Positive discrimination being battled by public schools Post Reply

[Mistletoe]

Hi
I know this is contentious but I do think it's an important point, I think it is dreadfully unfair that hardworking Indy school pupils are punishedfor getting a good education.

If state is so good why are the Indy kids doing so much better

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/un ... ycott.html

[Gayville]

Sorry but I find it hard to feel any sympathy whatsoever for the fact that private school pupils are allegedly being discriminated against. Without doubt former private school pupils continue to dominate in most fields, from journalism to the law, politics and industry. Only 7% of children in the UK attend private school, yet they are still hugely over represented in most areas of influence and privilege. The one thing that would instantly create a fairer society and increase social mobility would be the abolition of private schools. Come the revolution......!

[wasateacher]

One justification for universities positively discriminating in favour of state educated pupils is that research demonstrated that, given the same "A" level results, a state educated pupil is likely to get a better class of degree. It could be argued that the state system is better at preparing students for independent learning. In this case, universities would be right to discriminate. When looking at the future needs of the country, we do not need people who are good at being crammed - we need disciplined but creative thinking.

It was also true that overall GCSE results were a better predictor of success at university.

[coldatchristmas]

I find it sad and a rather British disease that when we have something that works so well (e.g. independent schools, top flight universities) we immediately want to crush them as opposed to saying "lets make state schools so good that there is no advantage".

If you're serious about getting rid of indy schools it is really really really easy.

Make state schools so **** good that no-one wants to pay 15k per year to send their kids to an indy one.

But the lefties don't want to do that.

It's elitist and doesn't fit with their principles unless it's their own kids like Dianne Abbot http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/di ... ate-230293

Honestly its jaw droppingly awful.

Imagine us asking for a head start against Usain Bolt in the Olympics because he trained better.

The real world answer is to make your own schools better so there is no advantage but I suppose that also doesn't work other Dianne Abbot wouldn't have anywhere to send her own kids to make them higher achievers than her constituents own kids.

[Gayville]

But independent schools don't work well for society as a whole; they may work well for those children who are fortunate enough to have parents who can afford to pay the extortionate fees, but it just reinforces and perpetuates the old boys network to the detriment of those who don't belong.
If private schools were abolished overnight, then EVERYONE would have a vested interest in improving our state schools, not just those who can't afford to go private, which would go a huge way to improving social mobility in this country, which has actually decreased in the past few years. The gulf between rich and poor is getting ever wider, and our education system is part of the problem.

[coldatchristmas]

Ok.

So overnight we abolish the private schools.

Then we don't have the best and brightest in society going to the great universities.

So those places go to foreign nationals (if you think Oxford University is going to accept muppets on it's world leading courses then you're mistaken. )

The places on their PPE and law courses will be filled with the brightest Europeans, Americans, Chinese, Russians and everyone else except us)

Then all the best jobs are filled by non-UK nationals.

Then we will see the UK economy contract and stall in a mass of mediocrity but at least we're all in it together.

We now work on a global stage, the only way to succeed it to be the very best we can in education and that means LIFTING the state sector not punishing the indy sector for being so bloody good.

Get some backbone, get some ambition and do state better, don't cripple that which is so brilliant.

Ready2pop mentioned in an earlier thread that she went to a state school but also went to a top university, brilliant. Some more of that please!

Watch out for next week when we insist everyone buys a Lada and doesn't drive a BMW because it's unfair!

[Wheresmyschool?]

But it is unfair. Not everyone can afford the independent sector

[coldatchristmas]

SO. MAKE. STATE. EDUCATION. BETTER.

[Gayville]

You are making a very big assumption by saying that the brightest and best in society only attend private schools, and that somehow if these shining stars had to go to state schools they wouldn't be able to compete with foreigners. Why wouldn't they? If they're so brilliant they should be able to thrive in any environment, not just being molly coddled in the private sector.
And as I've said before, one of the most effective ways of improving state schools if to get rid of the private sector! Then all that energy and investment from middle class/anxious parents will be focused in the state sector. No way would these parents send little Atticus and Persephone to a school that wasn't up to scratch, so they would have a huge vested interest in improving state schools. And I say this as a parent with one child at state school and the other in an independent school!

[coldatchristmas]

Hi
Ok so lets say I do what you say.

I abolish all the indy schools.

Then no-one gets into the great universities.

Is that what you want?

[Gayville]

I don't understand why you think students won't get into the best universities if we got rid of private schools? If those same kids who currently went to Eton/Harrow etc were suddenly forced out of their ivory towers and into the state sector, WHY wouldn't they be capable of getting into Oxbridge?

[coldatchristmas]

They won't get in because right now they don't get in.

They simply do not have the exam results in the state sector.

A good friend of mine has a son who is on a "fast track" to Oxford at a top public school. He has a tutorial twice a week with four other children who are also "on track" and they are taught to approach analytical thinking in a particular way.

He is LOWER sixth, he will have over one year of this before he walks in the door for this interview/exam.

Is he any brighter than the kids at Graveny? No.

Does he stand a better chance? Yes

Where will "his" place go if he doesn't succeed?

Not sure but it could go overseas and then we have lost an massive educational opportunity overseas which has a negative effect on our economy.

We need to think BIG, accept that we now compete in a global world and raise standards, not hold people back

[BalhamMumWorkingFT]

The state can't afford to educate everyone anyway. Private schools take a huge burden off of state schools... We don't have enough places anyway!

Just because you go to a top university doesn't mean you get a top job... and just because you go to private school doesn't mean you get into a top university.

I think it is all just political rambling. We should all support our local state schools as making them better does a great deal for the community, kids future, etc... whether or not we have kids there. And we should be happy there are private options so the state schools don't end up being over burdened.

[wasateacher]

The arguments so far presuppose that private schools are actually better than state schools. Where, exactly, is the evidence for this? There is none. Just as in the state sector, some private schools are good, some are appalling. It is likely that, because they are private, the worst private schools are far worse than the worst of the state sector, which is monitored.

Looking at the analysis of exam results for 2010/11 (2011/12 not released yet), one of the differences between private schools and the state sector is the proportion of students entered for exams. In state comprehensives over 97% are entered for KS4 exams, whereas in independent schools only 89% are entered. Given that, by their nature, independent schools are selective, it is possible that independent schools do not enter students who are likely to to achieve a grade. Only 94% achieve any grade at all in independents against 100% in comprehensives. This implies that any independent school which claims, say 90% 5 A*-C including English and Maths, could be referring only to those entered, not to the the whole cohort.

Cutting it short (!!!!) this means that those who use published results as a way of judging a school need to be aware. The answer in a crossword the other day was caveat emptor!!!!

[wasateacher]

sorry, in the stats quoted the 97% refers to those entered for 5 A*-Cs, 100 % are entered for some exams and get some qualification. This is against the equivalent figures of 89% and 94% in independents.