This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Are private schools fair?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by mevidek
1. What horrible idea. According to that view, it's fine to completely give up on people starving in Somalia simply because famine will happen. Yeah, that's really a good moral thing to do.
2. Nope. There are now a lot more courses available (diplomas, BTECs - not that I like them - among others), and it's not just a certain percentage that determines how well you did at school. And on your last point, why not encourage teachers to give tuition for individual pupils if they (student) want to, or if they feel they would benefit from it. Some people would turn to private tutors, but often teachers are a lot better than private tutors are... They don't steal money and often give nothing back, or good help other than just giving the student some sheets to complete.
Equality is possible, but it's a VERY far off goal. The idea is that the government should be at least trying to make equality. If you don't agree then... I don't really understand how you cannot fight to get equality.
2. Nope. There are now a lot more courses available (diplomas, BTECs - not that I like them - among others), and it's not just a certain percentage that determines how well you did at school. And on your last point, why not encourage teachers to give tuition for individual pupils if they (student) want to, or if they feel they would benefit from it. Some people would turn to private tutors, but often teachers are a lot better than private tutors are... They don't steal money and often give nothing back, or good help other than just giving the student some sheets to complete.
Equality is possible, but it's a VERY far off goal. The idea is that the government should be at least trying to make equality. If you don't agree then... I don't really understand how you cannot fight to get equality.
We already have given up on Somalia. The world is well aware that that area of the world is unsalvagable. The only reason it appears every year or so is a token gesture to seem like the governments of the world give a ****. The world is over populated; no matter where you go there will be those that will be in that sort of starvation.
And I completely disagree; I had two different private tutors in my A level years and they were 100% better than the real teachers ever were.
Equality is not possible because western society is based on inequality, our very system of currency and money is based on inequality. The only way there can ever be true equality in all things is if money and currency stopped been used. If you look at the conventional upper, middle, and lower class pyramid then you would notice that even in communist societies such as the USSR and China there was still that pyramid but in different numbers on each level. There will never be a time when everyone is on the same level, which is why I say it's nothing but an unreachable dream.
Original post by richiemayne
Quite a simple question: is it fair that wealthier parents are able to pay for their child to have a better education than a child from a family that cannot afford to send them to private school?
well i went to private school after going to a normal state school til year 3, but i was very advanced and so my elder siblings encouraged my parents to have me sit an exam for private school, i was accepted but my father did struggle to pay as we are only a humble middle class family. although i hated the decision at the time, i am very grateful as it was the best school i ever went to
don't assume that private schools are reserved for the upper class, a lot even give scholarships or bursaries
and don't assume that money is worth more than intelligence, you do have to earn your place in private schools (well at least the ones in Birmingham)
Original post by Inverse
What a ridiculous topic. If your parents are inbred morons who cannot make enough money to send you to a private school, let alone take care of you, it is one matter. If they do have the money but do not want to send you to a private school, it is another matter. If these parents worked hard, had a good education and cared about their children's education then they would pay. Blaming private schools is something that uneducated cretins do to make themselves feel better about doing very badly at school and not being able to support anyone other than themselves.
This argument is so preposterous I can't actually answer it. So many fallacies... *choke*
Original post by richiemayne
Yes you would make exams harder to try and pick out the academically brightest, like you say.
And you talk about private tutors. Would it be so hard to invest more in state education to provide the opportunity for kids to have private tutoring so they wished? Yes it would need a lot of money to keep support such a scheme so that poor schools could afford the best tutors but it's hardly some utopian impossibility is it? Exams would probably need to be much harder if there was the same good standard of education for all, but that's hardly a problem.
And you talk about private tutors. Would it be so hard to invest more in state education to provide the opportunity for kids to have private tutoring so they wished? Yes it would need a lot of money to keep support such a scheme so that poor schools could afford the best tutors but it's hardly some utopian impossibility is it? Exams would probably need to be much harder if there was the same good standard of education for all, but that's hardly a problem.
But why would the best tutors want to be in a poor school? It just makes their job harder and arguably their talent is then wasted on the less able students. That would only add to the costs. In fact it would cost so much that it does put it in the realms of utopian possibility because it would be unacceptable to everybody else. Where is the money going to come from? If we didn't have money and we just had a society where currency didn't matter then it would be perfect, but that is a utopia.
Original post by maccy
No, I don't think it is fair, but neither is it fair to discriminate against private school children. Yes, they got a decent education because they could pay for it, but their parents may have been state educated and done well out of it, other peoples parents might not actually have that much money but take out a second mortgage or something because to them their childs education is the most I'mportant thing. Not every child that goes to private school comes from a family where they've all been oxbridge graduates for the past 20 generations.
