Oedo 808 Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 How on earth would the abolition of private education improve state education?It wouldn't, but it would lower standards across the board by putting more strain on the state system. Less quality but more equality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ca_gere Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 How on earth would the abolition of private education improve state education?Simple. Whack everyone into the same schooling system.Clever Toffs + Disruptive Mongs = less disruptive mongs + Less toffy toffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oedo 808 Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Simple. Whack everyone into the same schooling system.Clever Toffs + Disruptive Mongs = less disruptive mongs + Less toffy toffs.You trollin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Stu Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 I suppose I'm just a positive person who can see that an unequal system that offers an advantage to those born into relative wealth is still preferable to rule by the lowest common denominator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Jack Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Simple. Whack everyone into the same schooling system.Clever Toffs + Disruptive Mongs = less disruptive mongs + Less toffy toffs.Good grief. That's an absolute disgrace.It's fewer, not less. Tsk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ca_gere Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Good grief. That's an absolute disgrace.It's fewer, not less. Tsk.Nah, I meant less as in 'not as -adjective- as before' rather than amount.No trolling meant at all. You put bad kids with other bad kids they just get worse. Same happens when you put snooty poshos with more snooty poshos. Mixing it up is much better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Stu Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Nah, I meant less as in 'not as -adjective- as before' rather than amount.No trolling meant at all. You put bad kids with other bad kids they just get worse. Same happens when you put snooty poshos with more snooty poshos. Mixing it up is much better.You probably didn't go to Elgin Academy. Oh how I wished I had nobby parents or a grammar to go to, to escape those fucking wastemen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oedo 808 Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Nah, I meant less as in 'not as -adjective- as before' rather than amount.No trolling meant at all. You put bad kids with other bad kids they just get worse. Same happens when you put snooty poshos with more snooty poshos. Mixing it up is much better.Wrong I'm afraid. Disruptive children cause a teacher to spend more time keeping order in the classroom and less time teaching. Less time teaching means that the lessons are less involved so the children who want to work and can work are no longer being challenged. When they are no longer challenged they become bored and their boredom leads to bad behaviour. So the opposite of what you are saying is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Stu Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Wrong I'm afraid. Disruptive children cause a teacher to spend more time keeping order in the classroom and less time teaching. Less time teaching means that the lessons are less involved so the children who want to work and can work are no longer being challenged. When they are no longer challenged they become bored and their boredom leads to bad behaviour. So the opposite of what you are saying is true.I'm inclined to agree with that. My mother worked in learning support for her career and she admits that a lot of the kids she was brought to teach were beyond her. If they're young enough then she can work wonders but, past a certain age, they just get angry and resentful at being put in an environment with kids of higher ability and they don't have the emotional maturity to deal with it. This leads to playing up and disruption and impacts the other kids.There's such a taboo around returning to early assessment and streaming, which the programme kind of pussied out on. There should be more debate about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ca_gere Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Wrong I'm afraid. Disruptive children cause a teacher to spend more time keeping order in the classroom and less time teaching. Less time teaching means that the lessons are less involved so the children who want to work and can work are no longer being challenged. When they are no longer challenged they become bored and their boredom leads to bad behaviour. So the opposite of what you are saying is true.Everyone knows that. Most spouted fact about education there is. But thanks.Classrooms are one thing. Schools are another. Don't put Tarquin in with Keanu for double foundation maths. But, put them in the same school and we'd see a societal shift for the better. I genuinely believe that. A lot of people who go to private schools are too far removed from "common" people they become objectionable people when they grow up and perpetuate class division. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Wrong I'm afraid. Disruptive children cause a teacher to spend more time keeping order in the classroom and less time teaching. Less time teaching means that the lessons are less involved so the children who want to work and can work are no longer being challenged. When they are no longer challenged they become bored and their boredom leads to bad behaviour. So the opposite of what you are saying is true.Having worked as both a learning assistant and a teacher in both state and private schools, I don't agree. Breeding confidence is not the same as education. Put it this way, having seen both sides over a number of years, I know my kids will not be privately educated.We have a two tier education system, the private sector of which presumes that a "good education" (and that definition is definitely up for grabs) should be made available on the basis of ability to pay. Personally, I think that's awful, but I respect your right to disagree.If there were no private schools in Scotland (or indeed if their "charitable status" was removed), the argument runs that, as all children have to be educated by law, the standards of state schools would be forced up by pushy parents. Personally, I think that's bullshit, and that in many ways standards and ethos in the state sector is already far superior to that of the private. I suppose, however, that if there was an influx of "good" pupils into schools, that would have to be beneficial.I think that, at its root, it comes down to whether or not you think private education is defensible. Personally I don't, but I accept that other will not agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Everyone knows that. Most spouted fact about education there is. But thanks.Classrooms are one thing. Schools are another. Don't put Tarquin in with Keanu for double foundation maths. But, put them in the same school and we'd see a societal shift for the better. I genuinely believe that. A lot of people who go to private schools are too far removed from "common" people they become objectionable people when they grow up and perpetuate class division.Absolutely. Streaming is (in my opinion) a good thing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oedo 808 Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 A lot of people who go to private schools are too far removed from "common" people they become objectionable people when they grow up and perpetuate class division.How would getting the shit kicked out of them by 'disruptive mongs' increase their love for the working class? