Does the quality of education you recieve depend on the amount of money you have?

How about this take on it?

But with the added catch of means tested subsidies so people from less well-off backgrounds would not have to pay for the education. Ergo, everyone has access to the same level of education regardless of income background.

Though implementing that would be highly complicated and invasive...

Why not bring back more non-fee paying Grammar Schools? Thereby wealth makes 0 difference to wether you get into the school or not. Works well round my area.

Do you really believe that?!

Grammar schools are an imperfect system, but anecdotally, many of us who weren't rich got an amazing education.

This effects third parties. It effects society as a whole. Equality is the number one predictor of happiness within a country across income levels.nprivate schools increase inequality and therefore unhappiness.

I don't have a problem with Grammars. My gasp was about "wealth making 0 difference" to your chances of getting in. I applied for a Leadership role in one a couple of years ago (unsuccessfully). At interview I was told 95% of parents had engaged the services of a private tutor for their child prior to the entrance exam.

Oh, yes I see.

Even those who weren't well off at least paid for 11+ tests, and still got private tutoring!

Short term loss, long term gain.

If TSR has taught me anything it's that people have radically different ideas about what well off means...

the availability of private tutors isn't going to help a family that's struggling to put some honest bread on the table AND pay it's soaring utility bills.

yeah obviously that's on the extreme end of the scale.

but if you have some disposable income, and your child is mildly intelligent, then tutoring is beneficial.

I don't think tutoring is necessary at all. Most people I knew just got a couple of packs of 11+ papers from the local newsagents and then their parents helped them through it, you hardly need a tutor to teach you the stuff.

I don't think tutoring is necessary at all. Most people I knew just got a couple of packs of 11+ papers from the local newsagents and then their parents helped them through it, you hardly need a tutor to teach you the stuff.

I don't think they should be banned, but I would certainly support revoking their charity status if they don't select at least 50% of their intake from dissadvantaged backgrounds.

Very, very few schools would have the required endowment that it would take to give fee support of that kind to 50% of the intake. The only option would be to dramatically raise fees for the remainder, possibly making it completely unaffordable for most. Essentially, you'd be making public school exclusive to the very rich and the very poor.

Discuss.

I think it blatantly does, which is extremely unfair and worst off on the not so able students who need more help and to be pushed more and simply won't get this kind of education because they don't hve the money.

If so, what do you think can be done about this to make things more fair?

Posted from TSR Mobile

That depends where you live. In the UK, it does quite significantly. In countries like Norway, not so much.

It does in most cases. And I agree it is unfair. I think private schools should be banned unless they take on a 50% intake of underprivelaged kids.

Even taking out private schools the quality of education can depend on how well off your parents are as well- houses in the catchment area for the best state schools are usually more expensive than outside of them. And the fact that some kids who go to state schools get extra tutoring alongside school.

Interesting. I've never heard about the systems used in these countries, could you elaborate

Posted from TSR Mobile