Oh yes, that's not a generalisation
My parents don't give a crap about my education, that's why they haven't put themselves into thousands of pounds of debt, that's right.Also, if a private school can get kids who aren't actually that bright to do well, then they must be doing something right. And I don't think its just having smaller class sizes, or better teachers-there are equally as good if not betteer, teachers in the state sector, I think its that the students genuinely want to learn, or at least see the value in a good education, and whether that stems from the parents or the teachers or even just a feeling that since your parents might be sacrificing a lot to send you there, you shouldn't take it for granted I don't know, but I think that instead of debating whether we should get rid of private school or whatever, we should try and get students in the state sector to feel the same way about their education.
Bold: Yes. Yes it is.
Underlined: Yep, yat again another brilliant generalisation
no-one in my school wanted to learn But I disagree that talented people can come out with poor jobs just because they went to a state school- if you really are talented you can do well whatever school you go to as long as you try. The only difference is that at private school complete morons come out with good results!
And that's a good thing, that a system exists where money ALONE can buy good grades for people who would normally not get them? What is the point in exams at all then, if that is the case? Why even bother?
Wrong way to phrase the question.
The institution I attended had half the number of pupils attending in the early 90s as it does now. As confidence in state school education decreased in the last 20 years, so did the private school's numbers. This followed on from the 50s and 70s where there were similar increases and decreases respectively.
Improve the standard of state schooling generally (there are many many excellent state schools) and the perception of the national curriculum and numbers in private schools will decrease
Ps there are tons of scholarships at most good private schools as they're legally obliged to have them to retain their funding. That's what I did
The institution I attended had half the number of pupils attending in the early 90s as it does now. As confidence in state school education decreased in the last 20 years, so did the private school's numbers. This followed on from the 50s and 70s where there were similar increases and decreases respectively.
Improve the standard of state schooling generally (there are many many excellent state schools) and the perception of the national curriculum and numbers in private schools will decrease
Ps there are tons of scholarships at most good private schools as they're legally obliged to have them to retain their funding. That's what I did
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by richiemayne
But whether or not your parents worked hard in their life is nothing to do with you. What have you contributed? Why do you deserve to be given more opportunities than anybody else? What about people who simply inherit large sums of money? These are not strong arguments for why you should be entitled to a better standard of education than everybody else.
Nor are your rhetorical questions. What is a child MEANT to have contributed by the age of eleven? If you go to a private school, surely it's on the premise that you are going to contribute in a productive manner to society after you leave? Education has always been this way. It used to be just boys of the gentry, then just boys of the gentry and middle classes, then just boys. Then it became mixed. Completely excluding someone from education is not fair. Having a hierarchy of education, whilst admittedly not fair, does not mean that private school's don't have their place. You appear oblivious (or have conveniently omitted to mention) that most private schools require an admittance test, and an interview. It's not just sending rich morons to a cosseted environment. Private schools sure as hell push you hard. A lot of girls at Lady Eleanor Hollis find the pressure put on them unbearable, really tough.
I'm sure you wouldn't dare argue, for example, that it's unfair that parents who read more to their child cause their child to be more literate or more intelligent? Or that, as a result, the higher-performing state schools then choose these children when oversubscribed? Or that parents who actually give their children a decent foundation in diet and exercise make their children more proficient in sport and therefore more likely to make sports teams?
Furthermore, I'm sure your statement of 'whether or not your parents worked hard in life is nothing to do with you' doesn't enter your mind when your parents finance birthday and Christmas presents, cinema trips, holidays and suchlike...
Original post by S.J.Shiro
But why would the best tutors want to be in a poor school? It just makes their job harder and arguably their talent is then wasted on the less able students. That would only add to the costs. In fact it would cost so much that it does put it in the realms of utopian possibility because it would be unacceptable to everybody else. Where is the money going to come from? If we didn't have money and we just had a society where currency didn't matter then it would be perfect, but that is a utopia.
Exactly. It hinders the students who could potentially do really well because the teacher's energies are spent on less able students who hold the class back. In fact, I disagree with your last point (the only point I disagree on). If we were in a society where currency didn't matter it would be far from a utopia, because there would be little motivation to do anything or succeed.
