Should private schools be banned?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by tengentoppa
You have to remember how many people attend secondary school. The majority of state school pupils will not be attending university and many will not get to A-level. Only the brightest from state schools will go to uni. By contrast, there is an expectation that you will go to university if your parents have paid for private education.
Where did you get this idea? I can't believe that the majority of students don't progress this far - I went to a state school and all but a handful went on to A-level/equivalent, and of those a large majority then went on to university. I believe the same is true for many other state schools I know, though in fairness I don't come from London or an inner city area where I suppose the statistics might be different. A lot of people who went to private schools really look down on state schools without knowing anything about them, and these assumptions really annoy me. If you're bright, you'll do well whether you're in private school or not. You're also less likely to be condescending about it.
I don't personally think they should be banned. I spent five years in a sub-standard comprehensive, with knives and drugs and all the rest of it, but got on with my work and came out with 10 A*. The school you go to matters less than if you're determined and hard-working. I moved to one of the best state schools in the country last year and, yes, my progress had improved massively, but people who don't work there won't come out with better grades just because they went to a better school. What I mean to say is: you get out what you put in.
But private schools should exist, because there are people who need them, for example those with special educational needs.
But private schools should exist, because there are people who need them, for example those with special educational needs.
Absolutely they should be banned.
Private schools are the #1 source of class division in this country; they allow middle class people to secure the best jobs, best university places and so on.
Instead of banning, maybe we could nationalise them? Let the government take the current ones over and then distribute 100% of the places freely to selected students across the country. Perhaps have places rewarded on the grounds of merit/attitude rather than the income of your parents?
It's alien to me how anybody could think it's right for your education to be different just because your parents earn more.
Private schools are the #1 source of class division in this country; they allow middle class people to secure the best jobs, best university places and so on.
Instead of banning, maybe we could nationalise them? Let the government take the current ones over and then distribute 100% of the places freely to selected students across the country. Perhaps have places rewarded on the grounds of merit/attitude rather than the income of your parents?
It's alien to me how anybody could think it's right for your education to be different just because your parents earn more.
Original post by the mezzil
Yes taking money from poor people and spending it on foreign aid/ subsidies for the middle class green fingers/ MP wages and expenses/ benefits (for themselves because so much of it is taking away from them in tax
) etc etc etc is a great way to help the poor!
Have you heard of tax evasion? Do you really think the rich will be the ones paying the majority of the tax?
Why are people on this forum so ****ing stupid?!
Posted from TSR Mobile
) etc etc etc is a great way to help the poor!Have you heard of tax evasion? Do you really think the rich will be the ones paying the majority of the tax?
Why are people on this forum so ****ing stupid?!
Posted from TSR Mobile
OK then. So you do support taxation system that properly takes from the rich and gives to the poor? A social democrat may well agree with the problems you have just stated. Your post does not invalidate wealth redistribution via taxation, it invalidates crowny capitalism where the state is bought by the rich elite and is made over to bend over for said elite. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.
Although I think you are wrong in that it is the middle class that tend to get screwed over the most in terms of taxation. The really rich are not affected by it all evoid/evade, the poor are to poor to pay tax so the middle class are effected the most. This is why it is essential the middle class have a hatred of the poor and not of the people above them. They tend to decide elections.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Le Nombre
The government could make the requirement for a PGCE a RG 2.1 and AAB at A Level, at which point there would be a colossal shortfall in teachers and kids won't be being taught by anyone. In order for teaching to be able to go after that limited pool of 'top' graduates as its sole source of trainees they'd need to make the pay and conditions comensurate to the other professional jobs (lawyer, doctor, accountant, research scientist etc.) those graduates currently do.
Is there a problem with increasing the pay, though? That is what I think they should do. Being a teacher is largely seen as a fallback option, or the kind of 'top job' for someone who gets Bs and Cs in their A levels. Surely if they increased the pay and made the standard harder, more intelligent people would apply? The pay was what put me off being a teacher, and constantly being told my grades etc were 'above' teaching put me off it. I'm sure there must be many more people like this who might like to teach really, but are dissuaded from it because of the pay/relatively low standards?
Original post by the mezzil
Einstein was known for his exellence in science, not his socialist ideas. Quoting Einstein is not relevent or proof of anything. I could start quoting a multitude of intelligent capitalist academics and it would just be as good as you quoting Karl Marx.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Einstein was more known for his socialist ideas than mezzil's ideas of extreme capitalism.
Original post by JamesGibson
Private schools are the #1 source of class division in this country; they allow middle class people to secure the best jobs, best university places and so on.
I think you'd have to be fairly early on in your life to believe that private schools are the biggest cause of the class division in our society.
And by the way, the majority of middle class parents do not send their children to a private school. It's generally out-with the financial reach, unless large scholarships are on offer, of those who aren't at least verging on being upper-middle class.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Einstein was more known for his socialist ideas than mezzil's ideas of extreme capitalism.
So im not known for being pro- capitalist?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by arfah
I personally think they should be banned. It is unfair that everyone does not get the same education, and people are practically buying their/ child's education.
