| £18,000-a-year 22:14 - Sep 7 with 8416 views | Swanzay |
I wonder how a child from Grenfell Tower for example, would succeed in future life, if they were able access this type of education...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41177670 [Post edited 7 Sep 2017 22:19]
|  | | |  |
| £18,000-a-year on 08:20 - Sep 8 with 1041 views | Batterseajack |
| £18,000-a-year on 07:38 - Sep 8 by waynekerr55 |
Childcare costs in Battersea won't be far off what you've quoted, probably 😳 |
Moved from battersea a long time ago but I imagine it's probably even higher there. My quote was for a nursary in Carshalton on the fringes on London. Some friends of ours in cheam we're quoted £1700+ a month! It has made us seriously question what's the point in her going back to work. |  | | |
| £18,000-a-year on 08:21 - Sep 8 with 1038 views | MrSwerve |
£18k a year doesn't necessarily mean that they're getting a better education. All it means is that they're stuck in with other rich kids. Obviously it's going to be a decent school, but education all depends on the teachers. |  |
| |
| £18,000-a-year on 08:25 - Sep 8 with 1036 views | Batterseajack |
| £18,000-a-year on 07:41 - Sep 8 by Mo_Wives |
Can't you tell the wife to stay home and do it? (if she's the lower earner)
Do you know, my old gran...God bless her soul, would send six kids off to school and spend the rest of the day cleaning the house with another three around her feet and one hanging off each nipple. Saint she was, I tell you...ahh the good ol' days. [Post edited 8 Sep 2017 8:19]
|
We've seriously considered it. But she's missing the intereaction with adults which is understandable and you don't want to be out of the game too long or you might find it even harder when you eventually go back to work.
Kudos to your gran, looking after children is hard work. Just looking after one for a couple of hours ages you. | | | |
| £18,000-a-year on 08:26 - Sep 8 with 1036 views | Mo_Wives |
| £18,000-a-year on 08:20 - Sep 8 by Batterseajack |
Moved from battersea a long time ago but I imagine it's probably even higher there. My quote was for a nursary in Carshalton on the fringes on London. Some friends of ours in cheam we're quoted £1700+ a month! It has made us seriously question what's the point in her going back to work. |
"It has made us seriously question what's the point in her going back to work."
I think you're forgetting the equal representation problem. How are the young girls of tomorrow going to survive without great role models (housewives don't count...housewives can't be great role models). No, force your wife back to work, whether she chooses to go on not... Coz this is all about women making their own choices, you see. |  |
| |
| £18,000-a-year on 08:31 - Sep 8 with 1030 views | Mo_Wives |
| £18,000-a-year on 08:25 - Sep 8 by Batterseajack |
We've seriously considered it. But she's missing the intereaction with adults which is understandable and you don't want to be out of the game too long or you might find it even harder when you eventually go back to work.
Kudos to your gran, looking after children is hard work. Just looking after one for a couple of hours ages you. |
"out of the game". The game?...what does your wife do? 
BTW, that gran was a figment of my imagination. My gran was an Irish woman who would shout at the kids "get out o' moi way, you b0ll0cks" | |
| |
| £18,000-a-year on 09:07 - Sep 8 with 1011 views | Batterseajack |
| £18,000-a-year on 08:26 - Sep 8 by Mo_Wives |
"It has made us seriously question what's the point in her going back to work."
I think you're forgetting the equal representation problem. How are the young girls of tomorrow going to survive without great role models (housewives don't count...housewives can't be great role models). No, force your wife back to work, whether she chooses to go on not... Coz this is all about women making their own choices, you see. |
Not sure what your getting at here, the decision to go back to work is entirely down to her and i'll support it either way, even if it makes little point financially. | | | |
| £18,000-a-year on 09:12 - Sep 8 with 1004 views | westwalesed |
The politics of envy is alive and well.
By the way, people who send their children to Private schools are paying for education twice - privately for themselves and then through general taxation which they are more than likely paying a huge chunk of their income on. | |
| |
| £18,000-a-year on 09:19 - Sep 8 with 994 views | Mo_Wives |
| £18,000-a-year on 09:07 - Sep 8 by Batterseajack |
Not sure what your getting at here, the decision to go back to work is entirely down to her and i'll support it either way, even if it makes little point financially. |
I'm just talking b0ll0cks, Batsy. Wasn't meant as a dig at you. Ignore me.  | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| £18,000-a-year on 09:26 - Sep 8 with 985 views | longlostjack |
| £18,000-a-year on 09:12 - Sep 8 by westwalesed |
The politics of envy is alive and well.