Original post by winning11
well i went to private school after going to a normal state school til year 3, but i was very advanced and so my elder siblings encouraged my parents to have me sit an exam for private school, i was accepted but my father did struggle to pay as we are only a humble middle class family. although i hated the decision at the time, i am very grateful as it was the best school i ever went to
don't assume that private schools are reserved for the upper class, a lot even give scholarships or bursaries
and don't assume that money is worth more than intelligence, you do have to earn your place in private schools (well at least the ones in Birmingham)
don't assume that private schools are reserved for the upper class, a lot even give scholarships or bursaries
and don't assume that money is worth more than intelligence, you do have to earn your place in private schools (well at least the ones in Birmingham)
Exactly. Private schools are not playpens for the offspring of the upper class, who drop them off at eleven, and then pick them up at eighteen with an Oxbridge place and excellent A-Levels.
People seem to be ignorant of the principles that a private school exists upon. In a utopia, a private school would hand out full bursaries to a large majority of their pupils, meaning that such an argument wouldn't exist. But if this were to occur, where would the money necessary to create a school worthy of the name come from? So they attempt to be as fair as possible. They have an entrance exam. They have interviews, scholarship exams and bursaries. This allows them, increasingly, to take the most intelligent, sporty or promising students,, but at a level whereby they can afford to be inclusive for the same categories of students that are less well off.
I blame Satan for all our problems! 
Just kidding, but evidently the government is to be blamed for the poor performances of public schools. Fund education, not war!
Just kidding, but evidently the government is to be blamed for the poor performances of public schools. Fund education, not war!
Original post by Decani
Uh... isn't that what this entire thread is saying about private school pupils?
Where? No, it isn't.
the rest
Well for one thing, I know for a fact that not every private school pupil values their education just because their parents paid for it.
The deal with the good state school, it's fortunate to be the situation in your area, but it's certainly not a nationwide one. In most places, if parents want the "best education", it's automatically the local private school. The attitude still persists in many quarters that if you want a good education, you have to pay for it. I don't think it should be like that. You say that the "struggling" parents send their children to the state school "instead" - why the struggling ones? Why "instead", why wasn't it their first choice? It's an attitude which persists that state is for those who can't afford private, those who must have second best, rather than being a legitimate and quality choice in itself. And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, the more people who flee from state with the attitude that it's automatically inferior, the more it will become so.
Thinking about what you've said, I suppose don't mind private schools existing. I can see the reason for having, say, a faith school, or a more specialised school. But what I want to see is these schools being an alternative to the state system, a real alternative education, not a system seen and treated as superior and more worthy.
By the way, those state schools are not good because they only admit the most intelligent students - with very few exceptions, state schools are not allowed to admit selectively.
I hope I wasn't mean at all.
Original post by richiemayne
Yes you would make exams harder to try and pick out the academically brightest, like you say.
And you talk about private tutors. Would it be so hard to invest more in state education to provide the opportunity for kids to have private tutoring so they wished? Yes it would need a lot of money to keep support such a scheme so that poor schools could afford the best tutors but it's hardly some utopian impossibility is it? Exams would probably need to be much harder if there was the same good standard of education for all, but that's hardly a problem.
And you talk about private tutors. Would it be so hard to invest more in state education to provide the opportunity for kids to have private tutoring so they wished? Yes it would need a lot of money to keep support such a scheme so that poor schools could afford the best tutors but it's hardly some utopian impossibility is it? Exams would probably need to be much harder if there was the same good standard of education for all, but that's hardly a problem.
Where does this money come from in a country billions and billions in debt?
Original post by Cicerao
Where? No, it isn't.
Well for one thing, I know for a fact that not every private school pupil values their education just because their parents paid for it.
The deal with the good state school, it's fortunate to be the situation in your area, but it's certainly not a nationwide one. In most places, if parents want the "best education", it's automatically the local private school. The attitude still persists in many quarters that if you want a good education, you have to pay for it. I don't think it should be like that. You say that the "struggling" parents send their children to the state school "instead" - why the struggling ones? Why "instead", why wasn't it their first choice? It's an attitude which persists that state is for those who can't afford private, those who must have second best, rather than being a legitimate and quality choice in itself. And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, the more people who flee from state with the attitude that it's automatically inferior, the more it will become so.
Thinking about what you've said, I suppose don't mind private schools existing. I can see the reason for having, say, a faith school, or a more specialised school. But what I want to see is these schools being an alternative to the state system, a real alternative education, not a system seen and treated as superior and more worthy.
By the way, those state schools are not good because they only admit the most intelligent students - with very few exceptions, state schools are not allowed to admit selectively.
I hope I wasn't mean at all.
Well for one thing, I know for a fact that not every private school pupil values their education just because their parents paid for it.
