Home Politics & Debate

Private schooling

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    NQA wrote:
    I don't suppose they take toddlers - if so I can give them a couple more pupils :D

    Not as boarders but they do take three years olds...
    On a more serious note I'd say 4 year old boarders is a bit young, but are there special circumstances. A lot of the boarding school pupils I knew were things like parents away with Army, FCO where it was often better for the children to go to boarding school than whatever hell-hole the parents were posted in

    I knew someone who was in that situation, which is partly why I have the view I do. He had nothing like the relationship I have with my parents. They were like strangers. I understand why they did that, but I could never do the same.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not as boarders but they do take three years olds...



    I knew someone who was in that situation, which is partly why I have the view I do. He had nothing like the relationship I have with my parents. They were like strangers. I understand why they did that, but I could never do the same.

    on a sidenote 'aaw' to your av :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would be more concerned with the religious indoctrination and lack of proper sex education in faith schools ahead of the social mix of a private school.

    Why? If a parent wants their child to be educated in a faith school then that's their choice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK, I would never never send my kids to a boarding school. I think it's very cruel at such a young age and as you say, your kids would become complete strangers.

    Agreed. It does seem wrong to have a child then send it off to boarding school then see it only every half-term/end of the term.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well quite. In fact, David wants our kids to have a catholic education. But if Renzo is concerned that a child isn't getting a well rounded education because he or she goes to a private school then I think there are better examples of children getting a less comprehensive education, such as faith schools.

    Don't think it is though. I went to a Catholic primary school and a grammar one run by priests. We didn't have the whole religious thing drilled into us, we only had to attend mass once in a while and our sex education was a bit shitty but that's it, there were children from all backgrounds and we got on well. I'd imagine kids from private schools would not be as well adapted to "the real world" as people from any other schools.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Personally its public schooling all the way for me! It never did me any harm and i wouldnt want my kids growing up with a jaded view of the world and its inhabitants.
    In my opinion, people who have come from private school tend to be a bit clueless about the real world and seem to adopt only 'false manners' wherer they pretend to be humble and to be greatful for things but you can tell they're really thinking how much better they are than you because they've grown up with money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dear Wendy wrote:
    What's the difference between private and public in England?
    For the record, just because i think you mean "private - where you pay to send your kids" and "public - where the government sends your kids" and these can get confused because technically public is the correct reference for where you pay to send your kids and state for the other. make sense?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fiend_85 wrote:
    For the record, just because i think you mean "private - where you pay to send your kids" and "public - where the government sends your kids" and these can get confused because technically public is the correct reference for where you pay to send your kids and state for the other. make sense?

    Yup, get it :)
    Just wondering, as as suddenly people were using public and private for the same thing. And I still continue to call it private, just because it sounds weird and wrong to call it public :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I would send my child to a private school if we had the money, because they tend to have better educational resources, and a lower pupil to teacher ratio. I want to give my kids the best chance in life.

    However, I think that private schools should be abolished.
    pretty much how I feel.

    God im so hypocritical!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dear Wendy wrote:
    Yup, get it :)
    Just wondering, as as suddenly people were using public and private for the same thing. And I still continue to call it private, just because it sounds weird and wrong to call it public :p
    So do I, originally it was because you had to be clever to get to state funded, but if you had enough money anyone could go to a "public" school. As far as I'm concerned it's the other way round now, but the old ways persist.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hey this 'public' and 'private' school terms in the UK is confusing :confused:

    In which category does a faith school fall into? And what are 'comprehensive' schools?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ok

    comprehensive is a standard state secondary school as opposed to a state grammar school, where the brighter 25% of the country's children are sent after taking a test.

    Faith schools can be both state and private/public.

    Renzo and I for example both went to single sex state-funded grammar schools. My step-sister however goes to a single sex private catholic school.

