Britain - The Official Thread

[baldgye]

Subjects that require an understanding to grasp need to take precedence over those that either teach worthless information or simply require memorising things for the sake of passing exams. Without context some subjects are wasted on kids that have no experience of life. Some subjects should be abandoned, such as any form of religious studies, some should merged into other subjects, like History, for example. Art, Geography, Language.. they all need a total rethink in the way they are taught... some things have no value without context, and in life, it can often be that the you don't get the context of what you learned until 20 years later - by which time, you've forgotten it and wish you'd studied harder. I'm nearly 40, I still can't remember which is a Verb, Noun or Adjective, yet I've seen, read, read, and experienced Shakespeare's Twelfth Night a number of times over. I had to study Physics at college to understand why Maths I'd learned 10 years prior was relevant. Subjects should be taught with context, not pigeon holed under a curriculum heading.

Understanding should always be more important than remembering.. I believe that's fundamental... but, on top of that, we need to start teaching kids important life stuff. PARENTS need to be encouraging and taking responsibilty for some of the creative developmental stuff, not schools... it takes a teacher to impart the finer points of science into children... it doesn't need a teacher to give a kid a selection of paints and pencils. Why the **** did I have to learned about the repealing of the corn laws at high school... yet I wasn't taught how our democracy came about. Why did I read Chaucer instead of learning critical thinking? Why aren't you taught about interest rates in maths, yet you're expected to sign on the dotted line for nearly all major life purchases as though you've read and understand the small print.

Trying to employ young people for semi-skilled jobs has been one of the most depressing, and yet eye-opening, tasks of my adult life.

I'm ranting a bit now, I probably haven't answered your question, sorry.... I'm really tired.

I think rather than the school system being changed, peoples approach needs changing. State schools are over subscribed and under funded. I had the opportunity through my parents to experience state primary school, private primary school, state high school and private secondary school. The difference was the class size.

You cannot teach some 30+ children who all learn in unique and different ways, who all come from different backgrounds and experiences the same way en-mass. Yet this is what we suppose is the 'normal' way to be educated. State education should be for those who live on benefits, should be for those who are at the very bottom of society, yet it is not, it's the standard.
Growing up I had zero foreign holidays because all my parents money was spend on me and my brothers education, with class sizes of 10-15 max (this was a topic of hot debate as 15 was far too large). The teaches where by-enlarge the same, but they where empowered by parents who trusted the school (as they were paying for it) and because they could connect and actually teach each child, rather than dictating en mass.
Another issue with the state system is the days, school days finish around 3:30, how can you ever hope to teach anything like enough meaningful life changing things, when you are having to dictate to 30+ individuals and you don't even have a full day to do it in?

While I can see the argument for changing around the way things are taught, the fundamental state education system is broken. It's no longer a crux for the poor, it is the standard level for the nation and it simply isn't good enough.
Parents have been generally appalling in the last couple of decades. The government has had to bring in legislation in to stop parents from taking their children out of school! Can you imagine such a fundamental failing of your single job as a parent, thinking that a cheap trip to Spain for the week is preferential to your child's education, something that'll impact, their entire life!?


The approach that "well it was good enough for me" is to be wilfully ignorant of the world in which that person lives and to also suggest that their children don't or shouldn't have the best opportunities (again, failing as a parent).

 

[TenEightyOne]

You cannot teach some 30+ children who all learn in unique and different ways, who all come from different backgrounds and experiences the same way en-mass. Yet this is what we suppose is the 'normal' way to be educated.

Absolutely.

State education should be for those who live on benefits, should be for those who are at the very bottom of society, yet it is not, it's the standard.

I can't agree with that though. State education should be a good, solid education for all those who attend it. Otherwise we're back to the insane days of Burt and his imaginary collaborators.

 

[baldgye]

I can't agree with that though. State education should be a good, solid education for all those who attend it. Otherwise we're back to the insane days of Burt and his imaginary collaborators.

