This discussion is now closed.
Check out other 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
- Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirms
- 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
- Twin block braces
- Mobile phones should be banned from the classroom?
- 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?
- predicted grades question
Private schools should be banned!
Scroll to see replies
The irony , which will be lost of many of the TSRian children , is that Blair's " education, education, education " policies closed off two significant ways in which access to different providers were enabled and quality driven up
1. putting grant maintained schools back under LA control - while they re-hashed it as academies.
2. closing the Assisted Places Scheme - which in some places was a proto voucher system with part payments for private school fees ...
1. putting grant maintained schools back under LA control - while they re-hashed it as academies.
2. closing the Assisted Places Scheme - which in some places was a proto voucher system with part payments for private school fees ...
Original post by tufc
Well then if comprehensive schools can be so amazing, why ban private schools?
I don't think they should ban them, I never did in any of my posts say that.
I'm just saying private schools aren't that great and going to a comprehensive school isn't a disadvantage and should never be considered as such.
Original post by yellowcopter
I don't think they should ban them, I never did in any of my posts say that. I'm just saying private schools aren't that great and going to a comprehensive school isn't a disadvantage and should never be considered as such.
I'm just saying private schools aren't that great and going to a comprehensive school isn't a disadvantage and should never be considered as such.It isn't inherently a disadvantage, no; there are some brilliant comprehensive schools. There's no denying, however, that on the whole, private schools are better.
Of course, the whole problem could be 90% solved by bringing back grammar schools, but we're in an age where it's politically incorrect to say that children should ever fail a test.
Original post by tufc
It isn't inherently a disadvantage, no; there are some brilliant comprehensive schools. There's no denying, however, that on the whole, private schools are better.
Of course, the whole problem could be 90% solved by bringing back grammar schools, but we're in an age where it's politically incorrect to say that children should ever fail a test.
Of course, the whole problem could be 90% solved by bringing back grammar schools, but we're in an age where it's politically incorrect to say that children should ever fail a test.
I agree with you but there are some comprehensive schools that are on the same level as private schools believe it or not. Rare to find though.
I think trying to respond to individual ideas in a thread 7 pages long is a very time-inefficient one so I apologize if some things I say overlap with already stated points.
It is true you cannot provide all students with an identical education, but that doesn't mean trying is such a bad thing. We are defined by our upbringing, and this inevitably gives some pupils a head-start. Say for example, you come from a household that has the luxury of being able to live off one income earner, allowing a second parent to stay at home. I remember my Mum dedicating hours to teaching me to read at 2-3 years old, allowing me to access higher levels of texts earlier and instilling a lust for knowledge. This gave me an advantage when it came to the classroom. I was very fortunate that this was the case, and this may not be true of other students. However, to use this line of thinking is to justify the thought that that, "It's impossible to make education equal, so we shouldn't try at all" is ridiculous.
The major conflict here is between the idea that people have a right to spend to spend their money how they wish (Free Market), and that private schools prohibit equal opportunity and consequently certain people are not rewarded for their potential ability. I would argue that it is a major contradiction in the first of the stated positions. To suggest that the market justifies private schools, i.e. "there is no incentive to earn money if I can't use it to benefit my children". This is because it is an accurate statement to suggest that Private school students will attend universities they may otherwise not have got into had they not gone to a state school. This means that instead of people being selected based on their ability - meritocracy - people are chosen based on their financial position - plutocracy. Because you have less effecient workers in certain jobs, then society as a whole is hurt. Rather than a doctor that can treat 4 patients a day, you get one who can treat 3. It is inherently flawed to suggest that not regulating a "Market" for education is better for society as whole.
The third issue is in terms of social mobility and empathy. I mentioned earlier the impact of upbringing on personality, and this is reflected in private school students. That is not to say all students who attend private schools are destined to become polo playing toffs, but being brought up in an extremely affluent environment with the prestige of going to private school certainly gives some people who I've played sport against a distinguished mentality - that of an automatic superiority and entitlement. To re-emphasize, this is not a personal attack and may not be reflective of an overall trend. Merely a personal experience.
