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
As opposed to what? Everyone having medicore to rubbish ones? To quote a really overused saying, life isn't fair. The funding for private schools isn't going to magically appear in the education fund if we shut them all down, the government isn't rich enough to give a great education
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by JamesTheCool
So just allow 7% of the country to have the best possible education, while the rest of us 93% have mediocre to rubbish ones? Sounds fair...
This is one of the fundamental misapprehensions driving this whole thread - there is a presumption that all private schools are as high performing as the big name Public Schools and all State schools are 'bog standard comps'.
Banning private schools is nonsensical to anyone who is not a statist left wing ideologue who believes in equality through mediocrity ... Theproblem is this is a recurring theme throughout Labour policy since world war 2 and the deliberate scuppering of promising Educational concepts by Labour whether in central or local government
- tripartite secondary school system as per 1944 Education Act
- limiting / blocking / closing Grammar schools ( any point from 1944 onwards)
- abolishing the Assisted Places Scheme (under Blair)
- abolishing Grant Maintained Status (under Blair)
a voucher scheme ( ironically a scheme Labour had for Nursery places - despite removing the APS ) would be the next extension of marketising education - removing the aspect of 'paying twice' that forces some people into Local state schools / making huge sacrifices to fund private school for their children.
Original post by JamesTheCool
So just allow 7% of the country to have the best possible education, while the rest of us 93% have mediocre to rubbish ones? Sounds fair...
State school education, on average, is not mediocre. You can easily succeed from a good state school. It's harder, but it's not exactly third world.
Bad state schools are another matter, so if that applies to you I apologise, but I just hate middle class state school students calling me a snob when they are hardly disasvantaged.
Original post by Lord Harold
And yes I do believe that people from the lower classes remain there because they walk around with a chip on their shoulder and use their social status as an excuse as to why they didn't succeed in life. Hard work is all that is required to be successful.
If you are serious, then you are extraordinarily naive. I suspect you are not serious, because you have called yourself Lord Harold.
I agree that half of the success of private schools is down to upbringing and mentality - if a child is given self confidence and a good work ethic at a young age, rich or poor, then they will do well. However, if they are not given those things, how is that down to anything other than luck?
I went to a private secondary school on a scholarship, but before my parents told me I was taking the exam I didn't even know private schools existed. The fact I went there was entirely down to my parents, and not to me, and I imagine the same applies to you.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Lord Harold
Your misquotations did not really succeed as an argument as they are taken out of context and grossly misquoted. And yes I do believe that people from the lower classes remain there because they walk around with a chip on their shoulder and use their social status as an excuse as to why they didn't succeed in life. Hard work is all that is required to be successful. On your last quote, I go to a private school so I know what it's like first hand including the scholarship system, which if your mother claims is a patronising system proves that she is either lying or not doing her job correctly. I also wait in anticipation to find out what reliable and official source that your 1 in 8 statistic is from.
Look, I agree that people can succeed from a poorer background if they work hard and that the type of school you go to is not the ultimate deciding factor.
And I agree that this cycle does exist but exists because as soon as poorer kids are born they are at a disadvantage. For a country to be truly meritocratic and for people to be truly rewarded for how hard they work they need to start with a level playing field. At GCSE I worked much harder than my friend but because he's much wealthier he is doing his A Levels at a private school. He's now going to get the better education and possibly the better A Level grades and why? Because his parents are richer. Now I'm determined not to let this happen and I do work very hard but the fact is I'm in the minority.
It's so easy for you in your comfortable smug life to say 'why don't you just work harder' but the fact is, statistically speaking, had you grown up in a working class family you would probably be in the exact same position as the people you blame. You would be born knowing that to succeed you will have to work harder than people who have done nothing to earn the position they're in. So yeah, I guess there is a bit of a 'chip on peoples shoulders' but not on a conscious level and it makes a large difference between what I just mentioned and being born knowing that your special. That you're getting an excellent education. That you're better than the poor idiots you see in the street. You really can not be so arrogant as to assume that had you been from a working class family the chip wouldn't have been on your shoulder. I personally believe that the problems start with the family not the school but the difference in schooling really is the final nail in the working class coffin.
Original post by francesf
As opposed to what? Everyone having medicore to rubbish ones? To quote a really overused saying, life isn't fair. The funding for private schools isn't going to magically appear in the education fund if we shut them all down, the government isn't rich enough to give a great education
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Just because 'life isn't fair' doesn't mean we should do nothing to attempt fairness.
Original post by JamesTheCool
So just allow 7% of the country to have the best possible education, while the rest of us 93% have mediocre to rubbish ones? Sounds fair...
Well it's better than 100% of people having mediocre to rubbish education?
Surely it is in society's best interests for the state not to have full access to the education of all children?
If we were to have a Government which wished to indoctrinate, at least 10% of the population would be out of their reach.
That said I'm very pro-grammar schools, it's disgusting that the only way to get a decent education in some areas is to pay for it.
If we were to have a Government which wished to indoctrinate, at least 10% of the population would be out of their reach.
That said I'm very pro-grammar schools, it's disgusting that the only way to get a decent education in some areas is to pay for it.
