Private schools should be banned!!!!!!!!
Scroll to see replies
I don't think the issue is private schools at all, the fact that they exist and operate to a standard far above state schools just proves that such a level of schooling is possible; whilst yes, everyone is entitled to the same standard of education, surely the logical thing to campaign for would be for the state to ensure that all schools are on a par with private schools? Banning private schools and thus lowering the standard of education seems like shooting yourself in the foot to me.
However it is also perhaps worth bearing in mind that private schools not only cater for the better off, but also for the more intellectually able; until state schools can provide the kind of education and stimulation available at a private school; many of which offer scholarships for those who are intelligent but not rich enough on a need based case by case basis, you're going to be hard pressed to find many people in support of banning private education.
And as many people have said, people will always find a way around, look at the "Free School" system for example. If people are wealthy enough they'll tutor their kids, send them to boarding school abroad or haul them off for home tutoring in Africa.
However it is also perhaps worth bearing in mind that private schools not only cater for the better off, but also for the more intellectually able; until state schools can provide the kind of education and stimulation available at a private school; many of which offer scholarships for those who are intelligent but not rich enough on a need based case by case basis, you're going to be hard pressed to find many people in support of banning private education.
And as many people have said, people will always find a way around, look at the "Free School" system for example. If people are wealthy enough they'll tutor their kids, send them to boarding school abroad or haul them off for home tutoring in Africa.
A child's basic education is not influenced by wealth, because even in the 'poorest' areas of the country, children still get basic education. If I had the money in the future, I'd probably send my children to a private school, if it was how they wanted to be educated. I'm not suggesting that I believe in a society divided by classes and snobbery, but basic education is available for all children through state education. If you can, why not go to private school? I'm going to compare education to mobile phones... a bit of a poo example, but bear with me. All mobile phone users could use a standard Nokia (or whatever the standard brand is these days!) phone which allows us to text and call people... yet many choose a smartphone; one with a camera; one with Internet access. If we have the facilities to do so, we should improve ourselves in whatever way we see fit, and I don't see private education as a problem.
Original post by iheartdjokovic
Negged you by accident, sorry! I totally agree!
Haha it's OK, silly positioning!
Original post by roh
Same, I think once you start paying out, financial positive action so to speak, it is a significant step, for me anyway. Personally, I understand there are a thousand educational advantages my parents being reasonably well off and educated gave me (not least somewhere warm and quiet in which to work) and which I'll go on to give my kids, but I think that paying for a tutor is somehow more tangible than those other things.
I suppose for teachers it's a bit more difficult to tell, as time spent educating is normally something they charge for (so to speak), but at the same time reading, encouraging to work, helping explain things etc. are things they would do for their kids anyway, they just happen to be professionals at it.
I suppose for teachers it's a bit more difficult to tell, as time spent educating is normally something they charge for (so to speak), but at the same time reading, encouraging to work, helping explain things etc. are things they would do for their kids anyway, they just happen to be professionals at it.
If your parents are teachers I think it's fair enough, just the same as if your dad was a plumber and you needed work doing in your house. Then again I have no problem whatsoever with tutoring/private schooling, if I can afford it then my kids will have it
Original post by infairverona
If your parents are teachers I think it's fair enough, just the same as if your dad was a plumber and you needed work doing in your house. Then again I have no problem whatsoever with tutoring/private schooling, if I can afford it then my kids will have it
Fair enough.
Much as I should be able to afford it (commercial lawyer, gf's a doctor, if we can't afford it then it really has been priced beyond the middle classes!) I wouldn't send them myself.
I personally would want to encourage state education by sending my kids to and getting involved in my local school. Also, I think I'd be a terrible private school father, I can just see myself at GCSE results day with a beaming roh Jnr. made up with their 7 A*s or whatever thinking '70k I've spent on sending you here. 70 ****ing k and some kid down the road at Boggo High School got 10 A*s, lazy ****'. Hopefully they'll get their mother's brains rather than my laziness so they'll do well wherever
So effectively OP is saying:
•
Rather than use high performing private schools as a benchmark to improving state schools, we should close the high performing private schools and therefore drag down the overall standards of education in this country.