It is true you cannot provide all students with an identical education, but that doesn't mean trying is such a bad thing. We are defined by our upbringing, and this inevitably gives some pupils a head-start. Say for example, you come from a household that has the luxury of being able to live off one income earner, allowing a second parent to stay at home. I remember my Mum dedicating hours to teaching me to read at 2-3 years old, allowing me to access higher levels of texts earlier and instilling a lust for knowledge. This gave me an advantage when it came to the classroom. I was very fortunate that this was the case, and this may not be true of other students. However, to use this line of thinking is to justify the thought that that, "It's impossible to make education equal, so we shouldn't try at all" is ridiculous.
The major conflict here is between the idea that people have a right to spend to spend their money how they wish (Free Market), and that private schools prohibit equal opportunity and consequently certain people are not rewarded for their potential ability. I would argue that it is a major contradiction in the first of the stated positions. To suggest that the market justifies private schools, i.e. "there is no incentive to earn money if I can't use it to benefit my children". This is because it is an accurate statement to suggest that Private school students will attend universities they may otherwise not have got into had they not gone to a state school. This means that instead of people being selected based on their ability - meritocracy - people are chosen based on their financial position - plutocracy. Because you have less effecient workers in certain jobs, then society as a whole is hurt. Rather than a doctor that can treat 4 patients a day, you get one who can treat 3. It is inherently flawed to suggest that not regulating a "Market" for education is better for society as whole.
The third issue is in terms of social mobility and empathy. I mentioned earlier the impact of upbringing on personality, and this is reflected in private school students. That is not to say all students who attend private schools are destined to become polo playing toffs, but being brought up in an extremely affluent environment with the prestige of going to private school certainly gives some people who I've played sport against a distinguished mentality - that of an automatic superiority and entitlement. To re-emphasize, this is not a personal attack and may not be reflective of an overall trend. Merely a personal experience.
You may all think that grammar schools are a poor persons private school but how many grammar schools do you find that are in poorer areas, there isn't a single one near me
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I agree that in principle banning private schools would lead to greater equality in education, and in theory, I support it. However, in practise, banning them would lead to an influx on new pupils into an ill-equipped state system, and stretching scant resources even thinner, so basically just giving everyone a worse education. This could be avoided of course, if there was significant investment in new school places, and in providing all schools with the sorts of resources and class sizes that private schools currently have. This, of course, would probably involve raising taxes, which, although I think it would be worth it, I can't really see going down well in the current economic climate. The other issue is the big inequalities between various state schools depending largely on location...
Original post by Johnathon16
You may all think that grammar schools are a poor persons private school but how many grammar schools do you find that are in poorer areas, there isn't a single one near me
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Thanks to Labour that's unsurprising given the numbers Labour LAs forced to close,convert or (ex direct grant) go private...
Posted from TSR Mobile
So the left identifies a group that out-performs the others. Instead of raising other groups up to a similar standard, they want to drag the successful group down on the grounds of 'equality'. Such a backward left-wing way of thinking. It isn't hard to see why state schools are **** with that line of thinking instilled in them.
P.s. I went to a state school.
P.s. I went to a state school.
Original post by zippyRN
Thanks to Labour that's unsurprising given the numbers Labour LAs forced to close,convert or (ex direct grant) go private...
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Well I know but there isn't many grammar schools in deprived areas throughout the country so it still creates inequality
Posted from TSR Mobile
What makes me ill about all of these threads is the fact that almost everyone that pipes up with a gripe about private schools has pretty much the same argument. The only thing you all have to say is something along the lines of "you're all rich, think you're socially elite and as a result you are all dicks who don't deserve our respect because of where you went to school"
I can tell you now that it's not like that. Have you ever thought about how much some parents have to sacrifice to send their children to a private school? It is not our choice- it is what our parents wanted for us at the time and I, for one, will feel an eternal sense of gratitude that MY parents sent my brother, sister and I to the best school they could afford; they are spending a good three quarters of their joint income on our education. All I seem to get at university now is people judging me because of where I went to school when, in fact, the vast majority of privately educated young men and women are normal.
Instead of imposing some sort of childhood communism, why not think about how people like us feel when we have to tell someone who is 'not posh' and 'not a ****er' where we went to school. We are all judged and to be honest it isn't fair.
