Private Education Sector to "Loan " Teachers......

[Boobsgonesouth]

I know that this one will be such a hot potato...couldn't resist the temptation to post it

here's the article

Also, Daddy, (ie Prince Charles) went to Cambridge despite not having Maths O'level which he failed. Can't imagine a state pupil ever being so lucky

Our royal family are not known for their brains. But on the whole most private school pupils do better than state school pupils for the various reasons on the thread.

Says who? I can't get my head round the fact that most of the 7% of pupils who go private will do better than most the 93% who attend state school? Especially when you consider that many of the private schools will only enter those for exams who are likely to pass and those entered are likely to be coached to an inch of their lives. So what happens to the ones who don't take exams?

in my experience nothing happens to them.

I ahve friends who have had their son at a private school since prep stage and he was told half way through year eleven that they would not be entering him for his exams as he would not get the expected results.

Did the parents continue paying fees for that service?

They looked into moving him to another private school but they were unwilling to take him. IN the ned they took him out of the private secotr.

I have another friend whose son has learning difficulties and the school chrage additional money each time he is assessed or they have to call someone in. There is no school counsellor or SEN help and the family again have been to put up or shut up and this is just before GCSE;s. This is a veryfragile boy who could not cope in the state sector schools who have space for him so he may again leave school with no gcses despite the school taking fees for him since prep school and knowing about the boys problems and potential.

There's academic private and public schools and not-especially-academic private and public schools. You pays your money and takes your choice.

For late developers or nice-but-dim children it wouldn't be a surprise not to sit exams. One parent of my acquaintance (I stress acquaintance) was in a similar position. Her son didn't get to sit many exams.

Her rather breathtaking attitude was that at least he hadn't got into trouble with the law or got anyone pregnant which he most assuredly would have done with the "villains at the local comp".

People have funny attitudes really. For her it was all about social exclusivity. That's not my attitude, I hasten to add.

I teach lots of nice but dim children or late developers who manage to leave with a handful of qualifications.

Thanks Boazer, I see what you're saying now. I obviously misunderstood. I think Twinset is making a good point - if a kid in the private sector aren't going to do as well as the school would like them to then they can dump them. A state school could never get away with that (ok, I know some state schools are selective, and I think that's outrageous too, but generally a kid with special needs has to be accepted by a school or at least can't be expelled for having those needs). I still take issue with the fact that kids at private school are bound to do well - it ain't necessarily so!

But that is quite rare in most private schools. In fact many specialise in the nice but dim children and do very well by them. They certainly don't refuse to enter them for GCSEs or they'd have no candidates as the cleverer children tend not to be at those nice but dim private schools.

Compare A level results from say Aldenham and Habs boys which are nearly physically adjacent to each other but very very different in terms of academic standards of the children.

I can't remember the exact figure but children at private schools over all earn a certain sum more over their lives too so in a sense you are gifting your children life long extra money which is hopeless if you're a socialist but quite a nice thought if you're not as it eases their path.

MissM, I don't think children are bound to do well at private schools. But I do think they are likely to do BETTER than they would at state schools.

On balance and in general, and of course excepting the rare teenagers who are complete self-starters. The statistics do bear me out.

So I don't think Alan Johnson is wrong to try and level this up, rather than trying to level it down by abolishing private schools. Unfortunately though, I think the way he is trying to do it is a bit misguided. As many posters have commented.

Found this article by Will Hutton in 2003 the hypocrisy of going private

Yes but I don't agree with his basic premise

"He begins his book with the range of agonising justifications that middle-class parents, knowing they are offending a basic canon of social fairness by privileging their own children, use to justify their choice of private education. The title reflects his core pre occupation. Is it hypocritical to send your child to a private school while acknowledging it should not exist?"

I think chidlren are born with huge unfairnesses - some are ugly, stupid, unkind, unambitious, having dreadful parents. No reason why you should pick on school to even things out. Indeed more fair to take the children from the bad parents and place them with good parents to even things out surely?

Ooh that's provocative, and only partly true.

I am not empowered to force governments to spend more money on education and less on wars. I want the very best for everyone's chiidren but I can't do anything about that.

The reality of the state school system does not seem to me to be attractive. I want a school where learning is more important than crowd control. Unfortunately the only way I can get that is to pay for it. I want the very best for my children and I am empowered to change that. So I chose to work hard in order to pay for my children's education.

My choice seems logical and reasonable in the circumstances. Although it is of course hypocritical. But only partly.

I do like Will Hutton. I find him strangly attractive but I digress.

Xenia I think you have missed your calling.. Surely a post in the Diplomatic Corp would have been the best use of your gentle nature.

I do admire your directness even if I don't share your views. reminds me of an old work colleague who everyone I knew hated but I loved him in a strange way. He once did a citizen arrest in Hammersmith Tube station as the chap was smoking. Now that would annoy people but I thought he was priceless.

Any chance we can stop slagging off state schools? The children are clearly all violent plebs with chavvy parents who will end up in crap Mcjobs (oo, contraversial) with NVQs in marketing management, and the teachers are all pinkos with cord trousers and badly done hair who aren't good enough for little Sebastian and Amelia Ffoulkes-Smyth.

