Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Private schools (in the UK)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by johnr View Post
    I can't see why having loads of money, and the desire to spend it on education, guarantees a parent that their child, and the ones that they are taught alongside, aren't 'disruptive twats'
    Because the disciplinary regime of a public school is based on the fact that they have no obligation to teach any individual pupil.

    Comment


      Originally posted by NickSTFU View Post
      'Disruptive twats' can be dealt with though with the right behaviour management policy backed by a strong SLT.

      I visited a school a couple of weeks ago where 'disruptive twats' lasted on average 10 minutes before being removed to the exclusion unit and emails/texts sent to parent/carers.
      There's a difference between low level disruption and high level though. It's harder to deal with the former, which can be cumulatively more damaging than a kid dramatically kicking off in a way that clearly requires an intervention.

      Comment


        My apologies if I misunderstood. I took the earlier posts as meaning that the reason that parents paid for their kids to go private was because there are less 'disruptive twats' in them.

        Comment


          That is what they meant, I thought. Not much to do with poverty though.

          If you move your kids into the private sector because you're worried about disruption, it doesn't matter to you whether the kids doing the disrupting are the offspring of the destitute or of a marquess.
          Last edited by Lucy Waterman; 04-11-2018, 10:24.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Lucy Waterman View Post
            There's a difference between low level disruption and high level though. It's harder to deal with the former, which can be cumulatively more damaging than a kid dramatically kicking off in a way that clearly requires an intervention.
            Not with a robust behaviour management policy and strong support from SLT it isn't, with clear expectations from both staff and pupils/student/staff.

            The school I visited the other week had 4 levels of behaviour management. So, low level disruptive behaviour can quickly escalate to internal exclusion. I thought it very effective and so did the pupils I talked to.

            Where I work, we use the 3 strikes policy.

            Comment


              That's interesting Nick, thanks.

              Comment


                Oh. Here’s a thing.

                A high proportion of Mrs H’s private school pupils receive extra exam time due to a variety of seemingly dubious medical conditions.

                Many of these kids have parents who are doctors.

                Just sayin’.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Lucy Waterman View Post
                  I know a few, but would caveat it in the same way as Kevin.

                  Oh, and Diane, of course. And Corbyn’s exwife.
                  Pretty sure it's a constituency labour can be fairly relaxed about pissing off. Not least cos I'd venture a lot of these people live in big cities where labour has massive majorities.

                  Comment


                    Or in Surrey, where it's totally irrelevant.

                    I've long wanted to write something about George Pargiter, the only Labour MP ever to represent part of (what is now) Surrey.
                    Last edited by Lucy Waterman; 04-11-2018, 12:28.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by HORN View Post

                      We can dress that up with phrases such as “smaller class sizes”, “experienced teaching staff” and so on but in essence that’s airy-fairy bollocks. A regular private school of the sort Central Rain describes is no more and no less than a “disruptive twat free zone”.
                      Sorry, what name is Central Rain posting under now?

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Evariste Euler Gauss View Post
                        No, it means disruptive twats. Is that a tricky concept to understand or do you just want to be pointlessly provocative? Were there no disruptive kids in your classes at school? In some of the classes my wife teaches, there are one or two kids, sometimes ring=leading a small group of others, who are massively disruptive trouble makers who prevent the other kids from getting most of the teaching they are supposed to be getting.
                        Yes, I apologise if I misread what the posts intended.

                        There were indeed some very disruptive kids in my school - it was said to be one of the 'worst' 5 in ILEA, and we even had our own Panorama special at one point. (I went back to teach there, and those disruptive kids took a fair chunk out of me too.) I still don't see why somebody else, on account of having more money than my family, should be able to get a 'better' education than me though.
                        Last edited by johnr; 04-11-2018, 14:20.

                        Comment


                          First of all, there is a great deal that can and is being done about low-level disruption. Ofsted, over the last 5 years, has targeted it as the main course of lost teaching and learning time and, as such, schools are cracking down on it in the manner that Nick is talking about. It is, of course, not always effective but, there again, I wouldn't imagine it is in private schools. However, with smaller class sizes, better teacher/pupil ratios and, to an extent, better resources, there is a better chance for low-level behaviour management. Having said that, you are not telling me that those who ended up in the Bullingdon Club, for example, weren't 'disruptive twats'.

                          Also, this idea of 'disruptive twats' who have to be avoided is, of course, a massive shallow generalisation. Many 'disruptive twats' have SEN issues - often complex sets of many -, abusive, chaotic, unsupportive home lives, live in poverty or a combination of all. Having taught thousands of children and in over 60 schools, I would say, anecdotally of course, that the amount of ''disruptive twats" who are that way due to pure, for want of a better term, devilry are negligible. Of those that are, their parents were often teachers and social workers, as it happens, make of that what you will. Give me a slide rule and some time and I could show you workings that many of the behaviour issues are actually caused by an increasingly unequal society and atomised education system that, in turn, is a result of a school system that divides and has divided children by class, religion, gender, parental income and academic selection.

                          Of course, many parents will look just at the welfare of their own children and say that it is not their problem what reason these children decide to be disruptive and that they are going to just take their children away from them. However, as I mention before, this atomisation is possibly unhealthy for their children themselves in terms of their holistic development but worse for society as a whole. Society and, especially, public services are there to look after the whole population above and beyond the self-centred wishes of the individuals. Well, in theory, anyway.