PS. the university argument is sort of irrelevant. I have a VERY good source in the higher education sector and believe me, it isn't all of you backward left thinkers that get **** on through UCAS anymore. It's privately educated schoolchildren instead. Think on.
I can tell you now that it's not like that. Have you ever thought about how much some parents have to sacrifice to send their children to a private school? It is not our choice- it is what our parents wanted for us at the time and I, for one, will feel an eternal sense of gratitude that MY parents sent my brother, sister and I to the best school they could afford; they are spending a good three quarters of their joint income on our education. All I seem to get at university now is people judging me because of where I went to school when, in fact, the vast majority of privately educated young men and women are normal.
Instead of imposing some sort of childhood communism, why not think about how people like us feel when we have to tell someone who is 'not posh' and 'not a ****er' where we went to school. We are all judged and to be honest it isn't fair.
PS. the university argument is sort of irrelevant. I have a VERY good source in the higher education sector and believe me, it isn't all of you backward left thinkers that get **** on through UCAS anymore. It's privately educated schoolchildren instead. Think on.
If private schools are better at educating their students, surely banning them would pull Britain down from the already "mediocre" 31st place? I do believe in equality, but I don't think this is the way to go about achieving it. Like others have said, we need to help those at the bottom of the society move up, not drag the ones at the top down to a lower level.
Instead of spending the education budget on accommodating the kids who previously went to private schools, I believe it would be much more productive to spend that money on improving the quality of education provided in state schools, helping them reach the standards of private schools. We know it can be done, because there are already some state schools in the country that outperform a lot of private schools.
Instead of spending the education budget on accommodating the kids who previously went to private schools, I believe it would be much more productive to spend that money on improving the quality of education provided in state schools, helping them reach the standards of private schools. We know it can be done, because there are already some state schools in the country that outperform a lot of private schools.
All the emphasis in this thread seems to be on the financial aspects. I know people who have borrowed heavily to put their kids in private school, and I know multi-millionaires who have their kids in state schools, so its not all about people do it if they can afford to and don't if they can't. The two types of education are different, and there are many criteria that people use to determine which is best for their child.
Cnofesd mentions that some parents have a keen interest in education and spend time with their kids, and some don't. This is true in all income sectors, and in all geographical locations. Even a mum who works can find an hour to spend reading with her child if she really wants to. This is where the "inequality" lies, not just in the schooling. 90%+ of a child's attitude to learning comes, in my opinion, from their environment, not just at school but at home too. Parents who have had a great experience with education themselves will undoubtedly pass on their love of learning to their children. Perhaps if those parents had a good education they are more likely to have a good job, more money....perhaps they will then be in a position to choose to privately educate their children if they feel that's best for them. To outlaw private schooling is not going to stop mum's like Cnofesd's mum sitting and teaching her child to read, and why the hell should she stop, so the woman next door who can't be arsed can feel better about 'equality of education'? Come now.
So to remove choices regarding education does nothing to address the range of abilities, opportunities, or love of learning that there is in our society, there will still be people who do better at school than others (and some of the factors which decide that, whether you like it or not, will be financial).
Instead perhaps the state sector could look at what it is about private education that's good, and see which bits of that they can model. I don't think that the state sector has it right and that private schools are better, I think the private schools have it about right and the state schools are lacking.
And let's not get carried away with the idea that private schools have loads of money to play with, many don't. If they are 100% self financing which many are, they can pay over 80% of their income to pay their staff, then there are buildings to maintain (old buildings in many cases) and all other expenses to be met, some quite large schools have a huge turnover and very little profit. Their accounts should all be available to be examined if you don't believe me. If you want to see state of the art facilities, a new sports hall and a whole suite of new computer equipment, you are more likely to find them in a state school than a private one, that is definitely the case where I live.
