33 replies to this topic

[brofessional]

What are your opinions on the two different types of education (in terms of the parents who send their kids there or the students who attend these schools, etc...)?

Edited by brofessional, Mar 18, 2012 - 11:28.

[Award Winning Boss]

Education wise private generally > state school because of the smaller classes, better facilities etc

The people are the same to me, although there seems to be a distaste towads private schooled people from state school pupils.

The problem with private schools for children is that there's an instant assumption you are really rich if you go to a private school and that isn't always the case.

[Gaby]

Well, I've gone to a state primary and private middle and grammar schools (different ones). To be honest, I found private school to be more likable, student-focused and having better atmosphere. Also, classes are smaller so teachers can pay more attention to individual students. Also, resources are better and students actually have influence on something. I also found teachers more approachable.

However, I go to a private school in a city that is not a rich one, private schools are not that expensive here so most of students are not snobbish or extensively rich. Of course, there are a few exceptions, but well, there is an exception to every rule.

[lullabyy]

Gaby, on Nov 30, 2011 - 22:02, said:

Well, I've gone to a state primary and private middle and grammar schools (different ones). To be honest, I found private school to be more likable, student-focused and having better atmosphere. Also, classes are smaller so teachers can pay more attention to individual students. Also, resources are better and students actually have influence on something. I also found teachers more approachable.

However, I go to a private school in a city that is not a rich one, private schools are not that expensive here so most of students are not snobbish or extensively rich. Of course, there are a few exceptions, but well, there is an exception to every rule.

Exactely. I went to state primary school, then ended up in state gymnasium. Survived just one year out of three, then I moved to private school. It was way better than the state one. Now I'm in a state school but actually to be in IB we have to pay. So... Kinda partly private I guess.

But I don't know anyone snobbish from private schools. Sure, there are people like that but it's not a rule that you won't meet any of them in a state school. My school is the best example for that.

[Desy Glau]

I've always gone to a private school.

in Indonesia, all international schools must be private schools, national plus also private, national could be private/public. however there are some public schools which are said to have international standards, because the classes are taught in Indonesian with a bilingual textbook (Indo-English). but still, programmes like IB DP, A Levels, IGCSE, GCSE, IB MYP, and the all that are offered only in international schools i.e., private schools. this basically means only those who could afford the price of private education can compete internationally. whereas, public schools are government funded and the students don't have to pay for school (except for high school I think? not sure).

however the public schools with international standards require the students to pay fees and these schools are not so bad, some of the students can be really good.

but, there's like a gap in terms of the social class. those in private schools are likely to be more familiar with the western culture and are also richer, whereas the public schools... you know.

it's sad to generalise here. people who are used to going to public schools are very shocked to find out how much international schools cost and they can't believe it because it's really expensive, especially the international ones. I have to admit some people are really snobbish here although there are also many who are tolerant.

one thing I like about my school though is that the people in authority are really truly compassionate and we always give to some orphanages nearby during special religious events.

but anyway, there's quite a lot of difference among the private VS the public. some of the public school students are sometimes ashamed when they see private school students, but of course there are some who could be good friends. but, the private school students are sometimes disgusted at some public schools because some can be really dirty and nobody is doing anything to clean it or make it look better..some also don't like public school students because some of them have very very different manners and can be really rude. so yeah.

one more thing, the Chinese here always avoid public schools because we're afraid that the local students exclude us. alwaysss happens.

[Xavier Brown]

Private schools in my area get a bad rep and are known for drugs, alcohol, and being snobs. However, as was stated earlier, that is probably because I go to a public school. Personally I love public school, I feel the opportunities are about the same, a little less than private, but nothing significant. Also, it seems all of my friends from private schools are bad with girls.... that may be a personal problem for them, haha but still.

[Gaby]

Xavier Brown, on Nov 30, 2011 - 23:06, said:

Also, it seems all of my friends from private schools are bad with girls.... that may be a personal problem for them, haha but still.

You know what... I think it's more global than you think. I have a feeling that there are some really great girls here and not so many interesting guys. Or maybe I'm biased.

[kiwi.at.heart]

I've gone to public school throughout my school years. An honestly, in the area I live, I dont think its the schools that  make the difference to the education its the individual. Private schools around me often do get attention for their great academic results and whatever, but this is mostly because these schools are selective in their enrolment, making the average of the school naturally higher than public schools.