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ca_gere Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 How would getting the shit kicked out of them by 'disruptive mongs' increase their love for the working class?School is just as much about the social experience as it is about the education you receive. I can't see how anyone could argue that it isn't beneficial to mix with people of all creeds, colour and backgrounds. You develop much better social skills if you're forced to be around minkers and poshos alike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oedo 808 Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Having worked as both a learning assistant and a teacher in both state and private schools, I don't agree. Breeding confidence is not the same as education. Put it this way, having seen both sides over a number of years, I know my kids will not be privately educated.We have a two tier education system, the private sector of which presumes that a "good education" (and that definition is definitely up for grabs) should be made available on the basis of ability to pay. Personally, I think that's awful, but I respect your right to disagree.If there were no private schools in Scotland (or indeed if their "charitable status" was removed), the argument runs that, as all children have to be educated by law, the standards of state schools would be forced up by pushy parents. Personally, I think that's bullshit, and that in many ways standards and ethos in the state sector is already far superior to that of the private. I suppose, however, that if there was an influx of "good" pupils into schools, that would have to be beneficial.I think that, at its root, it comes down to whether or not you think private education is defensible. Personally I don't, but I accept that other will not agree.If private schools are available only to a rich minority and based upon an ability to pay for an inferior standard of education what do you find so objectionable about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Stu Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 It's not as if private education is only reserved for the Old Money crowd, which is worth pointing out. I have friends whose parents are obviously real working class who put their kids through Gordons and they've done well. Others haven't, despite being from more affluent backgrounds. Private education isn't necessarily better but to remove the option for those of means is to deny the socially mobile a basic economic freedom, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 If private schools are available only to a rich minority and based upon an ability to pay for an inferior standard of education what do you find so objectionable about it?They are (excluding scholarships) only accessible by the wealthy, regardless of intellectual ability. The standard of education as measured by exam results are seen to be better, albeit often on the back of regurgitated essays and parrot style repetition. Regardless of the level or quality of education available in private schools, what I find objectionable about private schooling is (as I've already said) the principle that we should have a two tier system in which the majority are discriminated against on a purely financial basis.As an aside, one of my colleagues was a scholarship student to one of the Edinburgh private schools. As a scholarship student, she was expected to do extra chores and was expected to follow a different set of rules than the wealthier fee paying students. As I said, it's only my opinion, but I believe that private education is ethically indefensible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oedo 808 Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 They are (excluding scholarships) only accessible by the wealthy, regardless of intellectual ability. The standard of education as measured by exam results are seen to be better, albeit often on the back of regurgitated essays and parrot style repetitionSo private schools get measurably better results because they cheat? Are state schools practising moral one-upmanship by allowing pupils to flounder more freely based upon natural ineptitude?Regardless of the level or quality of education available in private schools, what I find objectionable about private schooling is (as I've already said) the principle that we should have a two tier system in which the majority are discriminated against on a purely financial basis.But according to you the majority get a 'far superior' education. Surely it's the minority who are discriminating against themselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gypsum_Fantastic Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 You trollin.Why are you spelling "trollin" when it is clearly spelt "trolling". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gypsum_Fantastic Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 How would getting the shit kicked out of them by 'disruptive mongs' increase their love for the working class?What exactly are you saying here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oedo 808 Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Why are you spelling "trollin" when it is clearly spelt "trolling".I went to a state funded school.What exactly are you saying here?Exactly what I said. What do you think I'm saying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ca_gere Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 What exactly are you saying here?Public schooloys would get bullied in a state school. The mong bit was me though.They maybe would but no more than a fat/gay/disabled/smelly kid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gypsum_Fantastic Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 What i am saying here RObert is you are very good at putting across yoru point of view and i mean that but when i ask "what exatly are you saying here" I am asking you do you really think that a state school boy would not get bullied in a public school or that a fat/ginger/ethnic(minoroty/majoirty)/child of a teacher/clever person would not get bullied regardless of the school he is at? My trolling comment was to do with your opinions on the use of quotaiton mark to emphasise a point, i think you have seen this before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Stu Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 Public schooloys would get bullied in a state school. The mong bit was me though.They maybe would but no more than a fat/gay/disabled/smelly kid.I have to doubt that, based on the weekly trip of Goudonstoun kids to my town. Hatred was palpable.Much to be envied though, by the shit 3 hairstyle having chattering classes lol. gone all emo now lol. sorry i fucking hate elgin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oedo 808 Posted January 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 They maybe would but no more than a fat/gay/disabled/smelly kid.I didn't realise that in your utopian vision of the educational system only the fatties, poofters, cripples, stinkers and toffs would be singled out... but you forgot to mention the swots and that was careless of you. I assume the kids deemed to be normal and reflecting the proper median of society (no matter their creed, colour or background) would be safe.Don't worry, school is all about the social experience Harrison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.