Cnofesd mentions that some parents have a keen interest in education and spend time with their kids, and some don't. This is true in all income sectors, and in all geographical locations. Even a mum who works can find an hour to spend reading with her child if she really wants to. This is where the "inequality" lies, not just in the schooling. 90%+ of a child's attitude to learning comes, in my opinion, from their environment, not just at school but at home too. Parents who have had a great experience with education themselves will undoubtedly pass on their love of learning to their children. Perhaps if those parents had a good education they are more likely to have a good job, more money....perhaps they will then be in a position to choose to privately educate their children if they feel that's best for them. To outlaw private schooling is not going to stop mum's like Cnofesd's mum sitting and teaching her child to read, and why the hell should she stop, so the woman next door who can't be arsed can feel better about 'equality of education'? Come now.
So to remove choices regarding education does nothing to address the range of abilities, opportunities, or love of learning that there is in our society, there will still be people who do better at school than others (and some of the factors which decide that, whether you like it or not, will be financial).
Instead perhaps the state sector could look at what it is about private education that's good, and see which bits of that they can model. I don't think that the state sector has it right and that private schools are better, I think the private schools have it about right and the state schools are lacking.
And let's not get carried away with the idea that private schools have loads of money to play with, many don't. If they are 100% self financing which many are, they can pay over 80% of their income to pay their staff, then there are buildings to maintain (old buildings in many cases) and all other expenses to be met, some quite large schools have a huge turnover and very little profit. Their accounts should all be available to be examined if you don't believe me. If you want to see state of the art facilities, a new sports hall and a whole suite of new computer equipment, you are more likely to find them in a state school than a private one, that is definitely the case where I live.
Original post by Johnathon16
Well I know but there isn't many grammar schools in deprived areas throughout the country so it still creates inequality
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Because often the school still exists as a Comp e.g. Christ's Hospital School. Lincoln - which is the site of the Lincoln Grammar School and the paired NK and RP schools in North Hykeham just to the south of Lincoln.
Post 1944 Education act - the aim was only ever to provide the top 25 % of pupils with a grammar school Education - in the mid 1990s decent GM Comprehensives were talking about 30 -40 % as a grammar equivalent group in Comp areas which bordered selective areas ( e.g. the 'greater Lincoln' comp area va the Rural Lincolnshire selective area)
Original post by 3309will
What makes me ill about all of these threads is the fact that almost everyone that pipes up with a gripe about private schools has pretty much the same argument. The only thing you all have to say is something along the lines of "you're all rich, think you're socially elite and as a result you are all dicks who don't deserve our respect because of where you went to school"
there is an overt aspect of this - and it's all ideologically driven - but then again given Blair's emphasis on 'education, education, education' his first actions were removing the APS and abandoning GM status ...
I can tell you now that it's not like that. Have you ever thought about how much some parents have to sacrifice to send their children to a private school? It is not our choice- it is what our parents wanted for us at the time and I, for one, will feel an eternal sense of gratitude that MY parents sent my brother, sister and I to the best school they could afford; they are spending a good three quarters of their joint income on our education. All I seem to get at university now is people judging me because of where I went to school when, in fact, the vast majority of privately educated young men and women are normal.
Unfortunately the braying 'yahs' / 'rahs' / hooray Henries' tend to colour views especially as some unis where there is a significant presence of these groups.
Instead of imposing some sort of childhood communism, why not think about how people like us feel when we have to tell someone who is 'not posh' and 'not a ****er' where we went to school. We are all judged and to be honest it isn't fair.
PS. the university argument is sort of irrelevant. I have a VERY good source in the higher education sector and believe me, it isn't all of you backward left thinkers that get **** on through UCAS anymore. It's privately educated schoolchildren instead. Think on.
I'm surprised more attention isn't paid to re introducing the APS or a voucher based system - but under Labour that was perhaps not surprising given the power of the Unions on Labour policy ...
"Pulling those at the top down". Those at the "Top" are there at the expense of others who otherwise would be in a more balanced system.
Being rich isn't an entitlement to superior life opportunities, only superior lifestyle.
A voucher based system is, without doubt, the best way to run an education system.
That being said, any educational reform currently is now redundant. It's only a matter of decades until it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, we'll all be educated online regardless as and e-teaching becomes more and more viable, and people realize it's infinitely more cost efficient.
In some ways technology is a great leveling of the playing field.
Being rich isn't an entitlement to superior life opportunities, only superior lifestyle.