(edited 10 years ago)
Why don't we just ban the whole private sector while we're at it.
Stupid idea, state education in the country is dire, with a few good, sometimes excellent ones. How about we try to improve the Comprehensives? Rather than bringing everyone down to their level, even better bring back Grammar schools, so hard-working, intelligent children are not let down by the behavioural problems, and low standards that exist in the Comprehensives.
Stupid idea, state education in the country is dire, with a few good, sometimes excellent ones. How about we try to improve the Comprehensives? Rather than bringing everyone down to their level, even better bring back Grammar schools, so hard-working, intelligent children are not let down by the behavioural problems, and low standards that exist in the Comprehensives.
I went to a private school for 12 years of my school career, and moved to a state school for the final year of my education.
Something which always bothered me was the snobbery when I was at the private school along the lines of: "we have better teachers, therefore better education". Teachers are teachers the world over. You'll get teachers with different teaching methods, and of varying qualities. Some that you'll like, some you won't. But I found this has absolutely nothing to do with the school; it was to do with the teacher. A private school teacher isn't necessarily better than a state school teacher. In fact, from my personal experience, I found the teachers at the state school more useful to me with regards to extra help and going out of their way to best go over stuff to the class.
I disliked at the private school the fact that there were fewer opportunities to get involved in extra-curricular activities such as sport and music because they were elitist (looking for the top 11 football players for the team), or looking for a certain thing that you couldn't offer (only wanting classical pianists, rather than jazz guitarists etc). When I moved to the state school, there was endless opportunities to be involved with sports teams, and getting help to improve, regardless of your ability. School concerts operated on a kind of 'showcase what YOU can do' basis, where everyone got their opportunity at least once throughout the year. I found this refreshing, and actually allowed people to grow in confidence and develop skills out-with their studies (something which I think is important to receive a rounded education, an be prepared for later life).
What I would say is the private school did have a less interrupted education for the lower sets, as they had the right to expel/reject placements of students who were going to be a problem in classes. However, I didn't experience the full disruption these pupils would have caused, because I moved to the state school for my sixth year of secondary school, by which point most of these problematic pupils had left.
I'm aware this isn't an argument for (or against) the abolishment of private schools, it's simply the opinions and observations of someone who has been to both. I personally feel that a state school offers you the opportunity to escape the private school bubble, and see real people and therefore be more prepared for life after school.
While I preferred the time I had in the state school, I understand that there are people who are more suited to the private schools too. It's personal choice, I think.
Something which always bothered me was the snobbery when I was at the private school along the lines of: "we have better teachers, therefore better education". Teachers are teachers the world over. You'll get teachers with different teaching methods, and of varying qualities. Some that you'll like, some you won't. But I found this has absolutely nothing to do with the school; it was to do with the teacher. A private school teacher isn't necessarily better than a state school teacher. In fact, from my personal experience, I found the teachers at the state school more useful to me with regards to extra help and going out of their way to best go over stuff to the class.
I disliked at the private school the fact that there were fewer opportunities to get involved in extra-curricular activities such as sport and music because they were elitist (looking for the top 11 football players for the team), or looking for a certain thing that you couldn't offer (only wanting classical pianists, rather than jazz guitarists etc). When I moved to the state school, there was endless opportunities to be involved with sports teams, and getting help to improve, regardless of your ability. School concerts operated on a kind of 'showcase what YOU can do' basis, where everyone got their opportunity at least once throughout the year. I found this refreshing, and actually allowed people to grow in confidence and develop skills out-with their studies (something which I think is important to receive a rounded education, an be prepared for later life).
What I would say is the private school did have a less interrupted education for the lower sets, as they had the right to expel/reject placements of students who were going to be a problem in classes. However, I didn't experience the full disruption these pupils would have caused, because I moved to the state school for my sixth year of secondary school, by which point most of these problematic pupils had left.
I'm aware this isn't an argument for (or against) the abolishment of private schools, it's simply the opinions and observations of someone who has been to both. I personally feel that a state school offers you the opportunity to escape the private school bubble, and see real people and therefore be more prepared for life after school.
While I preferred the time I had in the state school, I understand that there are people who are more suited to the private schools too. It's personal choice, I think.
Even though there is a clash between equality and freedom here there are some specific facts that one has to consider when trying to asses whether private schools outweigh the equality gap it supposedly creates or if it is insignificant to believe that private schools have any impact at all in this respect.
Firstly, private schools are using profit as an incentive and we have to accept that incentives is the key for improved quality. This incentive would drive the school towards quality as they usually have to face competition. If there is no competition it wouldn't be to suitable to have a private school in that area but usually it will be some form of competition.
Secondly, having 'elite' schools, or rather private schools that strive towards that status, will have a drip effect on the rest of the nation. This means that all schools will be positively affected by having private schools as private schools have a strong incentive to improve towards better quality. As they require good quality to be competitive, good quality leads to more profits. Which means that private schools will rise the level of academic exellence in a country.
Although some students might have be more competitive on the university market due to their 'elite/private' school the school will raise the competitiveness of the nation as a whole improving everyone's competitiveness on a global scale.