It is, but a ‘good/solid’ education shouldn’t be good enough. Parents should want, demand and work for the best possible education that they can provide. Rather than 2-3 family holidays to Spain a year, Sky TV a nice car...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Rather than 2-3 family holidays to Spain a year, Sky TV a nice car...

How many terms does the value of those cover, presuming it's all paid in one?

 

[baldgye]

How many terms does the value of those cover, presuming it's all paid in one?

Would depend on the school, but you’d be surprised.

A family of 4, going abroad 2-3 times a year and Sky TV over the course of a child’s school life would cover probably a decent education even if it was just for secondary or primary school.

My parents managed it and so did many others at my school, bear in mind my school was a public school and on the upper level. Parents can do it, they choose not too.

Edit: for context education is something I’m pretty passionate about. I plan on moving to centeral Europe so my children can literally have the best education available.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Would depend on the school, but you’d be surprised.

A family of 4, going abroad 2-3 times a year and Sky TV over the course of a child’s school life would cover probably a decent education even if it was just for secondary or primary school.

My parents managed it and so did many others at my school, bear in mind my school was a public school and on the upper level. Parents can do it, they choose not too.

Hmm, my local public school would cost about £240,000 £120,000 over a 4 year period (including board), that's more than simply a parental choice.

edited: Maths fail... contextual lol.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Would depend on the school, but you’d be surprised.

At £12,500 for day school (that's a girls-only school, I think) I certainly would be surprised. That's two very nice holidays, a car upgrade every year and a hell of a Sky package. I just don't see that commitment being possible for many families over 10 years. And that's if they have one child - your example has two. That's a quarter of a mil to educate them, favourable chromosomes depending.

 

[Touring Mars]

favourable chromosomes

And that is one thing that isn't on the application form...

 

[baldgye]

I certainly would be surprised.

Oh, ok.

 

[ExigeEvan]

A family of 4, going abroad 2-3 times a year and Sky TV over the course of a child’s school life would cover probably a decent education even if it was just for secondary or primary school.

My parents managed it and so did many others at my school, bear in mind my school was a public school and on the upper level. Parents can do it, they choose not too.

Do you actually know what any of that costs?

 

[Liquid]

Times change. Holidays abroad are a lot cheaper than 50 years ago and it shouldn't be seen as 'evidence' of relative wealth despite coming from the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum.

Homeless people can have mobiles easily these days (£10 PAYG? Very easy) but that is also frequently cited as an example of people hiding their wealth or accentuating their poverty for sympathy.

To me it sometimes seems that whilst society has changed, people's perception of it has not.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Do you actually know what any of that costs?

The average (day) cost now is about £17,500 pa, the example I used earlier was the country's cheapest. If @baldgye was at a school "on the upper level" then £23,000-ish? That's £46,000 pa for two children, £230,000 to put them through 5 secondary years up to 16. I still don't see that as being within the reach of many average families and I certainly think it costs more than a couple of holidays and a decent car lease. And Sky, although that is edging up

 

[MatskiMonk]

And Sky, although that is edging up

I believe the cost of making Rupert Murdoch richer is roughly equivalent to a one way payment at the toll booth on the River Styx (which is still less than Dartcharge stitched me up).

The average (day) cost now is about £17,500 pa, the example I used earlier was the country's cheapest. If @baldgye was at a school "on the upper level" then £23,000-ish?

Rugby School, where I have had the pleasure of playing Rugby and the misfortune of interacting with the (younger) students, is £11,500 a term inc. board, or £4281 to £7268 day rate per term... what are there? Three terms per year? Anyway, in real terms, the last person I knew to want to put their kid through that school was looking at a real world cost of £17,000 per term.


To go back to my original point, I don't disagree with Baldgye about the importance of schooling, but the system available to the masses is the one we need to focus on, and I've no objection to channeling money into education from else where... (such as benefits paid to parents that have more than one child)

 

[baldgye]

To go back to my original point, I don't disagree with Baldgye about the importance of schooling, but the system available to the masses is the one we need to focus on

I don’t see how you can improve a system when the parents who use it see it as just another commodity. The attitude is wrong, a good example of how badly parents have acted is the government has had to legislate against parents taking their children out of school for holidays.