•
We should increase the burden on state provided education and the taxpayer by moving all privately educated children into state schools.
•
We should remove the opportunity for the country to profit from foreign families sending their children to well respected public schools.
Original post by Pikachu123
Perhaps that is one way of improving education; however will that education be affordable and of decent quality?
If so, I would support it, but seeing as how it would just segregate society even further into different subgroups (the poor, middle class, wealthy) then it's not really an appealing idea.
If so, I would support it, but seeing as how it would just segregate society even further into different subgroups (the poor, middle class, wealthy) then it's not really an appealing idea.
Noooo.
Damn right it would improve 'it', seeing as state schools are appalling anyway.
It would INTEGRATE more than the current 2 tier system, the only people who object to this and who block this from happening are the unions who by perpetuating the SQ, amass power at the expense of good education for the masses.
Original post by roh
Fair enough.
Much as I should be able to afford it (commercial lawyer, gf's a doctor, if we can't afford it then it really has been priced beyond the middle classes!) I wouldn't send them myself.
I personally would want to encourage state education by sending my kids to and getting involved in my local school. Also, I think I'd be a terrible private school father, I can just see myself at GCSE results day with a beaming roh Jnr. made up with their 7 A*s or whatever thinking '70k I've spent on sending you here. 70 ****ing k and some kid down the road at Boggo High School got 10 A*s, lazy ****'. Hopefully they'll get their mother's brains rather than my laziness so they'll do well wherever
Much as I should be able to afford it (commercial lawyer, gf's a doctor, if we can't afford it then it really has been priced beyond the middle classes!) I wouldn't send them myself.
I personally would want to encourage state education by sending my kids to and getting involved in my local school. Also, I think I'd be a terrible private school father, I can just see myself at GCSE results day with a beaming roh Jnr. made up with their 7 A*s or whatever thinking '70k I've spent on sending you here. 70 ****ing k and some kid down the road at Boggo High School got 10 A*s, lazy ****'. Hopefully they'll get their mother's brains rather than my laziness so they'll do well wherever
I definitely think it depends what the schools are like the in the area you live in. The school I went to had the same Ofsted rating as the private school and to be honest, the difference in GCSE results was negligible. I wouldn't pay for private school just for the sake of it but I do think they push students more, I certainly could've done with some more of that myself! Apparently children do get most intelligence from their mother, but then again my mum told me this so I'm not sure how reliable that is...
Original post by -strawberry-
Yes, but I just hate generalisations like that. My mum earns only £30,000 a year and that's from 3 jobs.
My parents combined earn less than that. They both come from poor backgrounds and got about zero qualifications because of the poor education. They had no chance of doing better, they were failed by the government.
Original post by infairverona
I definitely think it depends what the schools are like the in the area you live in. The school I went to had the same Ofsted rating as the private school and to be honest, the difference in GCSE results was negligible. I wouldn't pay for private school just for the sake of it but I do think they push students more, I certainly could've done with some more of that myself! Apparently children do get most intelligence from their mother, but then again my mum told me this so I'm not sure how reliable that is...
Mine wasn't as good on paper as the local private, but that was selective and mine wasn't, I doubt they'd have done much different with the top 30-40 from each.
Well at least it's a vote of confidence in you from your Mum. Reckon mine would try to claim it follows gender and bag my sister as thanks to her but blame my relatively average academic performance on my Dad!
Original post by -strawberry-
I'd hardly say I have adequate disposable income. Find my post about what my mum earns a year and you'll see.
She might be drug dealing on side side and raking in the green. (twas a joke)
This isn't a fresh perspective on this topic, you're just another example of somebody who more than likely didn't go to a private school and can't cope with the fact other people did.
