Would you like Private schools to be banned? (POLL)

No.

The difference between people attending private schools isn't necessarily 'rich' or 'poor' as people have implied, I'm by no means poor and I went to a state school and got a very decent education through my own hard work and (thankfully) good teachers at my school.

I resent being classed in a 'poor' category in this thread just because my parents couldn't afford to send me to a private school. It's a lifestyle choice and in the end education is about the teachers, the education system and the self motivation, not the establishment.

Reply 1022

cl_steele

2

Original post by bm127

I can see your argument for making them state schools and integrating state/private school student bodies to reduce class sizes. But as the private schools often have far better facilities, there would still be an inequality surely? Also the cost would be bigger than simply meeting the average state spend for each of the extra 615,000 pupils.

- Spending the average spend of 5595 per student (2011, may not be perfectly accurate) for the 615,000 would cost 3,440,925,000 a year, which is a mere 52 pounds extra a year per person in tax, which doesn't seem too bad....

- HOWEVER, Private schools are businesses, all the government could do would be subsidise pupils who cant afford it, which would still leave inequality.

- If the government banned private education they couldn't force the now ex-private schools to keep running on state funding, and they wouldn't be able to integrate all of the ex-private school pupils into existing facilities, so they would have to buy them out. As there are around 2500 private schools in the UK, with considerable assets, this would be unfeasible.

I mean yes the system is inherently unfair and it would be great if everyone had equal opportunities regardless of background, but you can't create forced equality. It hasn't exactly worked where it's been tried has it?

*charities
very few private schools are run as profit making ventures.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1023

roadkillzebra

2

If they banned private schools, the more privileged kids would just take places in the better quality state schools and this would make disadvantaged kids even more disadvantaged.

Reply 1024

bm127

10

Original post by cl_steele

*charities
very few private schools are run as profit making ventures.

Sorry for that, I made the assumption. Although when I googled that I couldn't find any clarification. I am not doubting you but could you possibly provide a link? EDIT: Just from what I have been googling aren't most run as a charity for tax reasons/benefits?

But I guess their income still has to meet their outgoing, and their outgoing is very high due to the quality of education they provide, so it makes little difference in the scheme of things. The government still has to meet their outgoing costs, and their status as charities doesn't take away from the fact that buying their assets would cost a lot.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1025

Calum93

2

Original post by owlsaymoo

(I'm in private education at the moment). I mean private schools do provide scholarships and bursaries for the less well off. Private schools aren't there to make sure the rich get the best education they are there to make sure that the teachers a) get paid well so they teach well and b) help the best talent develop. And anyway, just because your school is private doesn't make it any better than a state or grammar school.

...what?

Firstly, private schools do not help the best talent available, they help those with the means to pay for it. They are in no way meritocratic.

Secondly, if my state education is better or equal to your private education, why do your parents pay thousands to send you there? (This is a genuine question if you seriously think our schoold are equal).

Reply 1026

madders94

18

Original post by bm127

I can see the argument for that, perhaps with an 11+ style test which qualifies you for grammar school or funding to attend a private school (although this would be unfair I guess, having a bad day at 11 and failing a test could have a major impact on a childs life in this system)?

Wont this divert money away from the students who are still in the regular state sector? Also would rich parents or parents who choose to save still be able to pay their kids way into the school, or would they be subject to the same form of testing?

I guess my question really is how would you decide on who gets to have their way payed to private school?

No more unfair than the current system where having a bad day at 18 and failing a test can have a major impact on the student's life :tongue:

Reply 1027

cl_steele

2

Original post by bm127

Sorry for that, I made the assumption. Although when I googled that I couldn't find any clarification. I am not doubting you but could you possibly provide a link? EDIT: Just from what I have been googling aren't most run as a charity for tax reasons/benefits?

But I guess their income still has to meet their outgoing, and their outgoing is very high due to the quality of education they provide, so it makes little difference in the scheme of things. The government still has to meet their outgoing costs, and their status as charities doesn't take away from the fact that buying their assets would cost a lot.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Schoolslearninganddevelopment/ChoosingASchool/DG_4016312

There are around 2,300 independent schools in England. These schools set their own curriculum and admissions policies. They are funded by fees paid by parents and income from investments. Just over half have charitable status.

