Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should Education in England be free?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

L i b

RawJoh1

In my view, education should be free and private schools should not be permitted.

Are you going to prohibit parents teaching their children things after school too? Because that is, after all, private education as well.

They pretty obviously offend against equality of opportunity. The sooner they are gone the better.

This is the 'equality' of breaking a talented athlete's legs and condemning everyone to mediocrity for the sake of those who are not so blessed. It is not noble and, should the principles you suggest have been followed, we'd still be living in the Dark Ages.

Lord_Farquad

I bet it isn't.

There are plenty of bad private schools and plenty of excellent state schools. Look at Northern Ireland: the grammar schools there are so good that private schools are sidelined almost entirely.

Reply 21

RawJoh1

L i b

Are you going to prohibit parents teaching their children things after school too? Because that is, after all, private education as well.

Equality of opportunity is not the only political value. It's pretty obviously defeasible in cases of reading to your own children etc.

Reply 22

Chaiteafairy

Public schools are only going to become obsolete when state schools rise to match their caliber. Which means they need more money. Which... doesn't look like it's about to happen.

Reply 23

pamelaa

Lord_Farquad

I bet it doesn't place a third of students at Oxbridge and another fifth at US Ivy's and then a series of other good schools like LSE, Imperial, UCL etc.

Why would people want to go there when Scottish education is free?

Reply 24

Psyk

pamelaa

Why would people want to go there when Scottish education is free?

Not if you live in England.

Reply 25

Unknown?

Education upto sixth form is practically free; your title is misleading. I just finished attending a crappy state school and it wasn't exactly crap because of the teaching but because of the people who went there. A lot of the people there didn't care about their education and interupted lessons. If you then put those people into a better education or private school a lot of them still wouldn't and turn the place into a dump.

If parents who have worked hard and earned money want to send their children to private schools where there will be like minded people and a better learning environment then they have the right to, even I recognise that. So what if they've been given advantages over ordinary children? You wouldn't stop an athlete from competing in a race just because he/she was born with a more athletic body and you would consider that being an "unfair advantage". Being born with money is just another one of those unfair advantages in life that you have to deal with.

The children who come out of private education may have had an advantage but they will still be the ones with the higher qualifications, the ones who have studied more and be the ones suited to the better jobs. If you want to be like them then you have to work harder. I know that some state schools are underfunded and have bad teaching where its almost impossible for people to move up in life but its the governments job to fix that without taking away the rights of other parents. Whats the point of having money if the government won't you let spend it?

Reply 26

Kreuzuerk

Lord_Farquad

I bet it doesn't place a third of students at Oxbridge and another fifth at US Ivy's and then a series of other good schools like LSE, Imperial, UCL etc.

Mine does this, well apart from the Ivy's because it's pretty expensive to study in America; so no-one applied there.

Edit: The International School of Monaco ***** all over Eton.

Reply 27

L i b

RawJoh1

Equality of opportunity is not the only political value. It's pretty obviously defeasible in cases of reading to your own children etc.

Infeasible, you mean? Laws shouldn't exist and end simply because they are enforceable or unenforceable. That you are making arguments which would, if applied consistently, lead to such scenarios should make you question your original premise.

Giving opportunity is a decent and noble thing; taking it away is wrong and wicked. That's my position, and it works far better than yours.

pamelaa

Why would people want to go there when Scottish education is free?

Whilst I wouldn't go to a broadly equivalent English, Welsh or Northern Irish university if I was getting the Scottish Executive 'stay in Scotland, don't leave, pleeeeeeease!' bribe, say swapping Edinburgh for Bristol, I most certainly would if it involved a calibre of university that simply doesn't exist in Scotland: ie, Oxbridge or some of the London colleges.

Either way, I think it's quite frankly improper that the funding is used to keep students in Scotland, effectively encouraging them not to travel or experience different parts of our small but diverse little group of islands.

Reply 28

RawJoh1

L i b

No, I meant "defeasible". That's why I wrote it.

Reply 29

Millyshyn

I reckon private schools should be abolished but there should be more (and stricter) grammar schools. This would give poorer families a better opportunity for good education if their children are truly bright :biggrin:

Reply 30

Stomm

Parental choice is the worst concept ever invented when it comes to overall educational standards. Trying to create a market in education merely ensures that the engaged 'pushy' parents (IoW middle class) get their kids into the good schools, whilst those kids whose parents are poorly educated, or just don't understand the system (immigrants may fall into this category, especially if their grasp of English is poor), end up stuck with whatever school they happen to get into, which will invariably be pretty bloody awful.

Add private education to the mix, and well it gets even worse. Although in reality the mass private education that has expanded in the last 15-20 years has really only ensured that the mediocre offspring of the middle classes don't have to mix with kids whose parents might be plumbers, or get by on benefits, etc...

So really we have two problems. Firstly that of parental selection, which skews the system (including private education) in favour of kids whose parents know how to play the system. To solve this there are IMHO one of two options:

1. Make all schools the same, as far as is practically possible anyway. Same funding levels, same class sizes, etc...

2. Have a system of several different types of school to meet the varying needs of different pupils with differing abilities. IoW have highly academic schools, technical colleges and so on. Ensure that all at least teach the basics, reading, writing, maths and so on.

