Education

[ICTChris]

Lots of controversy over exam results in the last few weeks. One thing that has driven a lot of the commentary is the difference between schools with good previous performance and those who have a poorer record. In England private schools have received fewer downgrades than state schools.

 

Has the controversy changed any P&Bers views on education?

Would any P&Bers send their little darlings/brats to private schools?

Should the SQA offer a degree in P&Bology?

[invergowrie arab]

Knowing who became teachers from my year at school gives me the fear. 

The best start you can give a child who will reach adulthood in 10 years would be to forage for berries, whittle a spear and how to trap squirrels.

[coprolite]

I think private education entrenches privilege and should be scrapped. I don't blame anyone whe sends their kids private though. I'd do it if i could afford to. 

I don't think it will be scrapped any time soon and if anything the transfer from the state to private hands will accelerate. 

[101]

Not changed views I think it's highlighted the go to Uni or bust attitude of a lot of young people and their families. I was very nearly forced into going to Uni by my school and one teacher offered to fill out my application on UCAS for me in the last week of the application process being open. 

Thankfully a lot more work is going into "positive destinations" if they could increase that and ditch league tables we would be in a better place. 

[Raidernation]

I will be teaching at a small private school this year, really looking forward to it.
Kids start on Tuesday

My biggest class will be 8 students. [emoji2]

[ICTChris]

I know a few people who send their kids to private schools and I’ve always thought they are a bit of a waste of money. A few of my colleagues have put themselves out financially to afford to send kids private, I just don’t think that’s worth it. Children from encouraging homes whose parents value education will do as well in most local authority schools, although maybe they’ll get better extra curricular at an independent school.

Coming from Inverness where there weren’t any private schools and the kids who were from wealthy families generally went to school with everyone else it does seem a bit strange to me. One thing about that is that the schools that we had in Inverness were generally all pretty good and certainly didn’t disadvantage anyone. One of my mates has a local high school where they literally had no kids pass a Higher in the latest year of reporting. There are some primary schools near me where 70% of the kids are listed as having additional learning needs. I can see why people think they don’t want their kids going to a school in that environment but does this not just cause further gaps between these schools and lead to social stratification?

[coprolite]

59 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

I know a few people who send their kids to private schools and I’ve always thought they are a bit of a waste of money. A few of my colleagues have put themselves out financially to afford to send kids private, I just don’t think that’s worth it. Children from encouraging homes whose parents value education will do as well in most local authority schools, although maybe they’ll get better extra curricular at an independent school.

Coming from Inverness where there weren’t any private schools and the kids who were from wealthy families generally went to school with everyone else it does seem a bit strange to me. One thing about that is that the schools that we had in Inverness were generally all pretty good and certainly didn’t disadvantage anyone. One of my mates has a local high school where they literally had no kids pass a Higher in the latest year of reporting. There are some primary schools near me where 70% of the kids are listed as having additional learning needs. I can see why people think they don’t want their kids going to a school in that environment but does this not just cause further gaps between these schools and lead to social stratification?
 

The last point is absolutely the fundamental problem.

Choices that make sense for individual parents / children lead to worse outcomes for the worse off. 

I don't think it's realistic to expect supportive parents to send their kids to a school where they will do worse and where they have a choice. 

It should be obvious that having a socially immobile underclass will breed resentment and disengagement with society. It should be obvious that having a system which can be gamed by wealthy morons will lead to inadequate people in positions of power. 

Education is a social good as well as a private one and should be provided in a way to benefit society as a whole. 

As this is a collective action problem the responsibility falls squarely on the state to do this. 

[Monkey Tennis]

One difficulty is that people equate 'schools where pupils perform better' with 'better schools'.  

It's really not necessarily the case at all that an individual will perform better academically in a school where more pupils do. 

I'm not pretending there can't possibly be a link at either extreme.  For the most part in state schools though, you really can't look at exam league tables and draw conclusions about how your own kid's prospects will be affected by attending one school rather than another.  Factors in his or her wider life (not least at home) will have a far greater impact.

[Clockwork]

Not changed views I think it's highlighted the go to Uni or bust attitude of a lot of young people and their families. I was very nearly forced into going to Uni by my school and one teacher offered to fill out my application on UCAS for me in the last week of the application process being open. 
Thankfully a lot more work is going into "positive destinations" if they could increase that and ditch league tables we would be in a better place. 