 

[ExigeEvan]

The average (day) cost now is about £17,500 pa, the example I used earlier was the country's cheapest. If @baldgye was at a school "on the upper level" then £23,000-ish? That's £46,000 pa for two children, £230,000 to put them through 5 secondary years up to 16. I still don't see that as being within the reach of many average families and I certainly think it costs more than a couple of holidays and a decent car lease. And Sky, although that is edging up

Thanks for making my point, but I was keen to see his own figures.

His post quite frankly smacks of someone that has no concept of financial reality, and from my own, albeit limited, experience of people that were privately educated they seem to forget that grandparents commonly help fund this education. So it's not as saying 'my parents managed it, why can't yours?'

 

[baldgye]

His post quite frankly smacks of someone that has no concept of financial reality, and from my own, albeit limited, experience of people that were privately educated they seem to forget that grandparents commonly help fund this education. So it's not as saying 'my parents managed it, why can't yours?'

This is the argument I guess (inane demands of figures to prove that fictional families can or cannot afford fictional schools). People should value education above almost everything else, yet look how expensive it all is, it’s apparently unreasonable to expect parents to pay for a decent education.
My point was that more people can afford it than currently do. I know from personal experience that many families would rather have a larger house, nicer car, nice holidays etc. And while people on benefits (for example) cannot afford private education it’s affordable for more than do and there is financial support available (scholarships for example, but that varies school to school). It would be facile to try and do the maths as the school(s) suited for the child would vary wildly (which loops back to my original post about how impossible the state system is, as a concept).

For what it’s worth my parents sold the family home and took out loans to pay for mine and my brothers education.

 

[ExigeEvan]

This is the argument I guess (inane demands of figures to prove that fictional families can or cannot afford fictional schools).

You made claims that people could afford private schooling for the cost of a few holidays and a sky subscription.you made the inane statement. The liability of proof is on you.

People should value education above almost everything else, yet look how expensive it all is, it’s apparently unreasonable to expect parents to pay for a decent education.

They do pay for it though taxes.

Private doesn't mean better. My friend was awarded a scholarship to a mid tier 6th form. It had worse results than the state funded further education college I attended, but offered better sporting opportunities.

My point was that more people can afford it than currently do. I know from personal experience that many families would rather have a larger house, nicer car, nice holidays etc.

Which is again, incorrect. As shown, even a lower cost school costs £12k a year (plus hidden costs of uniform, educational trips, likely further from home etc).

That's a lot more than a larger house, a car and some holidays.

For what it’s worth my parents sold the family home and took out loans to pay for mine and my brothers education.

Which doesn't make sense.

Assuming you lived somewhere? So do you justjmean downsized? Assuming you attended for atleast 5 years at a school, means they would have needed a loans of £120,000 repaid over a longer period. That doesn't make much sense either.

 

[mustafur]

This is the argument I guess (inane demands of figures to prove that fictional families can or cannot afford fictional schools). People should value education above almost everything else, yet look how expensive it all is, it’s apparently unreasonable to expect parents to pay for a decent education.
My point was that more people can afford it than currently do. I know from personal experience that many families would rather have a larger house, nicer car, nice holidays etc. And while people on benefits (for example) cannot afford private education it’s affordable for more than do and there is financial support available (scholarships for example, but that varies school to school). It would be facile to try and do the maths as the school(s) suited for the child would vary wildly (which loops back to my original post about how impossible the state system is, as a concept).

For what it’s worth my parents sold the family home and took out loans to pay for mine and my brothers education.

Financial irresponsibility and no Life balance, sure is a good lesson to teach your kids.

Sure it's all well to spend a stupid amount of the family budget on getting the best education, but at the expense of everything else sure would make life less comfortable.

 

[baldgye]

Private doesn't mean better.