By the way, people who send their children to Private schools are paying for education twice - privately for themselves and then through general taxation which they are more than likely paying a huge chunk of their income on. |
Why are private schools considered to be charities? I thought a charity was an organisation that supported the needy and poor? Shouldn't they pay corporation tax? |  |
| |
| £18,000-a-year on 09:45 - Sep 8 with 975 views | johnlangy |
| £18,000-a-year on 23:18 - Sep 7 by jack2jack |
I don't know either, obviously i would like my taxes to go to the NHS etc,etc.
I have no problem what so ever in giving 0.002p/annum towards his education,if that is the case. |
I object to any of my money being used in this way no matter how small an amount.
That doesn't mean that I wish any ill will towards them before anyone responds otherwise. | | | |
| £18,000-a-year on 10:18 - Sep 8 with 956 views | westwalesed |
| £18,000-a-year on 09:26 - Sep 8 by longlostjack |
Why are private schools considered to be charities? I thought a charity was an organisation that supported the needy and poor? Shouldn't they pay corporation tax? |
Nothing to do with my point but since you asked I agree that Private Schools should not hold a charitable status.
The rationale in the past was that private schools were of a benefit to wider society and that the tax breaks, among other things, helped fund scholarships for children from poor backgrounds. | |
| |
| £18,000-a-year on 12:21 - Sep 8 with 912 views | londonlisa2001 |
I'm a republican - I'd get rid of all of them.
But there seems to be a misunderstanding about their funding.
They get a block grant. They can spend that how they choose and the Queen can give it out to whoever she wants.If they are spending money on education they have less for something else.
So George going to this school doesn't cost anything to the tax payer. In fact, it's saves us the money we would have spent if he'd gone to a State funded school. People sending their kids to private school benefits the tax payer. | | | |
| £18,000-a-year on 13:12 - Sep 8 with 894 views | swanjackal |
| £18,000-a-year on 08:21 - Sep 8 by MrSwerve |
£18k a year doesn't necessarily mean that they're getting a better education. All it means is that they're stuck in with other rich kids. Obviously it's going to be a decent school, but education all depends on the teachers. |
Sometimes, and depends on what you deem as education. Having worked in both private and state, it is easier to get better grades in smaller classes with less bureaucracy. You may get a broader range of education in state, especially worldly experience, but like said, smaller classes and less distraction improves teaching levels to a point where an average private teacher will outperform a very good state one. |  |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| £18,000-a-year on 13:17 - Sep 8 with 892 views | londonlisa2001 |
| £18,000-a-year on 13:12 - Sep 8 by swanjackal |
Sometimes, and depends on what you deem as education. Having worked in both private and state, it is easier to get better grades in smaller classes with less bureaucracy. You may get a broader range of education in state, especially worldly experience, but like said, smaller classes and less distraction improves teaching levels to a point where an average private teacher will outperform a very good state one. |
I think that one of the main advantages of private school is their ability to kick out kids that cause disruption to the others. If teachers in state schools were able to remove pupils who caused problems their jobs would become so much easier.
I'm not saying that they should be able to kick kids out of the system by the way, just that it's a massive advantage to teachers in the private sector. | | | |
| £18,000-a-year on 13:25 - Sep 8 with 886 views | whoflungdung |
So we re expecting a scion of the second in line to attend a school in some London scum estate .
My issue is how Royals collect their revenue | |
| |
| £18,000-a-year on 14:32 - Sep 8 with 870 views | swanjackal |
| £18,000-a-year on 13:17 - Sep 8 by londonlisa2001 |
I think that one of the main advantages of private school is their ability to kick out kids that cause disruption to the others. If teachers in state schools were able to remove pupils who caused problems their jobs would become so much easier.
I'm not saying that they should be able to kick kids out of the system by the way, just that it's a massive advantage to teachers in the private sector. |
You find it's very rare to kick out a pupil from a private school, unless they are heavily scholarship funded. Money talks more there, especially the smaller independent ones. | |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| £18,000-a-year on 17:07 - Sep 8 with 844 views | grampajack |
| £18,000-a-year on 13:12 - Sep 8 by swanjackal |
Sometimes, and depends on what you deem as education. Having worked in both private and state, it is easier to get better grades in smaller classes with less bureaucracy. You may get a broader range of education in state, especially worldly experience, but like said, smaller classes and less distraction improves teaching levels to a point where an average private teacher will outperform a very good state one. |
Comparing apples and pears. Your final sentence suggests that 'other conditions' are so important that private school teachers are crap as its so easy. The other implication is that teaching performance is honed to such a standard that a transfer into the state sector would see them with super powers and leave mere mortals in their wake. rofl | | | |
| £18,000-a-year on 17:51 - Sep 8 with 834 views | swanjackal |
| £18,000-a-year on 17:07 - Sep 8 by grampajack |
Comparing apples and pears. Your final sentence suggests that 'other conditions' are so important that private school teachers are crap as its so easy. The other implication is that teaching performance is honed to such a standard that a transfer into the state sector would see them with super powers and leave mere mortals in their wake. rofl |
Not at all. The conditions are important on outcome, as I said an average classroom practitioner in a private school will generally out perform a good state school teacher. This is more an argument of venue and "conditions" over the person themselves.