Very much this, the ‘Uni or bust’ has become a straightjacket for many School leavers that offers no choice at all.
The widening participation agenda has undoubtedly had a positive effect on the number of students entering Higher Education from previously under represented backgrounds. Lower income families, students with disabilities and those from a minority ethnic background for example. However with almost one in three, 18 year olds now heading to University there is also an argument; to support the contention that 3 years at Uni has for many, become just as much of a lifestyle choice as a career pathway for students right across the socio-economic spectrum.
Are we truly preparing a future workforce matched to employer need and economic growth and have we abandoned genuine trade ‘time served’ apprenticeships? Our over reliance on the service economy (filled with expensive but inexperienced, over qualified graduates) has been horribly exposed during the C19 Health Epidemic. It’s time to press the reset button for me, and ensure all major employers are closely aligned to some 140 HEI’s in the UK (as in Germany), to ensure that a University eduction actually delivers a proper career structure for ALL graduates. We might also benefit from the value of applied research in commerce and industry and a much more structured approach to post-graduate study?
We should also, where possible, make a six month relevant work based placement mandatory for University students in order that they have at least some ‘real work experience’ in addition to their graduate qualification on their CV. The sausage machine approach of forcing as many students as possible into higher education isn’t working and at worst is setting up young people to fail before they really get started, this doesn’t include the *huge debts they have also accrued in the meantime by the way. (*England, Wales & subsidised fees in NI).

[ICTChris]

One difficulty is that people equate 'schools where pupils perform better' with 'better schools'.  
It's really not necessarily the case at all that an individual will perform better academically in a school where more pupils do. 
I'm not pretending there can't possibly be a link at either extreme.  For the most part in state schools though, you really can't look at exam league tables and draw conclusions about how your own kid's prospects will be affected by attending one school rather than another.  Factors in his or her wider life (not least at home) will have a far greater impact.

One fact I’ve discovered in this whole episode is that state school pupils do better at University than private school pupils - higher proportion of firsts anyway.

My wife is a teacher and has taught at quite a few schools, including some very highly ranked ones in Edinburgh. All had good and bad aspects to them but you are clearly in a better position if the kids are motivated by education and it’s valued.

[Hedgecutter]

Although status undoubtedly plays a part, I had always been under the impression that part of sending kids to expensive private schools was to significantly reduce the chance of their kids mingling with the schemies, who  can't afford the tuition fees and are more likely to under-perform for a variety of reasons.  Even if the standard of teaching wasn't any different, going private would significantly reduce the risk of your child getting involved with  'the wrong crowd' and potentially under-performing as a result of this.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

On 14/08/2020 at 10:54, invergowrie arab said:

, whittle a spear and how to trap squirrels.

Any more information this bit?

[Turkmenbashi]

4 minutes ago, Hedgecutter said:

Although status undoubtedly plays a part, I had always been under the impression that part of sending kids to expensive private schools was to significantly reduce the chance of their kids mingling with the schemies, who  can't afford the tuition fees and are more likely to under-perform for a variety of reasons.  Even if the standard of teaching wasn't any different, going private would significantly reduce the risk of your child getting involved with  'the wrong crowd' and potentially under-performing as a result of this.

Adding to this I think it's all about networking as well right from a young age. So you know all correct people when you grow to help get and good jobs and marry the right types.

[D.A.F.C]

It is a disadvantage to not go but looking back at school the only thing that stopped me from getting straight A's was myself.
Yes the teachers and some of the facilities were shite but I believe anyone can do it if they really apply themselves.
I don't like the snobbery and selection process though when it comes to certain schools you will get into posh universities easier than you would going to state schools.
You shouldn't get more of a chance because you have more money but life isn't fair. Same with private healthcare.

[Hedgecutter]

2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

One difficulty is that people equate 'schools where pupils perform better' with 'better schools'.  

It's really not necessarily the case at all that an individual will perform better academically in a school where more pupils do. 

Absolutely.  I feel that the high school that I attended is a good example as there was a wide catchment area in which villages were either nice or a former-mining shitehole (with very little middle ground).  Those from the villages-of-the-damned very, very rarely made it beyond Standard Grade, whilst going on to Higher and beyond was seen as standard for the majority of those from the nicer places, despite being taught by the same teachers.  If you were to nuke these specific mining villages then the school would undoubtedly rocket up the league table in a single year. 

Edited August 15, 2020 by Hedgecutter

[ICTChris]

Although status undoubtedly plays a part, I had always been under the impression that part of sending kids to expensive private schools was to significantly reduce the chance of their kids mingling with the schemies, who  can't afford the tuition fees and are more likely to under-perform for a variety of reasons.  Even if the standard of teaching wasn't any different, going private would significantly reduce the risk of your child getting involved with  'the wrong crowd' and potentially under-performing as a result of this.