Why on earth should we get rid of a system that clearly works and gets results? You're talking about knocking the standard of education that is offered to the children of this country to an inferior level simply on the grounds of equality. All a ban will achieve is forcing schools to spread their resources even more thinly and denying even more children the chance to fulfil their potential. It's like somebody discovering a way to cure 7% of the world of cancer but then destroying it because not everybody can afford it. It's totally counter-productive. Private schools shouldn't be banned, the Government should just work on improving state schools so that bright children aren't failed by them.
Why on earth should we get rid of a system that clearly works and gets results? You're talking about knocking the standard of education that is offered to the children of this country to an inferior level simply on the grounds of equality. All a ban will achieve is forcing schools to spread their resources even more thinly and denying even more children the chance to fulfil their potential. It's like somebody discovering a way to cure 7% of the world of cancer but then destroying it because not everybody can afford it. It's totally counter-productive. Private schools shouldn't be banned, the Government should just work on improving state schools so that bright children aren't failed by them.
Okay, I am in an awesome position for this debate because I have experience of both private schools and state schools. For context: I am currently in a 'selective' private school (you pay fees, but you have to pass an exam to get in and if you're clever enough they'll give you whatever bursaries you need to go there). My younger brother goes to a very good state school.
Education should not be entirely government controlled, because the government has proven that they don't have our best interests at heart. Gove is a wittering imbecile and I am already scared about the influence he will have over my brother's and my education (he's already stopped me from taking January modules for A level next year, heaping the pressure on me in the summer, and came this close to forcing my brother into an eBacc programme that wouldn't suit him one bit).
You say that you don't want the wealth divide and therefore private schools should be banned. This is connoting that all private schools are only attended by the wealthy. OP, you are thinking of the type of 'private school' that only differs from state in that it is fee-paying instead of free. With that, I agree with you to an extent. However, most private schools are selective, filtering out the brightest kids and putting them in a competitive environment. THAT IS A GOOD THING.
I went to a state primary school and spent eight years of my life, in a classroom, bored to tears and learning exactly nothing. Some might say I was just lazy; my year 6 teacher genuinely told me, two months in, "there is nothing more we can teach her" - because they had been trained to teach to an average and I, like many other kids, wasn't the average. I am smart, (saying that is probably a TSR executable offence - oh well) but more than that, bad state schools treat you like you are just a number, a part of a quota, and that you are an inconvenience if you do not fit the average. I knew I wanted to go to X (my current school) since I was in year 3, because I was sick of not only being surrounded by people who didn't want to push me (and if people don't push me, I shut down and just sleep through lessons) and kids (and teachers!) who bullied me for being clever. That was not a bad state school, but it let down a lot of its pupils because the teachers were under immense pressure from the government to shepherd us through, get us through SATs, and cared about exactly nothing else.
At X, we are constantly in competition and being challenged to achieve things. It finally feels like I'm not a burden because I want to learn things, but that the school actually wants what's best for me. We need private schools because whilst we should never culture a rich elite of students, an intellectual elite absolutely should be cultured - on the basis of just how bright you are, and not your class, background, or personality. In all but the best state systems, the very brightest kids are left to their own devices in favour of those who can't handle it themselves, so the brightest achieve good things, but not their full potential. Private schools eliminates that problem, and can provide real opportunities to deprived, highly intelligent children who would never have had the chance to develop their skills.
My brother's school, on the other hand, is a brilliant state school. There is a huge, diverse mix of students from different backgrounds and cultures and abilities, and the school is streamed so every student of every ability gets the best care and teaching, without dragging each other down. The school has an ethos of getting everyone to achieve the best they can, but that achievement is subjective to the person. If all state schools were like my brother's, I would be very happy.