                          Comment


                            You get one shot at an education. Disruptive twats, bad management decisions, whatever, have a lifetime legacy. I really don't buy the idea that putting your children in with disruptive and disrupted kids has some intangible benefit that offsets any detriment to your education.

                            Further to JohnR's question, ime the disruptive twats - the most violent bullies, the ones who brought drugs into school, the ones who threatened teachers - were disproportionately off the council estate. I don't know how that gets solved. Maybe the strategies outlined above. But it's getting on for 30 years since I was at school and these problems are still endemic.
                            Last edited by Patrick Thistle; 04-11-2018, 20:21.

                            Comment


                              It had an intangible - ok, tangible - benefit to me, but I recognise that that's anecdotal.

                              The problems are indeed endemic, and structural. I'm just not sure that some people being able to buy their way out of them is to the greater good of all of us.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post
                                You get one shot at an education.
                                I don't think that's true at all.

                                Life long learning and all that. I shared an English GCSE class with retired people.

                                I currently work with young people on engineering apprenticeships who are achieving level 3 maths, despite under achieving at school in the subject.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post
                                  You get one shot at an education.
                                  No you don't. I got an MA at 58 and a PhD at 64. After leaving school at 16 with one GCE 'O' level. It's really not that uncommon.

                                  Comment


                                    Alright. You get one shot at school education. You all know what I mean.

                                    If the 11 years from 5-16 turn out to be a bust then you really have your work cut out to catch up. And if that wasted time was wasted on your behalf by other people then that's just your bad luck.
                                    Last edited by Patrick Thistle; 04-11-2018, 21:24.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by Patrick Thistle View Post
                                      If the 11 years from 5-16 turn out to be a bust then you really have your work cut out.
                                      I don't think you do at all. See my comment above, and I certainly didn't.

                                      Comment


                                        I don't want to take this thread off point but for a lot of people it is their one shot at education and I stand by my revised statement that you get one go at school. Trying to make up for a poor education later in life is admirable but not everyone can do that. And a lot don't.

                                        Comment


                                          It is indeed one shot as you describe, PT. These days. I couldn't afford to go back into education after 18.

                                          For me, it doesn't justify being able to buy your way out of what most people go through at school age.

                                          Comment


                                            Actually, the one thing I think that has improved over the last three or four decades is the opportunities for people to return to education when it is right for them and they are right for it. I went back to college at 43 to do an Access course and many of the people I was on the course with didn't have GCSEs but, within a year long course, were not only going to have the equivalent of GCSEs and A-Levels enough to embark upon a degree but, in practice, were better prepared for University than those that had done the route of GCSEs and A-levels. There were many reasons for this - maturity, the commitment needed to go back to education, more experience informing choices of further and higher education, experience out in the 'real world' of what was needed in University etc. Whatever, universities really welcomed mature students from Access courses and, bear in mind, many of these mature students started the Access course at 19 so even a year or two's more maturity and experience helped. Not only this but I have noticed that, for kids of Bored Jr's age (18), there are many opportunities, should they wish to take them, to take GCSEs that they haven't got. This is, of course, not least down to the fact that they can't enter work until they are 18 but, at least, the opportunities are there and, for some students, from 16-18 is when they grow up and tackle down to work.

                                            ime the disruptive twats - the most violent bullies, the ones who brought drugs into school, the ones who threatened teachers - were disproportionately off the council estate. I don't know how that gets solved. Maybe the strategies outlined above. But it's getting on for 30 years since I was at school and these problems are still endemic.
                                            Sorry, I am calling this as bullshit. Sorry to do the "Show me your medals" but having been involved in education for a decade through being a school governor, volunteer, Education Studies graduate and, ultimately, supply teacher to, it bears repeating, over a thousand kids and 70+ schools in rural Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Somerset and inner-city Bristol and Swindon from nursery right up to 18 year olds in behavioural schools, I can say that those sorts of kids can come from anywhere. I am quite happy to stand corrected on this but it is going to take a fuck-off massive bit of evidence.

                                            Even if your statement was true, your point about 'I don't know how that gets solved' can be partly answered by not having a two, three maybe four tier education system that further increases inequality and division in society.

                                            Comment


                                              Originally posted by Ray de Galles View Post
                                              Sorry, what name is Central Rain posting under now?
                                              He’s still Central Rain. He posted much earlier on this thread.

                                              Comment


                                                After two weeks in the special needs school mentioned upthread, the demographics of schools at the other end of the scale are stark. Like most such schools, boys outnumber girls massively. In this particular school, BME pupils are represented hugely disproportionately. Add to this that, nationally, children from poor families are twice as likely to have special needs, SEN pupils are over six times more likely to receive a permanent exclusion and that a black Caribbean boy with SEN and receiving free school meals is 168 times more likely to be permanently excluded than a white British girl without SEN and you can see which parts of society are at the shitty end of the education stick.

                                                Comment


                                                  Labour - to the horror of the Telegraph, who got leaked a strategy paper - are apparently considering a VAT charge on private schools, which would cost them 1.6 billion. I hope that this idea doesn't make it to the manifesto, as Labour really should be committing to abolishing them altogether.

                                                  Comment


                                                    sex pistols earworm

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X