I wonder what everyone else's view is on this?
I wonder what everyone else's view is on this?
We should get rid of private schools, not by banning them, but by raising the quality of state schools to the extent that private schools are no longer necessary.
The only reason private schools even exist is because state schools are, on the whole, providing an insufficient standard of education. That's the fundamental problem, and it lies with state schools, not with private schools. Banning private schools does not solve this problem, it just makes it worse. The level of state education available will be just as poor, but more people will have to endure it.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by the mezzil
You're just a nobody like the rest of us I'm afraid.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
OK then. So you do support taxation system that properly takes from the rich and gives to the poor? A social democrat may well agree with the problems you have just stated. Your post does not invalidate wealth redistribution via taxation, it invalidates crowny capitalism where the state is bought by the rich elite and is made over to bend over for said elite. Socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor.
Although I think you are wrong in that it is the middle class that tend to get screwed over the most in terms of taxation. The really rich are not affected by it all evoid/evade, the poor are to poor to pay tax so the middle class are effected the most. This is why it is essential the middle class have a hatred of the poor and not of the people above them. They tend to decide elections.
Although I think you are wrong in that it is the middle class that tend to get screwed over the most in terms of taxation. The really rich are not affected by it all evoid/evade, the poor are to poor to pay tax so the middle class are effected the most. This is why it is essential the middle class have a hatred of the poor and not of the people above them. They tend to decide elections.
The rich should get taxed of course. I have never argued otherwise.
I agree the middle class and the skilled poor get taxed the most. The manual poor and unemplyed have wages that are too low to be in the tax brackets.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by infairverona
Is there a problem with increasing the pay, though? That is what I think they should do. Being a teacher is largely seen as a fallback option, or the kind of 'top job' for someone who gets Bs and Cs in their A levels. Surely if they increased the pay and made the standard harder, more intelligent people would apply? The pay was what put me off being a teacher, and constantly being told my grades etc were 'above' teaching put me off it. I'm sure there must be many more people like this who might like to teach really, but are dissuaded from it because of the pay/relatively low standards?
Go private teaching. Or a university lecturer.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
You're just a nobody like the rest of us I'm afraid.
Obviously when compared to Einstein!
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by tazarooni89
The only reason private schools even exist is because state schools are, on the whole, providing an insufficient standard of education. That's the fundamental problem, and it lies with state schools, not with private schools.
The only reason private schools even exist is because state schools are, on the whole, providing an insufficient standard of education. That's the fundamental problem, and it lies with state schools, not with private schools.
They'll always exist - they will always be able to provide smaller class sizes, better extra curricular facilities, boarding, longer holidays and longer school days, etc. etc. etc. they will always be funded better.
It's not just because of the quality of education, theres a lot more to it than that.
Original post by infairverona
Is there a problem with increasing the pay, though? That is what I think they should do. Being a teacher is largely seen as a fallback option, or the kind of 'top job' for someone who gets Bs and Cs in their A levels. Surely if they increased the pay and made the standard harder, more intelligent people would apply? The pay was what put me off being a teacher, and constantly being told my grades etc were 'above' teaching put me off it. I'm sure there must be many more people like this who might like to teach really, but are dissuaded from it because of the pay/relatively low standards?
No, I agree that we should absolutely invest in teachers and had similar advice and had similar thoughts to you (enforced by my parents and various extended family who are teachers), but there seems to be an instant reaction of 'make entry standards as high as medicine/law/finance etc. and that'll solve the problem', seemingly unaware of the fact that these jobs are prestigious and sought after because they offer a good package of money and not through some ethereal process. Saying that privates don't offer massive salaries and they attract plenty of top candidates (though not, outside the very top places, the sort of academic CVs you'd see amongst barristers, Big 4 trainees or doctors), but the holidays are massive there and class control's a non-factor so they often go poaching amongst academics who like the teaching side, of which there simply aren't enough to staff the state sector too.
Not read the thread.
I went to a private school.
I HATED it, and begged to be able to attend the local state.
Yes, my private school had good teaching.
It also had EXPECTATION AND PRESSURE +++++++++++
Naturally very smart, I got put under more pressure/heavy workload/criticisms than most.
I spent both GCSE years very unwell and missed a lot of teaching.
In the middle of my final exams, I was in a NASTY horse-riding accident resulting in severe concussion, and I shouldn't have been able to sit my last few - I did.
I got pulled aside by my head of year on results day. I'd got 9 As and 1 A*. I got a *******ing.
4 months after the *******ing I ended up spending the best part of a year in hospital, greatly due to the stress and pressure.
I went to a private school.
I HATED it, and begged to be able to attend the local state.
Yes, my private school had good teaching.
It also had EXPECTATION AND PRESSURE +++++++++++
Naturally very smart, I got put under more pressure/heavy workload/criticisms than most.
I spent both GCSE years very unwell and missed a lot of teaching.
In the middle of my final exams, I was in a NASTY horse-riding accident resulting in severe concussion, and I shouldn't have been able to sit my last few - I did.
I got pulled aside by my head of year on results day. I'd got 9 As and 1 A*. I got a *******ing.