Also, people I find have a perception that you have a greater chances of succeeding at life if you go to private rather than public which I think is just stupid. Parents might push their kids more if they are spending ridiculously large amounts on their education, but i look around at all my friends that are publicly educated that are all going into law, medicine, etc. and we are al going to be successful, not matter what our previous education. An private is not sure fire way to successful. I have a neighbour, went to the best private school on the coast, and now at the age of 26 his full-time job is being a pizza delivery guy, no joke. I not saying every private school i like this, just saying either system can produce success and not so much success.

I'm probably more bias towards public also because I see the negative sides to having private schools around, which is public schools can not compete financially to keep the good teachers.  I've really seen this especially in IB since if a teacher is good, they are generally trained to teach IB. Then within a few years they leave the school to either teach overseas or at a private school simply because the public system cant pay enough. There are a few teachers that stay because they want to, but they are few unfortunately and I am so grateful they stayed at my school during my years.

These views of mind are only really of where I live. I know in other countries the difference between public and private is huge compared to Australia. I just feel that in Australia the benefits of private are not a significant as perceived compared to public, especially when you factor in the costs.

[Smiley Face]

Public schools provide a lesser quality of education. Simply, in most cases it is not funded with a big flexibility. At my school board they are complaining about the fact that they have an decreasing number of students as more people leave our lovely town. On the other hand, private schools provide better education for the students as the administration fires teachers who are not doing their best in their job to be replaced with better ones. That rarely happens in public schools, unless the teacher is extremely incapable of teaching, he/she keeps the position.

[otter12]

In my opinion the reason public schools tend to get better results is because the parents are often more supportive of their kid's education because they are paying a lot of money for them to be educated in a private school. In Britain state grammar schools and private schools get the best results, whilst on average comprehensive schools do not do as well. However that does not mean that the private and grammar schools are better, they may just have better teachers, more money, more motivated kids or cleverer kids to start with. Personally I believe that everyone should be educated in the state system so that we can work on the state system and improve it for everyone. I go to a state run grammar school which gets just as good results if often better than public schools in the same area. I don't think it's fair that some children get a better education simply because their parents can pay a lot of money. And maybe if the parents of people who have gone to very expensive private schools would invest money into  and care about the standard of the state system instead everyone could receive a better education. However I doubt that will happen. I feel there is a sort of snobbishness within in the private system, when you talk to groups of people who have been privately educated they can often be a bit offish or condescending when they discover that you are in the state system. Obviously not everyone in the private system is like this and I am generalising a bit. This is based on my experiences in London and Kent in the UK.

[Sandwich]

otter12, on Jan 03, 2012 - 10:23, said:

In my opinion the reason public schools tend to get better results is because the parents are often more supportive of their kid's education because they are paying a lot of money for them to be educated in a private school.

Surely it should be, "parents are often more supportive of their kid's education and therefore they pay a lot of money for them to be educated in a private school"? I mean that's why you'd do it - otherwise you'd get all that money to yourself to spend on holidays, whatever. You'd send your kids to a good school BECAUSE you wanted them to support do well, not that because you've sent your kids there and paid all that money, you might as well try to be supportive. It's a bit illogical and I feel a somewhat jaded view to put the money as the primary thing in that sentence.
The amount some parents spend on sending their children to private schools can be almost all of their dispensable income. Other parents in identical situations and with identical salaries but different priorities may send their kids to state school and spend the money elsewhere. Private schools offer bursaries, scholarships etc. to people in financial hardship, so whilst it's obviously not a choice everybody can make and is financially exclusive in some respects, I think people do hype up the exclusivity of private education somewhat - almost all of these schools are also charities with an obligation to help fund those who cannot afford it.

Quote

And maybe if the parents of people who have gone to very expensive private schools would invest money into and care about the standard of the state system instead everyone could receive a better education. However I doubt that will happen.

Well, if you say that state education is funded via taxes and that people who are more well off must pay more taxes, then parents with a lot of money are already paying more than other parents to fund a state education that they're not even making use of. Indeed some parents pay hardly any tax or no tax, so actually they put nothing into the system at all. State education is already a balancing act in this respect, of people with money helping to provide for everybody else. Some people may not even have kids but are having to pay for state education! I actually think the system is quite good because it forces the whole country to finance something, taking into account their ability to finance it. People in the top tax bracket must pay 50% of everything they earn in tax at the moment - the state already extracts far more from these people who are legitimately earning a lot. People who only just sneak into a tax bracket may in fact be worse off than the people at the top of the tax bracket below.

As to why privately educated people tend to (but do not always) do better than people educated in the state system, I think the variables are almost impossible to count. Part of it may be having more money, but I actually don't think that's as big a deal - the main bonus from more money is that you can sustain smaller class sizes, but you still get rubbish teachers, ****ty out-dated facilities etc. in private education. Having top-of-the-range kit doesn't make a place better. I think a lot of it is the emphasis on personal, individual and character development. Not everybody but almost everybody who's been to private school comes out with more personal confidence than they would if they'd gone elsewhere. Traditions, discipline, moralistic preaching etc. do have an effect.