    When I say private I mean one in which you pay additional fees to send your child. The actual correct reference is Public due to the origin of the schools, this doesn't make any sense in my head. So public and private are both used to talk about schools where you would pay fees to send your child.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I go with what Ellie says (I'd have them abolished, but give my kids any advantage I could).

    Mind you, instead of sending them to a private school, I think I'd rather spend the money on a house in an area with a "good school".
    This sounds snobby :p and it probably is, but when you've not got the worry of little money (or the possible disruptiveness of those that have those worries), you tend to do better.
    Which isn't to say that rich kids always do better. My stepmum has just had a superb ofsted report for a school that she runs in a right scruffy area.

    Yeah, I know the reason that these schools tend to have better results (however you quantify them) is that the demographic is more affluent etc, but it's a similar situation to the private schools. Maybe the balance I'd be after.

    I wouldn't be interested in sending my children (if I had any, and was rich enough!) to a public school, because that's not my thing at all.
    One of my housemates is from a public school, however, and he's a very down to earth person.

    Anyway! I'd rather send kids to an affluent state school (with as little religious stuff as possible), rather than a private one. This is partly on principle, and partly because it's worked alright for me (not that mine was in a dead posh area or owt, just middling).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i think private schools up north are very different to the ones down south! i went to a private school and we certainly didn't say 'yar' and we were very in touch with society. i think going to a private school has given me a much better chance in life because the local state schools near me are utter shite. so yes i would probably send my children to rpivate school if the locals were rubbish.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    lipsy wrote:
    ...we certainly didn't say 'yar' ...

    PRIVATE school.
    Not PIRATE school.
    :p
  • littlemissylittlemissy knit chick Posts: 9,972
    I go with what Ellie says (I'd have them abolished, but give my kids any advantage I could).

    Mind you, instead of sending them to a private school, I think I'd rather spend the money on a house in an area with a "good school".
    This sounds snobby :p and it probably is, but when you've not got the worry of little money (or the possible disruptiveness of those that have those worries), you tend to do better.
    Which isn't to say that rich kids always do better. My stepmum has just had a superb ofsted report for a school that she runs in a right scruffy area.

    Yeah, I know the reason that these schools tend to have better results (however you quantify them) is that the demographic is more affluent etc, but it's a similar situation to the private schools. Maybe the balance I'd be after.

    I wouldn't be interested in sending my children (if I had any, and was rich enough!) to a public school, because that's not my thing at all.
    One of my housemates is from a public school, however, and he's a very down to earth person.

    Anyway! I'd rather send kids to an affluent state school (with as little religious stuff as possible), rather than a private one. This is partly on principle, and partly because it's worked alright for me (not that mine was in a dead posh area or owt, just middling).

    I don't think it sounds snobby at all.

    We were considering moving house but one of the reasons we decided to stay put was because of the local school. It's a good school with some of the top grades in Sheffield. If we lived in a different area of Sheffield then we would certainly consider private education. I want our kids to get the best possible start off in life. Simple as.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    PRIVATE school.
    Not PIRATE school.
    :p
    :lol:

    I wish I'd gone to a pirate school!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mind you, instead of sending them to a private school, I think I'd rather spend the money on a house in an area with a "good school".
    This sounds snobby :p

    I don't think it does. You want to move so that you get your child into a decent school and not the rubbish local one. (which is something I wish my parents had done)
    Anyway! I'd rather send kids to an affluent state school (with as little religious stuff as possible)

    Any readon why you'd send your child to a state school with as little religious education as possible?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I live reaaaaaaaaallly close to this private school
    http://www.kimbolton.cambs.sch.uk/
    and thus have lots of friends there. My parents decided to send me to a comprehensive which is further away which I am truly grateful for. I've found that whilst my friends from the private school are lovely they're all a bit head-in-the-clouds. I wouldn't send my children to private school.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Even if it's a long time ahead, I'd want to see my children grow up in a private school, rather than in a public one - if those are the terminologies. I've been attending a private school, and I don't see anything negative with it. The public schools in Sweden (most of them) are the last place on Earth I'd want my children to be. I've heard awful things of several schools in my area - utilization of narcotics, strong alcohol, tobacco, etc.