Yeah, it generally does. I was educated at both state and private/public schools at both primary and secondary school. The literal difference in class sizes makes it a massively better learning environment. League tables are not a good indicator for how good a school is (I assume that is what you are referring?), not everyone can get the best results.

....

Ok, so I'm a lair and I just made it all up?

Quoting google;

For a UK family of four taking a two-week break, the average holiday cost is £4792

Double that (so it matches my original claim), so two family holidays that's almost 10 grand if we include the Sky package. Add on-top of that running one or two nice cars and you aren't far off the magical 12k number you worked out.

But all that does, is then devolve into a further discussion about if those numbers are good, who did those statistics, can we trust them? Do families really take that many holidays a year, how many children do people have, are they single parents, are they working professionals, where in the country do they live...

A pure numbers discussion isn't why I made my post, I made my post because I feel more parents need to be more responsible for their children's education. Private education is better than state due to a number of factors, non of which are actually the curriculum or the teachers. If parents where of the mind set of "oh **** I actually have to work hard in order to give my child the best opportunities" rather than "that'll do, worked for me" we would all, be better off.

Sure it's all well to spend a stupid amount of the family budget on getting the best education, but at the expense of everything else sure would make life less comfortable.

Having the most comfortable life is obviously a more worthwhile lesson I presume.

 

[Liquid]

For a UK family of four taking a two-week break, the average holiday cost is £4792

That really, really, really depends on a lot of factors. Two of which being where you go and what airline you fly with; a two-week break in Romania is going to be a lot cheaper than Mauritius. And then, if you're flying short-haul you're more likely to fly with a low-cost carrier.

Personal anecdote; I must have flown about 50 times in my life now and not once, not once have I flown with a flagship airline or premium carrier. Why would I pay £300 to fly with British Airways or Austrian Airlines to Manchester when Ryanair does it for £70?

I still don't see the relevance of having holiday money = affordable private education. Yes, some people might go on £5,000 holidays but that simply isn't true for a lot of people. Holidays are more affordable and a lot cheaper, which opens them up to many more people than in the past and people from lower on the socio-economic scale. It's an outdated metric to base things on.

Edit: That "average" holiday cost is probably better described as the median holiday cost. Even then, the modal holiday cost would be more relevant.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Yeah, it generally does. I was educated at both state and private/public schools at both primary and secondary school. The literal difference in class sizes makes it a massively better learning environment. League tables are not a good indicator for how good a school is (I assume that is what you are referring?), not everyone can get the best results.

You're using your own experience as a single point of reference?

Ok, so I'm a lair and I just made it all up?

I said it didn't make sense. I assume you had a home, so that was still.an expense. And I'm baffled how a loan can be used to cover ongoing costs of school fees.

Quoting google;

Double that (so it matches my original claim), so two family holidays that's almost 10 grand if we include the Sky package. Add on-top of that running one or two nice cars and you aren't far off the magical 12k number you worked out.

But all that does, is then devolve into a further discussion about if those numbers are good, who did those statistics, can we trust them? Do families really take that many holidays a year, how many children do people have, are they single parents, are they working professionals, where in the country do they live...

A pure numbers discussion isn't why I made my post, I made my post because I feel more parents need to be more responsible for their children's education. Private education is better than state due to a number of factors, non of which are actually the curriculum or the teachers. If parents where of the mind set of "oh **** I actually have to work hard in order to give my child the best opportunities" rather than "that'll do, worked for me" we would all, be better off.

Here's a tip, don't make a statement of fact that you can't support with a reference.

What's better, is you've misquoted google. That number is the annual costs of a family taking holidays. Not per trip. So you can't just double it.

ThatsT a family of 2 adults, 2 children spending £5k annually on holidays. Where's the extra £19k coming from? Cars and Sky?

That said, to then spend that money on education then means they have no holidays and no cars.

 

[baldgye]

Here's a tip, don't make a statement of fact that you can't support with a reference.

Sorry, my mistake I must be lost, I thought this was the "Opinions & Current Events" section.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Sorry, my mistake I must be lost, I thought this was the "Opinions & Current Events" section.