The deal with the good state school, it's fortunate to be the situation in your area, but it's certainly not a nationwide one. In most places, if parents want the "best education", it's automatically the local private school. The attitude still persists in many quarters that if you want a good education, you have to pay for it. I don't think it should be like that. You say that the "struggling" parents send their children to the state school "instead" - why the struggling ones? Why "instead", why wasn't it their first choice? It's an attitude which persists that state is for those who can't afford private, those who must have second best, rather than being a legitimate and quality choice in itself. And it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, the more people who flee from state with the attitude that it's automatically inferior, the more it will become so.
Thinking about what you've said, I suppose don't mind private schools existing. I can see the reason for having, say, a faith school, or a more specialised school. But what I want to see is these schools being an alternative to the state system, a real alternative education, not a system seen and treated as superior and more worthy.
By the way, those state schools are not good because they only admit the most intelligent students - with very few exceptions, state schools are not allowed to admit selectively.
I hope I wasn't mean at all.
As much as I agree with a lot of what you're saying, there seems to be a logical fallacy in the penultimate paragraph. Surely by definition, the private system has to be seen as better than the state system? If it was only an alternative that was neither better nor worse, why would anyone bother paying?!?!!
Original post by S.J.Shiro
1. We already have given up on Somalia. The world is well aware that that area of the world is unsalvagable. The only reason it appears every year or so is a token gesture to seem like the governments of the world give a ****. The world is over populated; no matter where you go there will be those that will be in that sort of starvation.
2. And I completely disagree; I had two different private tutors in my A level years and they were 100% better than the real teachers ever were.
3. Equality is not possible because western society is based on inequality, our very system of currency and money is based on inequality. The only way there can ever be true equality in all things is if money and currency stopped been used. If you look at the conventional upper, middle, and lower class pyramid then you would notice that even in communist societies such as the USSR and China there was still that pyramid but in different numbers on each level. There will never be a time when everyone is on the same level, which is why I say it's nothing but an unreachable dream.
2. And I completely disagree; I had two different private tutors in my A level years and they were 100% better than the real teachers ever were.
3. Equality is not possible because western society is based on inequality, our very system of currency and money is based on inequality. The only way there can ever be true equality in all things is if money and currency stopped been used. If you look at the conventional upper, middle, and lower class pyramid then you would notice that even in communist societies such as the USSR and China there was still that pyramid but in different numbers on each level. There will never be a time when everyone is on the same level, which is why I say it's nothing but an unreachable dream.
I'd just like to iterate that I'm not a Communist, I'm a Socialist.
1. Haha, yeah sure if you think so. Why is it that the millions of pounds donated to charities come from people who believe that these people can be given a better life. Your view is quite frankly, disgusting. Yes, there will be starvation. But we try to stop it from happening, at least frequently.
2. You are not representative of everybody in society.
3. Yes, but the class system is beginning to fade away - it's now not only the rich and middle-classes going to University and getting better jobs. Healthcare now keeps everybody healthy and alive for longer - it's not just the rich anymore. Grammar and Comprehensive Schools now give people from any background a very good education, and Universities are not limited to the rich anymore either. There will be a time when everyone is on the same level, as we can see how we've evolved rapidly since the feudal system just a thousand years ago. If in such a short period of time we've managed to create democracy, billions of inventions that weren't present before, developed detailed and sophisticated political and social ideologies etc. Times change, as does humanity. It's possible to get to equality, but it's going to be a very, very, very long path.
The way I see it, if they can afford to send their kid to private school then if they want to, they can. I see nothing wrong with doing that (why not try to give your kid the best education?) and I see nothing wrong with people providing private school services. It's not like they are doing anything bad, teaching children, so the fact that it's a private service is irrelevant IMO.
With or without private schools, there is and always will be huge differences of upbringings, opportunities and class divides. Some parents can afford to buy their children other fancy things which would give them an advantage too.
It will never be a level playing field. People have to play the hand they are given.
With or without private schools, there is and always will be huge differences of upbringings, opportunities and class divides. Some parents can afford to buy their children other fancy things which would give them an advantage too.
It will never be a level playing field. People have to play the hand they are given.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by KingMessi
As much as I agree with a lot of what you're saying, there seems to be a logical fallacy in the penultimate paragraph. Surely by definition, the private system has to be seen as better than the state system? If it was only an alternative that was neither better nor worse, why would anyone bother paying?!?!!
Because it would offer a different style of education. For example, if the parents wanted the child educated in the Jewish faith, or if they wanted a school which focused more on the arts. You wouldn't be paying to escape the state system but to have a certain style of education. It's still unequal in that poorer families couldn't afford it, but it wouldn't be putting anyone in any specific disadvantage for not being able to.
Original post by Cicerao
Because it would offer a different style of education. For example, if the parents wanted the child educated in the Jewish faith, or if they wanted a school which focused more on the arts. You wouldn't be paying to escape the state system but to have a certain style of education. It's still unequal in that poorer families couldn't afford it, but it wouldn't be putting anyone in any specific disadvantage for not being able to.