    Even though public schools are tougher and demand a lot more of the student (which is not to be mixed up with stimulation) and let them grow up in a more "realistic" environment, I'd love to... relieve my child of such an environment. Several pupils with potential might not have been stimulated enough, and lost a valuable growth during their childhood. I'd hate to be responsible for that happening to my child.

    I have no experience of the English schools... so, please note that my opinion is based on my insight of the schools in my area. But, I'd rather look on the individual school than the term "private" and "public", although I feel I'm leaning towards the former.

    And please. The public shools aren't that bad as I'm describing them . It's just that I've had bad experiences with the people attending those schools. The majority of them are smokers, and some of them consume large amounts of spirits etc, at a very young age. I've heard rumours of drug abuse, but I'm not sure of that rumour's reliability. And there is a less teacher to pupil ratio, as mentioned before.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    quarfly wrote:
    And please... the shools aren't that bad as I'm describing them. It's just that I've had bad experiences with the people attending those schools. The majority of them are smokers, and some of them consume large amounts of spirits etc. I've heard rumours of drug abuse... but I'm not sure of that rumour's reliability. And there is a less teacher to pupil ratio... as mentioned before.

    I smoked, smoked pot, and drank Vodka and Scotch through my High School years. Still do infact.

    I turned out fine. So quite a few people didn't... but what do you expect? Some percentage of the poulation always seems to turn out bad anyway, regardless of schooling or upbringing etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    I smoked, smoked pot, and drank Vodka and Scotch through my High School years. Still do infact.

    I turned out fine. So quite a few people didn't... but what do you expect? Some percentage of the poulation always seems to turn out bad anyway, regardless of schooling or upbringing etc.

    Yes, but I see a difference in the behaviour in these schools. Vodka - sure, but can't they wait and not start it when they're 13? Smoking? Some of them smoke when they're 8. That's unbelievable. The children around them are a bad influence, and I'd rather keep my child "away" from them. :p

    There's no right or wrong answer--although I'd love to just shout obstinately and refuse to accept anything else. It's up to opinion I guess, just like the majority of debates.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    Any readon why you'd send your child to a state school with as little religious education as possible?

    Because I'm about as religious as a rock/keyring/bit of paper.

    I think a state school with no religious affiliation would be fine.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You know religious education is about understanding what people believe. Everyone should have that.

    Not going to faith school is fine, because they're for people of that faith. But all children should have religious education.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Faith schools provide a biased religious education, whereas the religious education in non-faith schools tends to have less of a bias. For RE at my school, we looked at all types of faiths.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I imagine it would be. However, state run faith school still have to abide by the NC meaning that their pupils get the same material as non-faith state schools, and extra in their given religion.

    As I said, if you're not catholic(or whatever), you won't send your kids to an RC (or whatever) school will you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, to be fair, I went to an single sex catholic school and we learned about a whole range of beliefs and RE was never solely about catholicism or, indeed, christianity. When people went on to study Christian Theology at A Level obviously there's a bias and a focus on Christian beliefs, but even in that they studied other faiths if I remember rightly.

    Obviously it was biased in that the majority of the students were supposedly practising catholics and therefore we had mass.

    I would send my kids to single-sex school if it seemed like the best option, though I'm not sure I'd inflict a catholic convent-centric education on any daughter of mine. It certainly hasn't done me any favours :shocking: :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's a tricky one - I'm "technically" Catholic, in that I have been Christened and taken Communion in a Catholic church, and my dad made us all have a sort of Catholic upbringing. The rest of his family are VERY religious etc. However, I went to a C of E primary school, and a non faith secondary school. Personally I'd be more interested in the standard of education given at the school than the faith, if it came down to it. I've always seen religious education as something that comes more from your parents than from your school anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.