Youreright it is very hard to find a link to these things this is the closest i could find though, although i did underestimate the amount of for profit schools out there apparently :rolleyes:

Reply 1028

im so academic

15

Original post by madders94

No more unfair than the current system where having a bad day at 18 and failing a test can have a major impact on the student's life :tongue:

That's just life.

You may have a bad day and mess up your job interview, your audition for an orchestra, a work presentation, a university interview, a sports event, a performance on the stage.

Tough ****.

Reply 1029

bm127

10

Original post by madders94

No more unfair than the current system where having a bad day at 18 and failing a test can have a major impact on the student's life :tongue:

I suppose so, but at 18 after two years of learning material a bad day wouldn't counteract all the hard work that should hopefully have been done, unless it was a bad day for a serious reason (family death etc) which an exam board at A level could take into consideration. And you can always retake A levels or equivalent at 19. In year 9 if you retook the test in year 10 (like doing the 12+) and finally got into the school, then you've lost 1 out of 4 years of education in the better school.

Reply 1030

bm127

10

Original post by cl_steele

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Parents/Schoolslearninganddevelopment/ChoosingASchool/DG_4016312

Youreright it is very hard to find a link to these things this is the closest i could find though, although i did underestimate the amount of for profit schools out there apparently :rolleyes:

Haha yeah there's a big argument about whether they should be forced to operate as businesses, as the majority of the "charitable" ones are I think doing it for the tax breaks. Well that's what my brief bit of research showed anyway.

Reply 1031

madders94

18

Original post by im so academic

That's just life.

You may have a bad day and mess up your job interview, your audition for an orchestra, a work presentation, a university interview, a sports event, a performance on the stage.

Tough ****.

Exactly

I think the more schools prepare children and young people for life (within reason, they have to accept that they are children and not just miniature adults sometimes), the better.

Reply 1032

im so academic

15

Original post by madders94

Exactly

I think the more schools prepare children and young people for life (within reason, they have to accept that they are children and not just miniature adults sometimes), the better.

How do you propose that?

Reply 1033

cl_steele

2

Original post by bm127

Haha yeah there's a big argument about whether they should be forced to operate as businesses, as the majority of the "charitable" ones are I think doing it for the tax breaks. Well that's what my brief bit of research showed anyway.

Yar most do but to be entirely fair most peoples idea of private schools are very jaded along the lines of the elite ones like Harrow, Eton, etc. etc. who have vast sums of money tucked away, the reality is most dont ... i went to a moderatly prestigious one and i remember asking one of the teachers what the schools turn over was and the difference between income and expenditure was tiny, to build any new buildings or buy any new equiptment theyd have to borrow or do a hell of a lot of fund raising. Running one of those schools isnt cheap, i had friends at a couple of smaller local ones which went bust, one of them repeatedly so :tongue:

Reply 1034

madders94

18

Original post by im so academic

How do you propose that?

By having a "tough ****" kind of attitude towards most problems. At the moment kids aged eleven are either treated like 3-year-olds and babied constantly or they're treated like little adults, getting to make decisions that they're probably not mature enough to make. I'd discourage appealing against exam results unless there really is something wrong, sending off for remarks is fine but when you get parents who appeal to the exam board, indignant that the board just doesn't recognize little Tarquin's genius when really they can't accept that their son isn't academic, it's not exactly setting the kid up for life very well. When they're thirty and get turned down for a job, Mummy can't appeal the decision anymore. If people are unhappy with their grade after a re-mark, they re-sit, simple as.

Also with more practical lessons such as learning early how to craft a good CV, interview techniques etc in space of lessons like Drama and Music which, although they are good for creativity, will not prepare a 13 year old for the job market like these sessions will.