The critical factor is that the children would be subject to constant assessment to ensure that they are placed in the right school to satisfy their educational needs. 'Problem children' should of course be sent to military boarding schools and signed up for service in Afghanistan as a matter of course, which would help to both control their temperaments and put their violent tendencies to good use.

The important thing is that the only point at which the pupil or parents would have any 'choice' to make is if their child is assessed to be borderline, or perhaps there are more than one school that would best suit their educational needs within their area. And of course in rural areas these schools would have to be pretty small, or involve a lot of long-distance school bus services.

And of course the second problem, private schools. Well, there is a very, very simple answer to this, whether the above is implemented or not. Place a cap on school fees, just as there is on university tuition fees. And then of course ensure that this fee cap is set quite considerably lower than the level of funding per-child that the school would receive for state pupils. Oh and obviously remove charitable status, that really is taking the piss...

Reply 31

electricfeel--

Lord_Farquad

I bet it doesn't place a third of students at Oxbridge and another fifth at US Ivy's and then a series of other good schools like LSE, Imperial, UCL etc.

At least you acknowledge that there is less real hard work put in by the individual at your school; more that students are spoon fed and pretty much expected to get into such fantastic universities.. 'placed'
Stop being such a snob. There are equally good state schools colleges as private ones, and perhaps the higher achieving state pupils deserve more credit as they're the ones pushing themselves to do well.. Gah this debate always makes me angry.

Reply 32

L i b

RawJoh1

No, I meant "defeasible". That's why I wrote it.

Well then your statement just becomes an assertion rather than providing any justification. Your argument, consistently applied, certainly would apply in these circumstances.

Reply 33

*MJ*

Everything in the world should be free. :ninja:

How happy would we all be then? :h:

Reply 34

bigman_ben

if you've got the brains you can do well whichever school you go to, a lot of this private school malarky is about keeping up with the joneses so to speak, I know for a fact that you can get into Oxbridge without having to shell out stupid amounts of money going to a private school. Admittedly, lots more privately educated people get into the top universities but is getting to Oxbridge and others really the absolute be all and end all?

Reply 35

RawJoh1

L i b

Well then your statement just becomes an assertion rather than providing any justification. Your argument, consistently applied, certainly would apply in these circumstances.

Do you even know what defeasible means?

*sigh*

Suppose I make a promise to take you to dinner at 7.30pm. I am thereby under a duty to take you to dinner. However, it is possible that some other conflicting duty could come into play. Suppose on my way to meet you for dinner I come across someone who has been badly mugged and needs help. Because my duty that arose from the promise is defeasible (can be overriden) I should help the mugged man. But that doesn't mean the original duty is not there, or is worth nothing.

Back to education. That something offends against equality of opportunity is a reason to get rid of it. But it is not an all things considered judgement. There are great counterveiling reasons why we would not want to ban parents reading to their children (eg. it's important that parents can read to their children, this is just obvious). There are no such counterveiling reasons in the case of private education.

That's me done on this topic - it's boring. Read Adam Swift's HOW NOT TO BE A HYPOCRITE: SCHOOL CHOICE FOR THE MORALLY PERPLEXED PARENT for a good discussion of this issue.

Reply 36

Sam...

It is free... but people should be able to opt for private education if they want to. In the same way that the NHS is free for everyone but people can opt for private healthcare if they prefer.

Reply 37

tucker672

Drogue

What a coincedence :p:

Perhaps you would like to say something on the topic ? :wink:

Reply 38

Sports Racer

cpj1987

I think they're pointless (anyone can do well in any school), but if people have the money and want to waste it in that manner, fair enough!

Real fees (those discounting inflation) have doubled over the past couple of decades. Even in the recession demand keeps going up and waiting lists continue to grow. Even those parents who find it hard to pay the fees still push on to keep their children in private education.

Why? Because private schools are better at getting people into elite universities, and parents choose them based on this reputation.

RawJoh1

7% of the UK is privately educated, yet privately educated students make for 50% of Oxford students

That statistic is a bit unfair as 20% of people taking A-levels are privately educated.

My view is that abolishing independent schools is dodging the real problem. The standards in state schools should be raised.

Reply 39

L i b

RawJoh1

Suppose I make a promise to take you to dinner at 7.30pm. I am thereby under a duty to take you to dinner. However, it is possible that some other conflicting duty could come into play. Suppose on my way to meet you for dinner I come across someone who has been badly mugged and needs help. Because my duty that arose from the promise is defeasible (can be overriden) I should help the mugged man. But that doesn't mean the original duty is not there, or is worth nothing.

I wonder which textbook you lifted that example out of.

I apologise for assuming that your argument actually had some content to it and that you had simply made a perfectly acceptable typo. It now appears you were in fact obfuscating rather than illuminating. Is it just that I have exposed a flaw in your argument that urks you so much, or are you generally this unreceptive to other opinions?

Back to education. That something offends against equality of opportunity is a reason to get rid of it. But it is not an all things considered judgement. There are great counterveiling reasons why we would not want to ban parents reading to their children (eg. it's important that parents can read to their children, this is just obvious). There are no such counterveiling reasons in the case of private education.

Perhaps instead of going into a frankly bizarre tirade about logic, you could just have answered the question: what is the countervailing reason? You have repeatedly weaseled out of answering this by stating it is 'obvious'. You may think it is important that a parent reads to his child (if he can, presumably); I think it's important that a parent gives his child the best education he can. There is, again, no difference between the two scenarios and you seem unable to produce one.