.

What I do know is that children nowadays, by and large, are more intelligent nowadays than my generation. I would also say that they have a far deeper knowledge of some subjects and a much narrower view of the world.

This I put down to the Internet versus books. The Internet will tell you what you want to know rather than what you don't know you want to know - very Donald Rumsfeld (spelling taken from the Internet).

Before the Internet, you went to the library and pulled out a book. You might also be attracted to the book next to it on the shelf - the beginnings of a wider knowledge for knowledge sake approach. With an encyclopedia, you not only found the information you wanted but you looked at the subjects either side. With a dictionary, not only did you find the word you wanted but you found alternative words and looked at the entries either side.

I don't criticise the intelligence of children but I do bemoan their lack of a wide knowledge base. Encyclopedias were for rainy afternoons as well as door stops.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I went to a secondary school which was so bad it has been closed down.

I was in the top group of every top set, but because the school pushed nobody I was way behind those from other schools when I went to college.

I still got to one of the UK's top universities, have a great job and am doing well. So this shows that a poor secondary school education is not the end of everything.

That all being said, the school set up to replace the poorly-performing ones is excellent. So I have no complaints at all about current education standards.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Comprehensive schools are directly responsible for stealing the life opportunities of tens of millions of people. The privately educated elite still dominate the upper echelons of power. There is evidence to suggest that social mobility is even falling!

Immigration has exacerbated the situation: many schools have been super-sized to cope with the demand for school places. Also, some schools have kids that can't speak a single word of English. However, none of our politicians send their children to any of these dysfunctional schools. Tony Blair said the Labour Party would cut class sizes down to 20, but they did not.

The comprehensive school is a failed experiment. Personally, I have given up on the idea of having children because I would not want to send any of my children to one.

We have some of the best schools in the world, but they are all private. We have some of the worst schools in the world: the comprehensives.

So all comprehensives are rubbish and all private schools are good? That's just nonsense.....sorry

The privately educated dominate British society.

80% of the key positions in British society are held by the privately educated.

44% of leaders, businessmen and politicians were privately educated.

68% of leading figures in public service were privately educated

60% of the senior members in the armed forces were privately educated.

63% of lawyers are privately educated.

The Eton College Boarding school educated 4% of the elite - including David Cameron.

Private schools also dominate the British Olympic team and the media.

10 private schools have produced 1 in 8 of the professional elite: Eton; Winchester; Charterhouse; Rugby; Westminster; Marlborough; Dulwich; Harrow; St Pauls; Wellington.

Only 10% of the the UK's influential people went to a comprehensive school.

Also, social mobility is believed to be falling.

By any reasonable standard, the comprehensive school system has failed.

I don't want to send my children to a comprehensive school for the same reasons why the politicians don't send their children to them. Unlike them, I cannot afford a private educated. Therefore, I won't have children.

I got the statistics from the daily mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2235719/Britain-run-private-school-elite-study-shows.html"

That doesn't show failing schools. It just shows the power of the old school tie and nepotism.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I remember being totally astounded getting to university and there being people who had never got on a bus before. They didn't know how to interact with "locals" because they'd spent so much time cocooned in their world of being driven to private school by their mam in a 4 by 4 and picked up at the end of the day and only ever meeting and socialising with "people like them".

I travelled 45 minutes each way by public transport to get to school, learned how to stick up for myself, how to behave in public, made friends with kids from the roughest through to the poshest bits of town and had part time jobs. I genuinely feel I had the better education. Maybe I'd have got an extra A at private school and played more lacrosse or something, but I would have learned a lot less.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I remember being totally astounded getting to university and there being people who had never got on a bus before. They didn't know how to interact with "locals" because they'd spent so much time cocooned in their world of being driven to private school by their mam in a 4 by 4 and picked up at the end of the day and only ever meeting and socialising with "people like them".

I travelled 45 minutes each way by public transport to get to school, learned how to stick up for myself, how to behave in public, made friends with kids from the roughest through to the poshest bits of town and had part time jobs. I genuinely feel I had the better education. Maybe I'd have got an extra A at private school and played more lacrosse or something, but I would have learned a lot less. "

WHS

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Whilst I agree with some aspects of this thread I heartily disagree with others. You make your own luck in this life and yes some schools have poor teachers or bad standards, but that doesn't stop anyone thing to make the best of their lives if they really want to.

Both my parents were born in little mining villages in the north East and had very little when the were younger. I was brought up during the miners strike and went to a comprehensive school that had just been rebuilt after being burnt down by vandals.

I made it my mission to give myself the best possible start in life and after 5 years at comprehensive I have street-smarts to go along with the 11 A* GCSEs, 4 As at A-level and a masters degree.

Will everyone's story who went to a comprehensive be the same? Of course it won't, but then a friend of mine who went to private school is now a shelf stacker in a local supermarket so it works both ways.

Yes something needs to be done about the education system in this country, but then again something also needs to be done about the woe-is-me mentality and blaming culture we have too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My school was one of the worst where I live.

My highest grade was a C in English.

I'm rubbish at maths- it was my worst subject.

I didn't go to university as I wasn't interested in going. I knew what I wanted to do whilst in school and when I left school I at about going for it.

My son has gone to the same school, but since I left the school it's turns its self around and a good school now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I attended a comprehensive school, actually quite a good one with some truly excellent and caring teachers.

With slight regret I look back and acknowledge that I didn't see or grasp the opportunities at the time.

It (school) was good. I simply wasn't good at "it".

I didn't "fit" into school in hardly any way shape or form.

My comprehensive school gave me a great start and for that I'm eternally grateful.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top