The wealth divide will not be solved by cutting out state schools. There is a HUGE wealth divide in state schools - the kids who can't afford designer gear, who are on free school meals, get victimised. Plus, and this is what you seem to be missing a little - NOT EVERYONE IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS IS RICH. NOT EVEN CLOSE. In my year, a minority of people are seriously rich. The average parent of a child in my year is likely in the same financial situation as the average parent of a child in the nearest state school. Plus, as long as intellect is the focus, bursaries are available. There are girls and boys in my year who are here on full bursaries because they're bright enough to be here but wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise. I'm on a half bursary myself. The fact that I've had to work really hard to get into X means I value my opportunity more, and I value education more. There are many of my brother's classmates (even at his very good school) who take their education for granted and don't work at all.
In conclusion: we need private schools. We just need to have it so they are selective purely on the basis of academic merit, and they are open to everyone bright and hardworking enough to get in. And state school should not be seen as 'where the kids go who weren't smart enough to get into private' - the two sectors should be entirely on the same level in terms of teaching and facilities.
Education should not be entirely government controlled, because the government has proven that they don't have our best interests at heart. Gove is a wittering imbecile and I am already scared about the influence he will have over my brother's and my education (he's already stopped me from taking January modules for A level next year, heaping the pressure on me in the summer, and came this close to forcing my brother into an eBacc programme that wouldn't suit him one bit).
You say that you don't want the wealth divide and therefore private schools should be banned. This is connoting that all private schools are only attended by the wealthy. OP, you are thinking of the type of 'private school' that only differs from state in that it is fee-paying instead of free. With that, I agree with you to an extent. However, most private schools are selective, filtering out the brightest kids and putting them in a competitive environment. THAT IS A GOOD THING.
I went to a state primary school and spent eight years of my life, in a classroom, bored to tears and learning exactly nothing. Some might say I was just lazy; my year 6 teacher genuinely told me, two months in, "there is nothing more we can teach her" - because they had been trained to teach to an average and I, like many other kids, wasn't the average. I am smart, (saying that is probably a TSR executable offence - oh well) but more than that, bad state schools treat you like you are just a number, a part of a quota, and that you are an inconvenience if you do not fit the average. I knew I wanted to go to X (my current school) since I was in year 3, because I was sick of not only being surrounded by people who didn't want to push me (and if people don't push me, I shut down and just sleep through lessons) and kids (and teachers!) who bullied me for being clever. That was not a bad state school, but it let down a lot of its pupils because the teachers were under immense pressure from the government to shepherd us through, get us through SATs, and cared about exactly nothing else.
At X, we are constantly in competition and being challenged to achieve things. It finally feels like I'm not a burden because I want to learn things, but that the school actually wants what's best for me. We need private schools because whilst we should never culture a rich elite of students, an intellectual elite absolutely should be cultured - on the basis of just how bright you are, and not your class, background, or personality. In all but the best state systems, the very brightest kids are left to their own devices in favour of those who can't handle it themselves, so the brightest achieve good things, but not their full potential. Private schools eliminates that problem, and can provide real opportunities to deprived, highly intelligent children who would never have had the chance to develop their skills.
My brother's school, on the other hand, is a brilliant state school. There is a huge, diverse mix of students from different backgrounds and cultures and abilities, and the school is streamed so every student of every ability gets the best care and teaching, without dragging each other down. The school has an ethos of getting everyone to achieve the best they can, but that achievement is subjective to the person. If all state schools were like my brother's, I would be very happy.
The wealth divide will not be solved by cutting out state schools. There is a HUGE wealth divide in state schools - the kids who can't afford designer gear, who are on free school meals, get victimised. Plus, and this is what you seem to be missing a little - NOT EVERYONE IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS IS RICH. NOT EVEN CLOSE. In my year, a minority of people are seriously rich. The average parent of a child in my year is likely in the same financial situation as the average parent of a child in the nearest state school. Plus, as long as intellect is the focus, bursaries are available. There are girls and boys in my year who are here on full bursaries because they're bright enough to be here but wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise. I'm on a half bursary myself. The fact that I've had to work really hard to get into X means I value my opportunity more, and I value education more. There are many of my brother's classmates (even at his very good school) who take their education for granted and don't work at all.