Didn't your education teach you the difference between facts and opinions?

A family of 4, going abroad 2-3 times a year and Sky TV over the course of a child’s school life would cover probably a decent education even if it was just for secondary or primary school.

 

[baldgye]

Didn't your education teach you the difference between facts and opinions?

And now it's devolved into just attacks. Good job mate. 👍

My original post, which was fairly long is now superseded by a small elaboration on a throw away remark regarding peoples spending. But because it's in a separate post and isn't linked directly, that single point is now the breaking point of my whole post (and argument). Despite the fact that all it was was a throw away remark slightly elaborated on, it now needs to be broken down and analysed. While my original post that state education isn't good enough and parents should want more for their children is ignored.

So I can only assume that I was wrong with that opinion too and that actually the state system is pretty great, class sizes of 30+ are perfectly ok and that to expect or want anything more is merely for the whims of the wealthy? This being explained to me via the exhaustive breakdown and analysis of costs and income for average families, which I can only thank you guys for providing.
What's interesting (I think) is that while I've been demanded of and berated for not having done all the maths and research to make sure the numbers are correct for people to afford private education (assuming that everyone simply jumps right into private education as-is), no one requested the same for that of my actual point on class sizes or even the length of school days...


EDIT: what makes your comment even more offensive is you've no idea of the private school I went to or the reasons I went to it. For all you know I could have gone to a school for those with severe learning difficulties that the state system simply cannot support...

 

[Dotini]

class sizes of 30+ are perfectly ok

IMO, class sizes of 30+ are workable if all the students are fairly well and equally prepared, motivated and like-minded in their determination to successfully complete the course work. But if you've got a room full of smart alecks, fighters, morons, sleepers and druggies, then the 30+ class is especially ideal for a small nation trying to compete for success against larger nations.

 

[ExigeEvan]

And now it's devolved into just attacks. Good job mate. 👍

Interesting.

While my original post that state education isn't good enough and parents should want more for their children is ignored.

Let's be clear, that's a very valid point and a commendable one in many circumstances. But, you very clearly made a statement that most parents have their priorities wrong and could easily afford this. That just isn't the case, and that's an attack in the decisions of many families in this country.

EDIT: what makes your comment even more offensive is you've no idea of the private school I went to or the reasons I went to it. For all you know I could have gone to a school for those with severe learning difficulties that the state system simply cannot support...

Remind me what was offensive, or an attack again?

 

[baldgye]

That just isn't the case, and that's an attack in the decisions of many families in this country.

How many parents, or to-be parents budget for private education (or even think it's of any value)?
How many parents can even afford housing?
How many parents take their children out of education for a holiday?

Those are more interesting questions and make for more interesting discussion.
There are 11.5 million children under the age of 16 (apparently), how the hell do you educate them when only a FRACTION are privately educated?

I'm not advocating that parents simply drop everything and push their children into education they cannot afford. What I'm saying is that private education should be the standard, class sizes of 15 should be the standard and access to 1-1 in class teaching should expected. That means planning for children, saving money, making sure you have the means in which to make it so you're children have the very best you can manage.

 

[ExigeEvan]

What I'm saying is that private education should be the standard, class sizes of 15 should be the standard and access to 1-1 in class teaching should expected. That means planning for children, saving money, making sure you have the means in which to make it so you're children have the very best you can manage.

Why shouldn't that be the standard for state education? Funded through taxation?

 

[baldgye]

Why shouldn't that be the standard for state education? Funded through taxation?

Because there isn't enough money to cover it (to that level) and as has been proven, you cannot tax the rich 'fairly'. So in order to get the state system to be as good as the private system, you'd just end up taxing those at the bottom end of the income level more.

 

[Famine]

You can't get the state anything to be as good as the private anything, because the state version is by definition the minimum standard (and designed to cover the middle of the bell curve so it captures the needs of the most amount of people, for the least amount of money). The private sector needs to provide more/better to justify people abandoning the FAPOU minimum standard and paying for the alternative, or it will fail.