Private school vs private anything educational

[stopitstopitnooow]

If you have an issue with private schools, why? Do you have an issue with:

Buying houses in expensive catchment areas
Extracurricular activities such as music lessons, swimming, sports coaching
Tutors; language, 11+, GCSE

(Also, private healthcare, dentists, opticians)

I honestly don't understand the angst when it comes to private schools. Let people spend their money however they see fit.

Also completely agree with this.

I don’t think that private schools necessarily do better, especially if there are good state schools nearby. I and my mates hung out with a crowd from the local private school and we all did a lot better than them in all our exams - they didn’t have the drive, as daddy would just just chuck them a £50 every now and then and they expected that for life. And we from the state school are probably not paid more now - but we are all certainly in more worthwhile, fulfilling jobs than my private school mates.

I also am very judgy of expensive cars as if I had that much money lying around I wouldn’t spend it on a car - but that’s down to my upbringing education and current job and general worldview. I don’t want to abolish posh cars (I definitely want to see the end of private education).

It’s definitely not envy. I just find some people’s attitude to money a bit nausea inducing.

Nobody’s saying you shouldn’t give your opinion, are they? 🤷‍♀️Is it ok if I give mine?

I know you didn’t say food, water etc are free. My point is that you say education should be free because it’s a basic human right. But the logic doesn’t work if other, more basic, necessities are not free, does it?

As for your grasping-at-straws point about the language I was using… am I only allowed to quote you directly?! You were making the point that your research shows that private school isn’t a more pleasant experience. I was (as you know) making the counter-point that if it isn’t that nice (and ‘traumatic’ was a bit of naughty hyperbole on my part!! How dare I?), then just leave us to it!

The private school system isn’t what’s wrong with state schools. State schools are what’s wrong with state schools.

Hope this may help you understand the concepts better :

Analogy between Cooking Skills and Intelligence:

The accuracy of this analogy can be discussed in the context of the nature versus nurture debate and the complexity of intelligence.

Nature vs. Nurture:
The statement implies a perspective leaning towards the "nature" side of the nature vs. nurture debate. It suggests that intelligence, like cooking skills, is primarily inherited, drawing a parallel between someone claiming to be a good cook because of familial exposure to tasty food and asserting intelligence based on familial traits.

Critique and Expanding on the Analogy:
While the analogy simplifies the concept of intelligence and its heritability, it's important to note that intelligence is a multifaceted trait influenced by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. Research in psychology and genetics has demonstrated that both nature and nurture play significant roles in shaping intelligence.

Heritability of Intelligence and Family Traits:
The statement asserts that intelligence is heritable, similar to other family traits like ear size or toe length. This perspective aligns with certain findings in behavioral genetics.

Heritability of Intelligence:
Research has shown that there is a heritable component to intelligence. Twin, family, and adoption studies indicate that genetic factors contribute to individual differences in intelligence. However, it's crucial to recognize that heritability does not imply a fixed genetic blueprint; environmental factors also play a crucial role.

Its more complex but that is my limited understanding from University studies.

@Papyrophile
i think your error was automatically thinking that job role = level of intelligence of offspring, when factually thats a big error in thinking.

I didn’t say you weren’t allowed to give your opinion. You said ‘why don’t you let us get on with it’ and I replied to that.

Also it’s not my point that education should be free. It’s a right that it IS free. Therefore different from food, shelter etc.

It’s not my research – it’s the University of York’s research. I would never say private schools are traumatic and awful and it’s nothing to do with my opinion or argument, so yes, actually it’s entirely off the point and also insinuates meaning to someone’s argument where there is none. And unfortunately, it is evidenced that selective schools do indeed harm state schools in close proximity to them.

@ACGTHelix heritability and expectations dominate outcomes. As I said above, I am a good cook. I like food and eating, and also want to be thin and fit, so I never make desserts. I also have a BSc and a PCGE, FWIW. I do not look down on my DC's colleagues at work, who have a fuckton of Michelin stars between them: they are awesomely talented and work 12 hours daily as normal. They are a million miles removed from people who want to do a few hours a day and have UC top up their earnings.

@Papyrophile i reported because eugenics has a very dubious past: google it because I can’t be arsed explaining. I think you’re posting in bad faith/ trolling but I’m humouring you by replying. Also see @ACGTHelix ‘s post for further information.

The private school system isn’t what’s wrong with state schools. State schools are what’s wrong with state schools.

completely agree. The existence of private schools is a result of inadequate state offerings (whether inadequate on an objective basis or because specific individual reasons). Private schools do not make state schools any worse, and any argument that they do is specious.

It doesn’t matter how excellent you make state schools either, there will always be a demand for an alternative because it is impossible to serve all families and students equally well relative to what they need/want from education. In my own family we have chosen private despite having ‘excellent’ options locally because of a combination of neurodiversity that was poorly served in state but beautifully managed in private, as well as my own personal philosophical differences in what constitutes an ‘excellent’ education that means I place greater value on aspects that uk state schools largely seem to deprioritise.

There is nothing eugenic about anything I have written in this thread @KellyanneConway . I am familiar with the arguments. I am not a eugenicist. There are clever people and stupid ones. Intelligence is inherited. Mostly.

And I do not troll.

While genetics can influence the potential range of intelligence a person may have, environmental factors such as education, nutrition, and socio-economic conditions also contribute significantly to the development of intelligence. It's important to recognize the complex interplay of nature and nurture in shaping intelligence.