Fair enough. But if we're taking this ideology to its natural conclusion, why is that fair? It also seems unsustainable. Surely if you're paying, to use your example, for a school focused more on the arts, then this school attracts all the best arts students, but god art students who can't afford it won't be able to go. And you say this isn't a specific disadvantage, but for those who want a career in the arts I'm sure that they'd disagree.
Just because they go to a private school, it doesn't mean that they will succeed more than public school children. they still have to work damn hard regardless of which school they go to. I have been to both types of school - public school till year 5, then private school for 2 years as my mum started teaching there the previous year and i was offered a place for free as a result, i then went back into a public school at year 7.
i have to say i enjoyed both schools, i feel both were equally good as each other, we were pushed the same amount in both of them and i dont get why people have a problem with private schools (or in some cases think the children are spoiled/snobs/etc) as the children are just the same. i dont see why people should have a problem with the private school kids, its their parents choice at the end of the day, they have earned the money ancd can do with it as they wish, if thats by choosing to give them a private education then why not. only thing i will say that was noticeably different was that the school trips were slightly better than at my public primary school and the smaller class size was quite nice.
also you cant really say one education will be better than another. Like most things it depends on the area/town that you live in. there will be good private schools and not so good private schools, just as there are good public schools and not so good public schools, as you can throw as much money as you want at it, but if the teacher is rubbish then youre pretty much screwed,and you can have both types of teacher at both types of school, it all just depends on where you live really.
i have to say i enjoyed both schools, i feel both were equally good as each other, we were pushed the same amount in both of them and i dont get why people have a problem with private schools (or in some cases think the children are spoiled/snobs/etc) as the children are just the same. i dont see why people should have a problem with the private school kids, its their parents choice at the end of the day, they have earned the money ancd can do with it as they wish, if thats by choosing to give them a private education then why not. only thing i will say that was noticeably different was that the school trips were slightly better than at my public primary school and the smaller class size was quite nice.
also you cant really say one education will be better than another. Like most things it depends on the area/town that you live in. there will be good private schools and not so good private schools, just as there are good public schools and not so good public schools, as you can throw as much money as you want at it, but if the teacher is rubbish then youre pretty much screwed,and you can have both types of teacher at both types of school, it all just depends on where you live really.
Original post by richiemayne
But whether or not your parents worked hard in their life is nothing to do with you. What have you contributed? Why do you deserve to be given more opportunities than anybody else? What about people who simply inherit large sums of money? These are not strong arguments for why you should be entitled to a better standard of education than everybody else.
Original post by mevidek
You don't see the idea of equality. It creates an educational apartheid between the rich and the poor, which is wrong. Everybody should be able to get the same education. Yes, the world's not fair. But we can try our best to make it. Bull**** right-wing ideas that one has to work for a better life are wrong - many work ridiculously hard to get a minimal wage. That's wrong. We need to stop that, and improve living conditions, education and healthcare for everybody.
Original post by tripleeagle
On this topic, I'd have to say that I currently believe in slowly turning private schools into grammar schools in the objective of making all schools state-funded (with a mix of comprehensive and grammar schools). Boarding schools would be subsidised for the full amount of the education but parents would have to pay for living costs. I do have to admit that my mind is not yet completely set on this idea though!
Original post by Mr Dangermouse
No it isn't fair.
School grades shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold. Period.
In my opinion, by law, people should be forced to be in full time state funded education between 4 and 17. That way it removes the possibility of private schools existing(except for private unis and tutors)
School grades shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold. Period.
In my opinion, by law, people should be forced to be in full time state funded education between 4 and 17. That way it removes the possibility of private schools existing(except for private unis and tutors)
Is it fair? No. Should every child ideally have the same opportunities? Yes.
The problem is that the alternative these posts suggest is worse than inequality.
The real message I'm hearing is, "If I can't have something than neither can they." The expected standard of a private school is higher because of factors like; increased funds, the ability to be more selective (of students and teachers), more freedom with the curriculum, and etc. I consider the most important factor to be that parents who are willing/able to pay for private education are more likely to be involved with their kids education. Private schools have an advantage specifically because they are not public. Taking private education opportunities away from the privileged won't do much if anything to improve conditions in the public sector.
When talking about socially, "leveling the playing field," What you are really talking about is lowering one side, not raising the other. As much as it sucks to run a race in which someone has a head-start, it's worse to run a race in which no one get to win.
If the world was 100 percent socially equal, Everything would be fair, and all our lives would be miserable.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