And yes, I agree that supportiveness of your parents helps a lot. In some of the most deprived areas in the country, I read some awful statistic that the average household number of books is 3. I mean, that's not even about your parents being actively supportive or not - you're just not in an environment that helps you! How are you going to learn to read as well as other kids? It's crazy. Part of the divide (although not all of it, there are plenty of exceptions in both camps) is actually that people who have low salaries are more likely to not have been to University (historically, ahah, nowadays with student debt, it's probably going to change this scenario somewhat...) and to be less educated themselves. Now I know we all know lots of exceptions, this is a big generalisation as I said. But people whose parents have achieved in education and so be more likely to love reading, encourage their kids to learn in earlier years etc. are more likely to then be sent on to private schools. So in a sense, it's set up for a degree of state school failure because the kids who've been least educated at home and get the least support will have the hardest time. I think it is this inverse scenario which is most important - not "parents are often more supportive of their kid's education because they are paying a lot of money for them to be educated in a private school". I think parents who support their kids genuinely do help their kids to do better regardless of the type of education.

It's when you get the greatest density of lack of support, which in some ways is inevitably going to be the state vs the private system, that you see problems. It also explains why loads of people go through state education and honestly have no problems whatsoever.

[otter12]

I agree that parents care about their child's education and therefore pay a lot of money in order for them to get a good education, and maybe I didn't phrase it clearly enough, but what I meant is that almost all of the children at private schools come from well-supported homes with parents who wish them to focus on getting a good education and enjoying it and achieving the best that they can, whereas there is a much larger spread of support in the state education system because it takes everybody and therefore it ranges from people from very supportive homes, to those who receive no support at all, have no books in house etc. therefore the range of results will be much wider. I meant to emphasise that many people go through the state system with no problems whatsoever and that education can be just as good if not better than the private system.

They are pretty exclusive in general, admittedly perhaps because of many people's perception of it and therefore do not attempt to gain these bursaries and scholarships. I have many friends who left the private school to come to my state school for secondary and talked about the pressure they often felt because the fact that many of the people there were very well-off and the children at the age of 11 did not seem to understand that not everybody had the amount of money that their families had. Obviously there are also many people whose parents had sacrificed a lot in order to send their child/children to private school and did say that I was generalising a bit.

People in the 50% tax bracket only pay the 50% rate on the part of their income which puts them into that top tax bracket and therefore would not be less well off than those at the top of the bracket below, because they would pay 40% on their income till the top of that bracket and then 50% of their income which puts them into the next bracket. My point was not really that they do not pay for the upkeep of the public sector and I perhaps didn't explain clearly what I meant, but I meant more of the fact that they do not take so much notice of standards in the public sector because they are not affected by it. While it's true that state of the art facilities are not worth as much as good teachers, when many state schools can not provide the relevant textbooks because of a lack of funding and the parents of the children can not necessarily afford to spend £200 or more on texts for English, foreign languages, multiple textbooks for subjects like HL History this does make a difference. Yes, every person in Britain pays for state education through their taxes even if they have no children but, the majority of them benefited by childless adults paying tax to pay for their education 10, 20, 30 years ago and now they are contributing to society for the generations below them.

Quote

I think parents who support their kids genuinely do help their kids to do better regardless of the type of education.

This was what I was trying to argue and I was just attempting to explain why private schools tended to get better results, because the vast majority of children at private schools will have supportive parents, who spend a lot of money each year sending them to private school.

[marauder7]

I've noticed that most of the people who have commented on this post come from First World countries, therefore the education standards are better. I studied abroad one year in Germany and went to a public school. It was good, although even if it was a Gymnasium I believe that the level at my private school in Mexico was better in some aspects. But the school was excellent compared to public schools in Mexico.
In Mexico public schools are not so good. I think that here, if your parents can afford it you go to a private school, because the level is better. I've gone to a private school all my life and I consider that I am more capable of stuff than people from public schools. Just my English skills are way better.
I believe that, at least in my state there are not IB public schools.
And yes, in my school there are snobs, lots of them. But the good thing is that we have the choice whether we want to take the IB program or not. And most of the snob kids decided to go to BUAP (the non-IB system) and I just encounter them sometimes in the hallways. There are some snobs in IB but most people in IB are nice.