Neither situations you have outlined are anything near what I said. A good teacher would generally get better performance if they moved to an environment with smaller classes , allowing more individual attention, as seen in private/independent schools. The same with any standard teacher (barring those who are just dialling it in). Performance/results would naturally decline the opposite way due to conditions not being as favourable, this does not make the teacher any better or worse, or their methods being drastically altered, unless there is a significant difference in materials/equipment available, just it becomes more challenging for the individual.
Having done both, and witnessed the phenomena, I'm fairly well versed. This isn't a slight on state schools, often the teaching is very good, but the situation of overcrowding in classrooms, lack of discipline in a school globally etc causes a negative effect. | |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| £18,000-a-year on 22:17 - Sep 8 with 796 views | DJack |
| £18,000-a-year on 09:12 - Sep 8 by westwalesed |
The politics of envy is alive and well.
By the way, people who send their children to Private schools are paying for education twice - privately for themselves and then through general taxation which they are more than likely paying a huge chunk of their income on. |
As ever your are forgetting things. Like those that earned their wealth the old fashioned way... by inheriting it. |  |
| It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan |
| |
| £18,000-a-year on 22:21 - Sep 8 with 793 views | Dr_Winston |
People who send their kids to £18,000 a year school are a bit more likely to give a shit how their kids do there than many parents whose kids end up at the local comp by default. That's the biggest difference. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| £18,000-a-year on 22:54 - Sep 8 with 778 views | longlostjack |
| £18,000-a-year on 22:21 - Sep 8 by Dr_Winston |
People who send their kids to £18,000 a year school are a bit more likely to give a shit how their kids do there than many parents whose kids end up at the local comp by default. That's the biggest difference. |
I don't know where to start with that comment. My personal experience is so different. I''ve known kids who were sent off to prep schools and absolutely hated it. In some cases it screwed them up for life. To say that parents who send their kids to private school because they can afford it are more interested in their child's education than those that send their kids to state funded schools is just plain bloody daft. | |
| |
| £18,000-a-year on 23:02 - Sep 8 with 768 views | Jack_Meoff |
| £18,000-a-year on 22:21 - Sep 8 by Dr_Winston |
People who send their kids to £18,000 a year school are a bit more likely to give a shit how their kids do there than many parents whose kids end up at the local comp by default. That's the biggest difference. |
You're confusing affluence with people caring about their child's education surely? I'm sure everyone on here with children want the best for them, wherever they're educated. And how many would have historically packed off their offspring to expensive boarding schools precisely because they don't actually give a shit? [Post edited 8 Sep 2017 23:06]
|  |
| If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever. |
| |
| £18,000-a-year on 23:07 - Sep 8 with 760 views | Dr_Winston |
| £18,000-a-year on 22:54 - Sep 8 by longlostjack |
I don't know where to start with that comment. My personal experience is so different. I''ve known kids who were sent off to prep schools and absolutely hated it. In some cases it screwed them up for life. To say that parents who send their kids to private school because they can afford it are more interested in their child's education than those that send their kids to state funded schools is just plain bloody daft. |
And if that's what I said you'd have a point. | |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| £18,000-a-year on 23:16 - Sep 8 with 747 views | longlostjack |
| £18,000-a-year on 23:07 - Sep 8 by Dr_Winston |
And if that's what I said you'd have a point. |
Ok - you qualified it with "a bit more likely". Is that what you mean? A back door to deny the obvious message behind the post? I may have misinterpreted it completely though - if so what was it you really wanted to say ? | |
| |
| £18,000-a-year on 23:39 - Sep 8 with 732 views | Dr_Winston |
| £18,000-a-year on 23:16 - Sep 8 by longlostjack |
Ok - you qualified it with "a bit more likely". Is that what you mean? A back door to deny the obvious message behind the post? I may have misinterpreted it completely though - if so what was it you really wanted to say ? |
I said what I wanted to say. Never do anything different.
I find the propensity for people to think only in absolutes to be deeply strange given how little of the world is absolute so most things I say are qualified.
As far as this debate goes it's a question of numbers. I don't doubt for a millisecond that there are shitty parents on either side. I don't doubt for a second that there are many, many brilliant parents on either side. I do doubt that someone spending the best part of the average annual wage on educating a child is no more or less likely to play an active role in their child's education than quite a lot of those who don't.
Nothing I've heard from friends who teach in state schools and private schools or my own personal experience suggests otherwise. | |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