I think that’s part of it, definitely. Some people are obsessed that passing Senga McGlinchey in the corridor on the way to double Maths is going to turn their little darling into Pete Doherty. As above though, where I came from there were no private schools so all the rich kids went to the same school as the mad kids and I don’t think many of them ended up doing an Icarus and living in a Council flat in Hilton.

I’ve often thought the ‘wrong crowd’ is a strange phrase - does anyone ever say that they themselves are part of the wrong crowd it’s always a group that someone falls into.

[101]

18 minutes ago, Clockwork said:

 

Very much this, the ‘Uni or bust’ has become a straightjacket for many School leavers that offers no choice at all.
The widening participation agenda has undoubtedly had a positive effect on the number of students entering Higher Education from previously under represented backgrounds. Lower income families, students with disabilities and those from a minority ethnic background for example. However with almost one in three, 18 year olds now heading to University there is also an argument; to support the contention that 3 years at Uni has for many, become just as much of a lifestyle choice as a career pathway for students right across the socio-economic spectrum.
Are we truly preparing a future workforce matched to employer need and economic growth and have we abandoned genuine trade ‘time served’ apprenticeships? Our over reliance on the service economy (filled with expensive but inexperienced, over qualified graduates) has been horribly exposed during the C19 Health Epidemic. It’s time to press the reset button for me, and ensure all major employers are closely aligned to some 140 HEI’s in the UK (as in Germany), to ensure that a University eduction actually delivers a proper career structure for ALL graduates. We might also benefit from the value of applied research in commerce and industry and a much more structured approach to post-graduate study?
We should also, where possible, make a six month relevant work based placement mandatory for University students in order that they have at least some ‘real work experience’ in addition to their graduate qualification on their CV. The sausage machine approach of forcing as many students as possible into higher education isn’t working and at worst is setting up young people to fail before they really get started, this doesn’t include the *huge debts they have also accrued in the meantime by the way. (*England, Wales & subsidised fees in NI).

 

I totally agree with the above but would add increasing the apprentice minimum wage using a government top up to its actually a wage you can live on and also stopping companies using it a free labour. For example this is just cheap labour New Look aren't going to heavily invest in you

15 minutes ago, Hedgecutter said:

Although status undoubtedly plays a part, I had always been under the impression that part of sending kids to expensive private schools was to significantly reduce the chance of their kids mingling with the schemies, who  can't afford the tuition fees and are more likely to under-perform for a variety of reasons.  Even if the standard of teaching wasn't any different, going private would significantly reduce the risk of your child getting involved with  'the wrong crowd' and potentially under-performing as a result of this.

I guess you mean the wrong crowd who commit violent or blue collar crime. I would guess the majority or fraud, money laundering, tax evasion have a number of privately educated people involved

[NotThePars]

3 hours ago, ICTChris said:

I can see why people think they don’t want their kids going to a school in that environment but does this not just cause further gaps between these schools and lead to social stratification?

Who gives a shit when you're in the tent pissing out

[Monkey Tennis]

18 minutes ago, Hedgecutter said:

Although status undoubtedly plays a part, I had always been under the impression that part of sending kids to expensive private schools was to significantly reduce the chance of their kids mingling with the schemies, who  can't afford the tuition fees and are more likely to under-perform for a variety of reasons.  Even if the standard of teaching wasn't any different, going private would significantly reduce the risk of your child getting involved with  'the wrong crowd' and potentially under-performing as a result of this.

There is a social aspect, and it has an academic dimension to it too, but it's often overstated.

If a pupil spends much of her secondary education in classes where there are disciplinary issues aplenty, and weak students reduce the pace and nature of content, it doesn't require a big leap to see that as less conducive to success than an environment in which most kids value what's going on and wish to succeed.

However, the biggest factors influencing her progress will have much less to do with such things than with the home she comes from.

 

It's an absolute myth to suggest that the best management and teaching is provided in the schools with the best performing pupils though.  In my (by definition, admittedly narrow) experience, a case could just as readily be constructed to argue the opposite.

[ICTChris]

Who gives a shit when you're in the tent pissing out

 

I think that eventually something will have to be done to tackle some of these issues. The two schools in Edinburgh that have the worst results (WHEC and Castlebrae) are both due to be closed in the next few years, both have small rolls (300 and 190) and will probably be merged into larger schools. The changing demographics and housing situations in Edinburgh mean that there are going to have to be changes in secondary schooling in a lot of places, with a move to larger schools in the pipeline. Not sure that’s a good thing either though.