Are private schools fair?

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?

I am quite open to change my mind on this topic but this is my view at the moment.

I don't really think it's fair that one child should be allowed to allowed to have a better education than another because of the family that they were born into. I understand the argument that some people make that "well I worked hard for my money, so why can't I give my children the best start I can get them?"

The thing is it's not really about the parents, or how hard they've worked in their life. If they've worked hard and got a lot of money then good for them. But in my view, their child should not be allowed to have a head start in life just because they were arbitrarily born into that family. It's simply not fair on kids from poor backgrounds.

In my view, it creates a subtle divide between the majority of people who go to state school and the minority who go to private. The state schools kids think "eugh they went to private school, they just bought their education, they don't really deserve it".

I can't comment on the view of privately educated people because I myself was educated at an average state school. But that is the general view I have picked up in my time at state school.

I also think it creates a long term social divide. Wealthy families are able to pay for their child to have a better education and are thus more likely to be wealthy when they are older. Poor families get a poorer education and are more likely to stay in the same poor jobs even though they may be just as talented as many privately educated children. I realise this is a large generalisation but you get the idea, the private/state school distinction is not good for social mobility.

Anyway, that's my view. I'd quite like to hear general views on this topic so please argue against my points, agree with me, whatever.

The basic right to education is met by the state system.
Private schools are a privilege.
Like many human rights, the basic rights are all met in this country, but if you have money you can receive a better one.

For example: 'the right to a standard of life adequate for well-being - including food, clothing, housing and healthcare' is a general human right. People are provided basic shelter through council housing, however people can be privileged and live in a big house... There's nothing wrong with that it's just the way things are, so I personally don't think you're argument holds much weight.

I went to both state and private school, so I can see both points of view here, but I think a lot of people on TSR are guilty of reverse snobbery.

Congratulations on monumentally missing my point.

The basic right to education is met by the state system.
Private schools are a privilege.
Like many human rights, the basic rights are all met in this country, but if you have money you can receive a better one.

For example: 'the right to a standard of life adequate for well-being - including food, clothing, housing and healthcare' is a general human right. People are provided basic shelter through council housing, however people can be privileged and live in a big house... There's nothing wrong with that it's just the way things are, so I personally don't think you're argument holds much weight.

I went to both state and private school, so I can see both points of view here, but I think a lot of people on TSR are guilty of reverse snobbery.

It's more irritating when people in state schools go on about private schools. It's not just incredibly rich kids that go there, plus there are loads of ways which underprivileged children can go, tons of scholarships and bursaries.
Also from my experience I know people that go to both private and state schools and the parents of state school pupils have extra money to spend on cars, holidays etc whereas private school parents invest all of that in their kids education. Now I'm not saying that's everyone cause there are some people who just downright can't afford it, which is a tricky subject :/

In private schools the pupils work hard because they have the correct work ethic (most of the time) but in state schools a large majority of people see achieving as 'uncool' and its so much better to go out every night of the week.

Also quite a few universities take into account the school you attended when looking at your results so in that respect it's just as fair.

And if you try really hard you can get a scholarship, cause those admissions tests aren't easy! So you need some degree of brains to get in...

I have friends whose parents most certainly could have afforded a private school, but they attended the same comp as I did. So no, not everyone who can afford private school wants to use it. You can't call someone a hypocrite based on an assumption you've pulled out of thin air.

> Surely the best solution to eliminate Private schools is to ultimately improve the standard of state schools to the point where they are not needed?

if you had the chance to get the best for your child would you get it yes or no

I have to address this point.

This will never, ever happen, simply because the elite of society do not give a rat's about the quality of the state system. There is no need for them to even think about improving anything because they can send their children off to Eton and escape the proles stuck in the local comp with 29 other students in the class. They will always be "needed" because shipping your child off to boarding school is far easier than bothering to develop an efficient state system for all.




I'm going to reword the question, because I don't agree with your analysis of private school universally being "the best". Would I send a hypothetical child to a private school in the UK? No. Why would I pay into a system I don't agree with?

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?

Where do you stop? Once you've decided that this is unfair, is must then logically be unfair that some pupils go to very good state schools when some attend ****ty inner-city comps. You begin a long process of reducing everything down to the lowest common denominator.

Nobody wants to reduce everything down, people want good quality education for everyone. The reason private schools are being called unfair is because of the fact that they are impossible to attend for a vast section of society, because of wealth. It's impossible to suddenly grant everyone the ability to afford private schools. It's perfectly possible to bring a state school's quality up to match a well-perfoming one.

As are many good state schools. If you can't afford to attend a great state school because it would mean moving to an expensive cachement area, how is that any fairer?

Private schools have certain advantages most state schools will never attain, but many of the methods of the independent sector are entirely replicable.

I have to address this point.

This will never, ever happen, simply because the elite of society do not give a rat's about the quality of the state system. There is no need for them to even think about improving anything because they can send their children off to Eton and escape the proles stuck in the local comp with 29 other students in the class. They will always be "needed" because shipping your child off to boarding school is far easier than bothering to develop an efficient state system for all.