Sorry @Didimum , I don’t mean to be hyper-argumentative but I am struggling with a couple of your points.

I see why you said the thing about giving your opinion. Fair enough.

But I don’t get what you mean about which rights are free. Sure, education is free, but that’s just something that’s been decided by society; it’s not a self-evident fact that’s set in stone for all peoples and all times. And it doesn’t actually follow that it should be free or has to be free even if people are willing to pay for it.

You could equally argue that basic food ought to be free. Or that healthcare shouldn’t be free. These are questions for societies around the world to consider.

As for your continuing point about the York research… what did you hope to achieve by citing it? What point were you making? I read it as a response to my claim that private school offers a more pleasant experience; I felt you were countering that with evidence that it wasn’t actually a pleasant experience? I exaggerated when I responded, of course, and I acknowledge that you didn’t say it was ‘traumatic’ to attend private school. 🙄But were you not trying to show that it was less pleasant than state school with those statistics? Otherwise I have no idea what the point was.

So the lack of verbal communication between badly educated parents and children as studied by a major University of Chicago study in 1995 which was the basis for the citation mentioned by Circe7 at 12.28 is somehow diminished? (I can find the reference if needed; it's in one of my PGCE notebooks) That study pretty much delinateated the boundaries. Children born to educated parents hear three times more praise and encouragement in infancy. They learn to seek praise. Children born to less well educated parents seemed mostly to be shouted at, to shut up.

Then that in my assessment is environmental factors, and not genetics.

@Labraradabrador
Yes I think what’s frustrating about this debate is that those who are anti private schools want to force their view of what constitutes a good education on everyone and impose it on every child regardless of that child’s needs.

I was told at one point in this thread that choice isn’t important. Someone used the term “standardised” which sounds deeply depressing for me.

Of course choice isn’t important if you are advocating a state system which exactly conforms to your view of what makes a good education and which would work for your child. It’s very important if you have different views on education than the state or a child who doesn’t get on with the system for whatever reason. I would love more choice to be available for more children however.

And even if state education broadly conformed to my views, I wouldn’t want to give the state the power to educate every child with no right to opt out. That sounds very authoritarian and dangerous.

And even more frustratingly, there’s acknowledgment that the private sector is doing something right in terms of giving their students an advantage but no willingness to change anything about the state sector to replicate it. And the solution is instead to destroy some of the best schools we have in order to apparently improve the parts which aren’t working.

I cannot think of another policy area where this would be entertained as a credible solution to the issue of part of the sector underperforming.

I think it's rather more nuanced than you suggest @ACGTHelix. The Chicago study (and I think it was from the the Education faculty) suggested that the better educated the parents, the more encouragement they were likely to offer their child. The study focused on the number of words spoken to children, and the positivity/negativity of the words. But the conclusion was, that by the time the child started school, the child of the better educated parent had heard three or four times more spoken language, many more words, and that most were positive encouragement. The less well educated parents were more likely to silence.

@Papyrophile “…. it is ridiculous to suggest that because little Joe's parents never got past shelf stacking that little Joe is going to work in investment banking. He didn't inherit the genes”

Genetic determinism (eugenics) right there. I’m sure your PGCE tutors and peers are very impressed by this contemporary and nuanced take on developmental psychology and early years education. I’m just getting more and more envious by the minute.

I don't think you understand that inherited intelligence is not the same as eugenics.

If little Joe is clever and forceful enough to make his mark in investment banking, I am going to cheer him on.

Oh yes, so will I especially if his parents were shelf stackers. If he want to Eaton, I will not because hard work and fortitude will pay a very small part in his achievement, as will genetics

We all need him to surpass his and our expectations: that's good for society. And when he does, he should pay tax accordingly, to fund the kids a generation down from him.

To change the discussion a bit: when the Rolling Stones went offshore in 197x because their tax rate would have been 98p in the £1, do you think it would have been in their interest to have stayed?

@Papyrophile ” don't think you understand that inherited intelligence is not the same as eugenics”

I don’t think that you understand that not recognising the limitations of inherited genetics, is eugenics

Thank goodness for this @EmpressoftheMundane . I''m so tired of hearing about these 'networks'. One dc went to public school and the other an indy. Both came away with no networks (we must've missed the announcement that day!) everything they've achieved has been through hard graft just like normal students - Walking into shops asking for work, checking on line for any opportunities and applying pronto, doing voluntary work when & where they can. All their friends have done the same. One boy had an exciting time learning how to sail and doing other boat stuff but that was through their parents own sailing experience. They would've had that opportunity, private school or not. Since they left school everyone has gone their own way there is no 'special network' at all. Alumni events are more about pub quizzes, cricket days and the odd theatre evening out, which seem to be attended mostly by those who in their 50s & 60s. You certainly wouldn't sidle up to them at the theatre and ask their phone number. Like @EmpressoftheMundane said those kinds of networks are not made at the school gates!

Possibly I don't @KellyanneConway . So do explain it to me in words of one syllable. As that is clearly all you think I can manage.

@Papyrophile The Greek translation of eugenics is “good genes”, 2 one syllable words that describe the theoretical antecedent of eugenics. Without that hypothesis (that some genes are inherently “good”) there would be no trajectory to attempting to modify or select for genes to produce the ultimate phenotype. Sorry I can’t explain the whole thing in fewer syllables, I’m the child of a bad- gened bar maid and a car mechanic and we read too many books when I was growing up.