But weirdly, some of us have done quite well going to state schools, attending good universities and earning good money. Now how on earth was that allowed to happen?

No one couold deny some childre are born with a high IQ and some not, some ugly and some pretty etc. Huge inequalities at birth and by luck they get good parents or not. It just seems a bit silly to say therefore we take one thing - education - and as fair parents ensure we make our children have the same education as others to make it fair. It's a ridiculous point. You might as well say we should clone the clever prettty ones or whatever.

Most people go to state schools and many successful people in the UK went to state schools, although not Blair or Cameron but going to private schools often just makes things a bit easier. So if you can afford it you might as well do it. If you can't afford it no point in getting too upset about it - then you choose your school by house price or religion (or state grammar) if you can.

Xenia, you are of the school of thought that private schools are mostly better than state schools. Better mostly because of all the reasons that have been iterated below - which has said nothing other than teachers in state schools are just as good (with some posters going for the teaching being better in state schools).

So I do not understand how you can argue that every child should receive anything other than that sort of standard of education. It's a system that does perpetuate social inequality. Very few apologists for private schools argue that they unfair and that's life.

You might as well argue that healthcare should not be available to people who can't afford to pay for it. It's the same logic.

(sits back and waits for Xenia to argue that people suffering from cancer have just been unlucky therefore not worth diverting resources towards saving them0

"I want a school where learning is more important than crowd control."

There is some kind of huge myth that state schools are like beirut on a bad day. I teach in a so called sink school which is rumoured to be all crwod control and no learning and it simply is not true.

Think I was expressing myself clumsily (not for the first time). My SIL teaches at an allegedly sink school - but all she tells us about are the horror stories - and all we read about are the horror stories - so guess that views do get distorted.

The point I really wanted to make was made by Boazer earlier on. "Put a private sector teacher into your average state school and your result will be similar if not worse ( lack of experience of discipline etc.) Give the state sector ALL the benefits of the private sector and you'll get success accross the board."

That's the point I was really trying to make. Sorry for using crowd control as a shorthand for small class sizes etc

As a tax payer I am not prepared to pay so that every child is educated to the standard mine have, I'm afraid and nor is this country prepared to. That's the bottom line.

I do think a lot of private school teachers are better. My ex husband has taught in both sectors we know many many good teachers who move to the private sector for a whole heap of reasons. You get many many fewer supply teachers. You get more teachers with a degree in the subject they are teaching in. You get teachers who stay longer which is very important to many schools. Overall the teachers are better but in a sense it's irrelevant. 94% of children are in state schools. What happens in the tiny 6% or whatever is like a flea on an elephant's back and the state system should obviously learn where it can but get on with what it does.

In my post of a few days ago, I said a lot of my sons' teachers prob do not have PGCE. I am not certain about it, but made the point as I am not sure it matters. You don't need a PGCE to be an inspirer and or gifted teacher when you have 19 pupils who are largely eager to learn. I daresay "teaching" quals (as opposed to being qualified in the subject you teach) come into their own when you have to deal with disruptive pupils who are hellbent on dispruption and determined that noone else in their class of 34 will learn anything either. In this case, the theory of teaching and a big dollop of social sciences may be very useful indeed, since your love of chemistry will probably not stand a chance or be particularly relevant. Shame really.

MissM - I too am a State educated pupil. I was lucky enough to go to a grammar school. I live in a very affluent place in Herts and the three state secondary schools in the town outperform a lot of provincial independent schools. In spite of all this I choose to pay for my sons to go to school and that is not financially easy. I choose to struggle to do this as I think a fine education is (after love) the biggest gift you can give to your child. I would imagine that some people have a larger disposable income than us but have decided that independent education is unaffordable. That is their choice (they would rather have expensive hols, takeaway meals, nights out, new cars etc). I don't think anyone has the right to tell me that my financial struggle is somehow unfair on them!

I suppose they have the right to say what they like because of freedom of speech but it's a silly argument that you damage others by leaving state school spaces available. There is nothing so special about my 5 children that the state system would have hugely benefited from having them clogging up 5 places.

.sory to set the topic and then disappear..have been soo busy.

Wow what a response (surprise surprise!!) boazer and Sue W love your comments, think they are very valid and to the point. Interestingly have had friends to stay over the last couple of days, both teachers and one a deputy head from the State sector...they were both extremely vocal in how insulted they felt about this proposal which is probably a reflection of how many teachers from the state sector feel. As mentioned on here, what a success this has turned out to be, effectively pitching teaches from private & state sectors agains each other !!!

As parents who have made the decision to make sacrifices to privately educate both children (now at pre prep), I would be pretty pee'ed off to learn that DS or DD's teacher was not available as they were off doing there bit at the local state school !!!! Unlikely many of you here I'm not embarrased to admit that I do so their education as a "product" (expensive !) and one for which I expect it to be, if you like "as contracted". For me that means small class sizes, good facilities, small class sizes, continuity of good teachers, small class sizes etc etc...and not using a product, which I have paid for to the detriment of my children.

Absolutely have no problem at facilities being used to the benefit of the community and to the good of others when the contract of service (if you want to call it that !) has been fulfilled to those who pay for it FIRST...

Rant over, glass of wine in hand, looking forward to response..........