A voucher based system is, without doubt, the best way to run an education system.
That being said, any educational reform currently is now redundant. It's only a matter of decades until it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, we'll all be educated online regardless as and e-teaching becomes more and more viable, and people realize it's infinitely more cost efficient.
In some ways technology is a great leveling of the playing field.
Original post by 3309will
What makes me ill about all of these threads is the fact that almost everyone that pipes up with a gripe about private schools has pretty much the same argument. The only thing you all have to say is something along the lines of "you're all rich, think you're socially elite and as a result you are all dicks who don't deserve our respect because of where you went to school"
I can tell you now that it's not like that. Have you ever thought about how much some parents have to sacrifice to send their children to a private school? It is not our choice- it is what our parents wanted for us at the time and I, for one, will feel an eternal sense of gratitude that MY parents sent my brother, sister and I to the best school they could afford; they are spending a good three quarters of their joint income on our education. All I seem to get at university now is people judging me because of where I went to school when, in fact, the vast majority of privately educated young men and women are normal.
Instead of imposing some sort of childhood communism, why not think about how people like us feel when we have to tell someone who is 'not posh' and 'not a ****er' where we went to school. We are all judged and to be honest it isn't fair.
PS. the university argument is sort of irrelevant. I have a VERY good source in the higher education sector and believe me, it isn't all of you backward left thinkers that get **** on through UCAS anymore. It's privately educated schoolchildren instead. Think on.
I can tell you now that it's not like that. Have you ever thought about how much some parents have to sacrifice to send their children to a private school? It is not our choice- it is what our parents wanted for us at the time and I, for one, will feel an eternal sense of gratitude that MY parents sent my brother, sister and I to the best school they could afford; they are spending a good three quarters of their joint income on our education. All I seem to get at university now is people judging me because of where I went to school when, in fact, the vast majority of privately educated young men and women are normal.
Instead of imposing some sort of childhood communism, why not think about how people like us feel when we have to tell someone who is 'not posh' and 'not a ****er' where we went to school. We are all judged and to be honest it isn't fair.
PS. the university argument is sort of irrelevant. I have a VERY good source in the higher education sector and believe me, it isn't all of you backward left thinkers that get **** on through UCAS anymore. It's privately educated schoolchildren instead. Think on.
Ooooh what a pathetic argument that is, you're argument is essentially 'people say nasty things to me and me not like it'
You're doing the typical privileged person thing of referring to a system in which you won't unfairly benefit 'communism.'
It's just called equality of opportunity not 'childhood communism'
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by tufc
Equality should be created by pulling those at the bottom up the ladder, not by kicking those at the top down.
Ahh, but if those at the top control the jobs and have excess money that hardly circulates, it automatically pushes down the bottom.
Original post by Cnuofesd
"Pulling those at the top down". Those at the "Top" are there at the expense of others who otherwise would be in a more balanced system.
Being rich isn't an entitlement to superior life opportunities, only superior lifestyle.
Being rich isn't an entitlement to superior life opportunities, only superior lifestyle.
you really have swallowed the hype from the the lazy soap dodger end of the left haven't you ...
A voucher based system is, without doubt, the best way to run an education system.
The principal advantages of a voucher system are
1. Reduces the 'cost to change/ upgrade as you don't automatically have to be in a position to be able to afford to pay 'twice' to access the alternative provision. - Also given that things like CEA are under attack for serving military personnel it would provide an effective replacement -although CEA is under attack due to the increasingly fixed nature of 'home' postings ( vs deployments) for military personnel with super-garrisons and the end of the 'arms plot' for infantry units and constant moves because of that.
2. Provides an opportunity for inspection regimes across all providers as part of the voucher system.
That being said, any educational reform currently is now redundant. It's only a matter of decades until it doesn't matter how rich or poor you are, we'll all be educated online regardless as and e-teaching becomes more and more viable, and people realize it's infinitely more cost efficient.
In some ways technology is a great leveling of the playing field.
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
- Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirms
- 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
- Twin block braces
- Mobile phones should be banned from the classroom?
- 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?
- predicted grades question
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 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 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 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 ?