In conclusion: we need private schools. We just need to have it so they are selective purely on the basis of academic merit, and they are open to everyone bright and hardworking enough to get in. And state school should not be seen as 'where the kids go who weren't smart enough to get into private' - the two sectors should be entirely on the same level in terms of teaching and facilities.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by -strawberry-
I go to a private school. I am not rich. I only pay 50% fees. It really bugs me when people say you have to be rich to go to a private school, there are plenty of cheaper ones around than the likes of Eton etc.
Yes, even at 50 percent (which you'd be in a minority getting that sort of bursary) that still equates to £5000-£7500 per year, which the majority can not afford.
Everything I think has probably already been mentioned, but here's my two cents.
(Most) Teachers will prefer a better paying, easier and more comfortable job, and so the best, who have more a choice over where they want to work, will take jobs at schools with more money.
If Mr. and Mrs. Dutherington-Pillett want little Felicia to do as well as she can, they will want to send their children to schools with more money, who can afford to do more for her education and look after her.
If you did ban them, wealthier parents would probably still want to give sizable 'donations' to ensure their precious child would get a place. You would be left with what are really unofficial private schools, and students from worse backgrounds would probably be put off from applying there anyway (as I assume does happen currently with the better state schools), so banning private schools would have a lesser effect on social mobility than you might otherwise think.
A lot of the problems with the education system have roots in more ingrained societal issues. What we have at the moment isn't great, but fixing it is a lot more complicated than just finding a better system.
(Most) Teachers will prefer a better paying, easier and more comfortable job, and so the best, who have more a choice over where they want to work, will take jobs at schools with more money.
If Mr. and Mrs. Dutherington-Pillett want little Felicia to do as well as she can, they will want to send their children to schools with more money, who can afford to do more for her education and look after her.
If you did ban them, wealthier parents would probably still want to give sizable 'donations' to ensure their precious child would get a place. You would be left with what are really unofficial private schools, and students from worse backgrounds would probably be put off from applying there anyway (as I assume does happen currently with the better state schools), so banning private schools would have a lesser effect on social mobility than you might otherwise think.
A lot of the problems with the education system have roots in more ingrained societal issues. What we have at the moment isn't great, but fixing it is a lot more complicated than just finding a better system.
I have no problem with some have more money than others. If they want to spend it on better cars or healthcare, that is fine as it only affects them. The problem with private schools is that they give some kids an unfair advantage over others based on wealth: take 2 children of equal intelligence, one privately educated the other not, the privately educated one has a better and unfair chance of getting into a better university. The difference about state schools vs private is that bright state school kids have to work harder and undertake more independent work than their private school competition who have better teachers, smaller class sizes and less disruption. The main difference is that with private school kids any one of average intelligence or quite frankly a bit thick can get into a good uni, while state school kids can't. There is a reason why state school kids do better at uni. We need a system like the german one; where you have grammer schools which focus on acedemia, practical schools which focus on learning trades and having a good skills of maths and english, and schools for the disruptive.
Original post by Farhan96
Good luck arguing that with David Cameron lol.
Oh no david cameron is all for state schools he just wouldn't dare to send hugo to a inner city school though (anywhere in London) He is terrified of sending his kid to a central london school ( not that he lives in a rough area or anything)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/cameron-dreads-sending-kids-to-an-innercity-school-2024375.html?origin=internalSearch ......
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Fire Work
- Are single-sex schools a thing of the past? Should they be abolished or not?
- 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
- Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirms
- Mobile phones being banned at start of class
- Can I be a teacher with tattoos
- Rishi Sunak considers curbing social media use for under-16s
- Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challenge
- Mobile phones should be banned from the classroom?
- Twin block braces
- 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?
- predicted grades question
- Gillian Keegan pledges crackdown on mobiles in schools
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day 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 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day 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 ?