4 months after the *******ing I ended up spending the best part of a year in hospital, greatly due to the stress and pressure.
Original post by hslt
They'll always exist - they will always be able to provide smaller class sizes, better extra curricular facilities, boarding, longer holidays and longer school days, etc. etc. etc. they will always be funded better.
It's not just because of the quality of education, theres a lot more to it than that.
It's not just because of the quality of education, theres a lot more to it than that.
I agree - but I think primarily it is due to the quality of education, calibre of alumnus emerging from it each year etc. It's unlikely that my parents for example, would have paid thousands of pounds to send me to a private school if the local comprehensive was academically just as good. Better sports pitches and fancy buildings etc. wouldn't be worth it.
Besides, if state schools were pulling their weight in terms of academic education, I don't think many people would be complaining that the division is a cause of unfairness. In that case, private school would just be a luxury like any other, such as first class plane tickets or five star hotels. If you can afford it you can have it, that's the whole point of the concept of wealth.
What people complain about is the gap in the quality of education. And the reason that exists is because the quality of education in state schools is too low, not because the quality of education in private schools is "too high" (because there is no such thing).
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by tazarooni89
I agree - but I think primarily it is due to the quality of education, calibre of alumnus emerging from it each year etc. It's unlikely that my parents for example, would have paid thousands of pounds to send me to a private school if the local comprehensive was academically just as good. Better sports pitches and fancy buildings etc. wouldn't be worth it.
Besides, if state schools were pulling their weight in terms of academic education, I don't think many people would be complaining that the division is a cause of unfairness. In that case, private school would just be a luxury like any other, such as first class plane tickets or five star hotels. If you can afford it you can have it, that's the whole point of the concept of wealth.
What people complain about is the gap in the quality of education. And the reason that exists is because the quality of education in state schools is too low, not because the quality of education in private schools is "too high" (because there is no such thing).
Besides, if state schools were pulling their weight in terms of academic education, I don't think many people would be complaining that the division is a cause of unfairness. In that case, private school would just be a luxury like any other, such as first class plane tickets or five star hotels. If you can afford it you can have it, that's the whole point of the concept of wealth.
What people complain about is the gap in the quality of education. And the reason that exists is because the quality of education in state schools is too low, not because the quality of education in private schools is "too high" (because there is no such thing).
Well, to play the devil's advocate - I went to one of the top schools in the country, in fact when I left it was the top mixed state school and one of the top 10 of all schools in A levels (and I think GCSEs), it was certainly better than the local, but very famous, private schools.
However, we still lost some of our top teachers to private schools - our physics department was, for 3 years, the 'best department in the country' in any school, then all but one of our physics teachers got head hunted for big wages at private schools, with free housing, etc. Never again has our physics department scaled such heights.
Thus, even the top state schools in the country can't compete for the best teachers and private schools do have a negative impact on the quality of education received by those in state schools simply because the best teachers are drawn away from them.
Further - another major reason for sending you children to these schools is that they meet people who then give them jobs, if these people were spread out away from each other (i.e. rich people not chucked together with rich) then the contacts made would be more 'fairly distributed'.
I know that there are counter arguments - namely, maybe those teachers wouldn't be teaching without these private school opportunities, and without private schools the state sector would have to fund a load of extra places which it can't afford, rich people would still congregate in rich areas and thus end up in the same schools etc.etc.etc.
HOWEVER, it cannot be argued against that it is nowhere near as simple and black and white as the argument that you are making would suggest it is, and those who argue against private schools do have some genuine reasons for making those arguments.
No, of course not. Enlisting someone's services to educate your child is an eminently legitimate use of your resources.
But they probably shouldn't have charitable status.
But they probably shouldn't have charitable status.
Original post by locksher
Where did you get this idea? I can't believe that the majority of students don't progress this far - I went to a state school and all but a handful went on to A-level/equivalent, and of those a large majority then went on to university. I believe the same is true for many other state schools I know, though in fairness I don't come from London or an inner city area where I suppose the statistics might be different. A lot of people who went to private schools really look down on state schools without knowing anything about them, and these assumptions really annoy me. If you're bright, you'll do well whether you're in private school or not. You're also less likely to be condescending about it.
You're assuming I go to private school, I don't. I've seen first-hand the kind of state school that is delighted with people getting a C at GCSE and which simply does not send students to university.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- Are single-sex schools a thing of the past? Should they be abolished or not?
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Fire Work
- Where to apply with a poor UCAT score?
- Should mobile phone use be banned in schools?
- thoughts on no phones at school
- LNAT Essay feedback
- Mobile phones being banned at start of class
- Can I be a teacher with tattoos
- Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirms
- Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challenge
- Rishi Sunak considers curbing social media use for under-16s
- Mobile phones should be banned from the classroom?
- Twin block braces
- Are these rules for my school necessary?
- Do you think universities should ban meat from their menus?
- Woman attacked by her own dog, an xl bully
- I Need friends lol
- [Golden Thread] Which TSR users quoted you in the last 12 months?
- What jobs do private school kids end up doing?
Latest
Trending
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 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
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 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