[Positron]

I guess it really depends. Here in Finland it really doesn't make any difference and like 95% of private schools are free, just like public schools. Sometimes private schools might have slightly better resources and have more control over their syllabus, but in the end there is no difference really. In the high school rankings there are both public and private schools in the top ranks. So in Finland we don't have this private school >< public school -thing, but of course this is just Finland.

Don't you think that there's something very seriously wrong if there's a huge gap between public and private schools. I mean, isn't it unfair that what you can become is determined by the wealth of your parents and whether or not they can afford to put you in a private school?

[nanon]

Klaus.A, on Feb 05, 2012 - 09:32, said:

Don't you think that there's something very seriously wrong if there's a huge gap between public and private schools. I mean, isn't it unfair that what you can become is determined by the wealth of your parents and whether or not they can afford to put you in a private school?

I totally agree with this post. In Australia (i can't comment on other countries) both Public and Private schools recieve government funding, and due to private schools charging much higher fees (5 or 10 times as much as public schools in some cases), they obviously have better facilities and better teachers (as they attract the good teachers with the good pay). I think it is ridiculous that to recieve a better education you have to pay more, or be religiously inclined (as many of the private schools in Australia are). The whole premise of private schools is that the more you pay, the better education you get. This premise is elitist and really counter-productive in society.

I go to a public school, and our school constantly ranks in the top 3 or 5 schools in the state in terms of school scores). This is probably due to the IB program, as we are the only public high school to offer such a curriculum.

So essentially what I am saying is, private schools certainly have better resources, often better teachers, but that does not mean they deliver a better education. I am a strong believer in Public education through and through, as private elitism just propogates the already existent social gap between the percieved rich and poor.

[Ezak]

So, first you point out that private schools are better kept because of their fees, and are thus able to hire better teachers have better facilities and so on. Then you claim that this does not give you a better education. My question is then to you: If they do not deliver a better education, why would people choose it? It's not like people like to spend money on things that are not worth it. And secondly, if public education are able to keep up with their private counterparts, as you claim, where lies the problem?

[timtamboy63]

In Perth, most of our public schools absolutely suck, so anyone who wants a decent education goes to a private school. I've heard this is really different in the states and such, where private schools are seen as posh. Here in Perth, they definitely aren't seen as posh (with the exception of a few), and going to a public school is pretty much the norm.

[Tony Stark]

State education introduces State inefficiency and bureaucracy, and effectively charges everyone, even those who don't have children and never will, for the education of children. 'Choice' is also not a factor within the State system. Private schools pretty consistently perform better on average than State schools, and I don't think it's solely a question of money; money can't buy efficiency and effectiveness.

[nanon]

Tony Stark, on Apr 24, 2012 - 05:15, said:

State education introduces State inefficiency and bureaucracy, and effectively charges everyone, even those who don't have children and never will, for the education of children. 'Choice' is also not a factor within the State system. Private schools pretty consistently perform better on average than State schools, and I don't think it's solely a question of money; money can't buy efficiency and effectiveness.

Private education also gets funded by the government. This is why they perform better, because they have so much more funding, they aren't obligated to keep children with bad behaviour, they can fire teachers, and they dont have to 'play by the government's rules'. If you think that people without children should not have to pay for education- do you think that ALL people should have to pay the amount of a private school? Many people cannot afford this amount, and the funding they recieve from the government allows their children to recieve an education.

I support private education should a parent choose to send their child there for personal reasons, but the government funding for private schools should, imo, be reallocated to public schools.

[Ezak]

nanon, on Apr 24, 2012 - 08:35, said:

Tony Stark, on Apr 24, 2012 - 05:15, said:

State education introduces State inefficiency and bureaucracy, and effectively charges everyone, even those who don't have children and never will, for the education of children. 'Choice' is also not a factor within the State system. Private schools pretty consistently perform better on average than State schools, and I don't think it's solely a question of money; money can't buy efficiency and effectiveness.

Private education also gets funded by the government. This is why they perform better, because they have so much more funding, they aren't obligated to keep children with bad behaviour, they can fire teachers, and they dont have to 'play by the government's rules'. If you think that people without children should not have to pay for education- do you think that ALL people should have to pay the amount of a private school? Many people cannot afford this amount, and the funding they recieve from the government allows their children to recieve an education.

I support private education should a parent choose to send their child there for personal reasons, but the government funding for private schools should, imo, be reallocated to public schools.

The thing is that then those who put their kids in private schools would have to pay a double cost, one for the tuitition and one in taxes to the schools run by the government. Of course we could argue that then they should have no obligation to pay the specific tax that goes towards education, but after that it's a slippery slope where no one has to pay for anything that you don't use, thus demolishing the state apparatus completely.