Take two children, and educate them by the same teacher. They will not be educated to the same level because the children will be different in their ability to learn etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Printable View
Take two children, and educate them by the same teacher. They will not be educated to the same level because the children will be different in their ability to learn etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
You're comparing the endpoints without any reference to the starting points.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
Private schools are usually academically selective and demand a financial commitment over statefunded schools. Therefore there is instant recruitment bias with private school pupils likely to come from families that are wealthier, have a higher socioeconomic origin and have a culture that values education over state schools. All of these are independent positive predictive factors for academic success.
The question is how much value does a private school add to its pupils? Is that over and above that of a state school? If the private and state schools you refer to swapped pupils would the private school still outperform the state? Evidence from the UK where there are partially academically selective state schools indicates that the gap is far far less than you would imagine even though spending per pupil is less for state schools.
Bingo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
The lesson is that the government is lousy at running a business.
Bingo? You clearly did not understand my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
Claiming that private schools are inherently better than state schools because of academic results whilst continuously ignoring the rather different types of pupils they admit is worthless. I'm surprised you yourself if you switched from a state to a private school did not notice the cross-section of society your pupils were drawn from, and whether this in itself had a larger influence on your school's academic achievements than the way in which they were funded, run or indeed your qualities as a teacher.
As per Malbec's response above, this remark is utterly unrelated to the post to which it refers. It's also a spectacular generalisation, just as it would be to say that the government is automatically superior to the private sector when it comes to running businesses. One could cite many examples in the UK of privatisation having in no way brought about improved service — far from it. By the same token, I wouldn't want the state to start building cars, or selling coffee.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
To say nothing of all the other factors that may be involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
This is a very good point, and one on which many would agree. It was often said that Tony Blair used reshuffles simply as a means of exercising patronage, rather than putting the right people in the right positions, trying to keep some degree of continuity and so forth. Constant reshuffles are almost a guarantee of poor government.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
The one caveat is that people who are good at one thing, whether it be teaching, business or whatever, may — and often do — turn out to be poor politicians.
There are a number of reasons why state schools have a basic disadvantage to private schools. Few of them have much to do with money.
State schools are required to take all comers. That's regardless of innate intelligence; emotional stability; previous preparation; family support, or anything else. And they have a very hard time getting rid of the disruptive students,
State schools, at least here, are controlled by the teacher unions. The result is that the culture is more about job protection rather than education. There is very high opposition to requirements for job performance in order to remain employed. A typical situation in government jobs. Further, the path of monetary advancement for teachers lies in moving to school administration where job justification prevails and there is zero desire to change the system. I'm not saying that all teachers and administrators are worthless drones, just that far too many are - and you can't get rid of them.
Since state schools must tale all comers, and because left wingers who control much of the educational establishment find it abhorrent that anyone would dream of saying that all people are not equally smart, motivated and capable of advanced learning, teachers are forced to teach at the level of the slower students in a class. Too bad about the smarter students who would be miles ahead if taught at their actual capability. Over here, the no child left behind legislation has resulted in the real world of teaching to the test rather than real learning.
State schools are not allowed to discipline, in any effective way, troubled / trouble maker students. In many ways the parents of these children have instilled no sense of respect or discipline in their kids. Some of those kids are pretty bright but have no real future. That's because students only spend six to eight hours a day at school. That's thirty to forty hours a week. The other one hundred thirty eight hours they spend in the environment that created their bad learning habits and bad behavior in the first place.
State schools, again being controlled by left wing unions, refuse to recognize that all people are NOT created equal. Some are smarter, some less so; some have different interests; some learn at a different pace or in different ways; most have different skills and temperaments. If you had to pick one place where "one size fits all" does NOT apply, education would be very high on the list.
There's lots of other factors too, these were just a few that quickly came to mind.
All of the above points need to be qualified by saying (a) that they pertain to the US — many of them are not a picture I recognise from the UK — and that they are matters of personal opinion. With that in mind, here are some British perspectives on them.
Whereas, of course, in the private sector one never comes across anyone of less than outstanding competence, does one? I know this isn't what you're saying directly, but it's (at least in part) implied. Just because private companies can perhaps fire people more easily doesn't mean that they do, and I'd be sure that this is the case in many private/public (in the British sense) schools, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Just those left-wingers who 'control much of the educational establishment', or left-wingers generally? If the latter, you're completely wrong, and paint an easy caricature. I class myself as left-wing, and disagree completely with the situation you describe. Not everyone of a like-minded political viewpoint thinks the same way on everything, you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Not the case in the UK, where disciplinary proecdures have, as far as I know, been toughened up. And I must say I wonder whether your view of what constitutes 'effective' might be somewhat at odds with expert opinion. Exclusion isn't the answer, certainly, and it also needs saying that not every troubled child will respond well to the same forms of discipline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Indeed, but what's the solution to that? I take it you wouldn't care for increased state interference in the lives of these families, yet how else is one meant positively to influence that negative environment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Yes, with that last sentence I agree, but any suggestion that it's impossible for the bright to thrive in the state sector is hugely misguided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
Of course I wasn't saying that, nor was it implied. What I was saying is that public schools have a much, much more difficult time purging under performing teachers.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Why can't I paint all left wingers with the same broad brush? You do it all the time here toward the other side. :pQuote:
Just those left-wingers who 'control much of the educational establishment', or left-wingers generally? If the latter, you're completely wrong, and paint an easy caricature. I class myself as left-wing, and disagree completely with the situation you describe. Not everyone of a like-minded political viewpoint thinks the same way on everything, you know.
When I say "effective", I mean in a way which clears the situation to allow the other students to learn. Exclusion is certainly one answer that shouldn't be excluded :D , but like the teaching the remedy should be tailored to the situation.Quote:
Not the case in the UK, where disciplinary proecdures have, as far as I know, been toughened up. And I must say I wonder whether your view of what constitutes 'effective' might be somewhat at odds with expert opinion. Exclusion isn't the answer, certainly, and it also needs saying that not every troubled child will respond well to the same forms of discipline.
I was responding to your comment about the difference between public and private education being about money, not proposing a solution.Quote:
Indeed, but what's the solution to that? I take it you wouldn't care for increased state interference in the lives of these families, yet how else is one meant positively to influence that negative environment?
Agree, anything is possible, but the system is less likely to provide a good outcome in public school.Quote:
Yes, with that last sentence I agree, but any suggestion that it's impossible for the bright to thrive in the state sector is hugely misguided.