Reply 1035

im so academic

15

Original post by madders94

By having a "tough ****" kind of attitude towards most problems. At the moment kids aged eleven are either treated like 3-year-olds and babied constantly or they're treated like little adults, getting to make decisions that they're probably not mature enough to make. I'd discourage appealing against exam results unless there really is something wrong, sending off for remarks is fine but when you get parents who appeal to the exam board, indignant that the board just doesn't recognize little Tarquin's genius when really they can't accept that their son isn't academic, it's not exactly setting the kid up for life very well. When they're thirty and get turned down for a job, Mummy can't appeal the decision anymore. If people are unhappy with their grade after a re-mark, they re-sit, simple as.

Also with more practical lessons such as learning early how to craft a good CV, interview techniques etc in space of lessons like Drama and Music which, although they are good for creativity, will not prepare a 13 year old for the job market like these sessions will.

Oh I must have interpreted your first post - I thought you were arguing against that. :h:

.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 1036

muddywaters51

OP

Please take more freedoms away from me

thanks

Reply 1037

T.Fleming

A child should not have his life dictated to him by the economic status of his parents. A wholly state education system would allow every child the chance to succeed, it would give children from all socio-economic backgrounds a more equal starting position in life. Why should one child suffer because his parents earn less than another child's parents? The current system is simply unfair.

Reply 1038

MaddyBroxton

Original post by HeyyImRyan

Instead of moaning they could've worked harder to be able to afford it for their children? Most of the people sent to private schools probably do so because their parents earned a good living... I intend to do the same for my kids despite not being privately educated myself - just have to work hard to make it a possibility.

I fully agree with this! I am at an advantage of being brought up so that I can pass my exams to get into a grammar school and want to do this and more for my kids so that they can have all the advantages in life that other people don't and I will keep reminding them that most people don't have their opportunities so to make the most of them. Don't demonise the rich and or parents who rely on scholarships so their kids can get into private education for working their asses off to get their kids into private education, demonise the parents who decide not to do a days work in their lives and continue to live on the dole and not motivate their kids to do better than them, because those are the kids that are going to repeat the cycle, those are the kids who are going to grow up thinking not working is normal and that having to live off of the government is fine.

Reply 1039

SaucissonSecCy

16

Original post by muddywaters51

One of the stupidist things I've heard.

Why not ban private healthcare too because of how "unfair" it is. While you're at it ban ferraris and mansions because it is unfair that some cannot afford these.

Did you realise there are actually people who wan't to ban legitimate businesses/organizations?

What's so hypocritical and disingenuous is that they are actually state subsidized to keep privilege in place.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/private-schools-taxpayer-subsidy-money-social-mobility-backlash-a7464951.html

http://schoolsweek.co.uk/labour-to-end-700m-private-school-subsidy-unless-state-partnership-conditions-are-met/

(This one is Labour ffs!!)

Private healthcare isn't a good analogy- would you want the US system unfettered and the misery it has caused for example, the complete lack of human rights for the poor?

Another point is that Britain has had both state and private healthcare, but until very recently due to Tory ideology, the NHS has been vastly more respected and trusted by people of all classes and incomes.

I think education, with an 'NES' should follow exactly the same principle, not to mention treating every individual as having human rights from birth, not based on their parent income or circumstance, and for all people to be able to fulfill their potential and have opportunities for progress.

It's a question of balance.

Tory ideology is totally regressive in this sense, and I always find it frustrating how glib and superficial their supporters arguments are, there is very little reflection that goes on. They seem quite dogmatic about sticking to past ideas and wisdom in general.

I think if we got rid of private schools, you would still have ghettoisation, between pushy ambitious deeply middle class state schools, and left behind ones, so it would solve nothing in that sense, there'd still be a clear class divide, a state sixth from near me was a selective grade factory hothousing people from the right backgrounds with the highest grades nationally for example.

I am, however opposed to boarding schools, as another part of the post imperial culture, I can observe that huge amounts of child abuse has occurred in them, and I also think it's inhumane and wrong to take kids away from their parents home at that age- no-wonder so many people ruling our country are pathological weirdos.

Would you like Private schools to be banned? (POLL)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you