Therefore, the work of incentives will only improve the quality of education in a nation rather than be detriemental to it. Even though one might argue that there will be inequalities these inequalities will be outweighed by the fact that the nation is improving its competitiveness on a global scale which is only advantageous.
Firstly, private schools are using profit as an incentive and we have to accept that incentives is the key for improved quality. This incentive would drive the school towards quality as they usually have to face competition. If there is no competition it wouldn't be to suitable to have a private school in that area but usually it will be some form of competition.
Secondly, having 'elite' schools, or rather private schools that strive towards that status, will have a drip effect on the rest of the nation. This means that all schools will be positively affected by having private schools as private schools have a strong incentive to improve towards better quality. As they require good quality to be competitive, good quality leads to more profits. Which means that private schools will rise the level of academic exellence in a country.
Although some students might have be more competitive on the university market due to their 'elite/private' school the school will raise the competitiveness of the nation as a whole improving everyone's competitiveness on a global scale.
Therefore, the work of incentives will only improve the quality of education in a nation rather than be detriemental to it. Even though one might argue that there will be inequalities these inequalities will be outweighed by the fact that the nation is improving its competitiveness on a global scale which is only advantageous.
Original post by JamesTheCool
Just because 'life isn't fair' doesn't mean we should do nothing to attempt fairness.
The only way you appear to be suggesting is to close down all the private schools which frankly is ridiculous. Stop being so idealistic. Private schools shouldn't be banned because in closing them down you'd be depriving children of a great education. The thing that needs to be brought in is intergration between state and private schools - eg sports days, music workshops and all that shizz to stop class division
Original post by francesf
The only way you appear to be suggesting is to close down all the private schools which frankly is ridiculous. Stop being so idealistic. Private schools shouldn't be banned because in closing them down you'd be depriving children of a great education. The thing that needs to be brought in is intergration between state and private schools - eg sports days, music workshops and all that shizz to stop class division
But why should the best quality of education have to be limited to the rich? How are they more deserving of it than the rest of us?
I hate exclusivity, but if anything I think the best education should be limited to the people who really would make the most of it, in other words, children who are genuinely bright, rather than those who have wealthy parents who simply want the best for them - because if they're not really that bright themselves, it's a bit of a waste. Whereas if all the smartest children have access the best possible education, it would be more beneficial for the whole world...
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by JamesTheCool
Just because 'life isn't fair' doesn't mean we should do nothing to attempt fairness.
You've mistaken equality for fairness. Banning private schools will create equality, but it will not make the educational system fairer. State schools won't suddenly get loads better. You'd simply be lowering the ceiling, not raising the floor,
Original post by pol pot noodles
You've mistaken equality for fairness. Banning private schools will create equality, but it will not make the educational system fairer. State schools won't suddenly get loads better. You'd simply be lowering the ceiling, not raising the floor,
which is unsurprising given that Labour's education policies in living memory have confused equality and fairness ...
Original post by 3309will
I don't really think you understood. You ALL make some reference or another to us being privileged in a sort of derogatory way, almost as if we had a choice on where we went to school. If some of the people I have spoken to at university actually opened their ears and not decide to judge based on education, they would realise that we are normal individuals on the whole, just like everyone else.
Everyone has equal opportunities and a good chance of advancing in life but it's not all about the school you go to and I don't really think people understand that. Out of the 6 people on our course, there are 4 that were not privately educated, for a start.
If this privilege you so narrow-mindedly talk about was true, then I don't really think that would be the case; I would be swanning around University and the other Russells that my friends go to with an almost exclusively privately educated student population.
Above all, the state educated children seem to have it ingrained in them that we have things better and you almost all use it as an excuse to be bitter about it and where we went to school. Everyone has chances to sit exams if they so wish and also to apply to university- maybe if you just think about it for 10 minutes, you will realise it is about how clever and how willing you are as a person to succeed and NOT ALL about the school you attended. We all have to sit the same exams and read the same textbooks, regardless of where we went to school. This is the point I was trying to make and I think that it would be unfair to abolish private schools for that reason.
Everyone has equal opportunities and a good chance of advancing in life but it's not all about the school you go to and I don't really think people understand that. Out of the 6 people on our course, there are 4 that were not privately educated, for a start.
If this privilege you so narrow-mindedly talk about was true, then I don't really think that would be the case; I would be swanning around University and the other Russells that my friends go to with an almost exclusively privately educated student population.
Above all, the state educated children seem to have it ingrained in them that we have things better and you almost all use it as an excuse to be bitter about it and where we went to school. Everyone has chances to sit exams if they so wish and also to apply to university- maybe if you just think about it for 10 minutes, you will realise it is about how clever and how willing you are as a person to succeed and NOT ALL about the school you attended. We all have to sit the same exams and read the same textbooks, regardless of where we went to school. This is the point I was trying to make and I think that it would be unfair to abolish private schools for that reason.
Certainly not all about it, but it does count. Private schools have more money at their disposal and the freedom to control their own spending (mostly), and thus have more financial clout when it comes to issues such as demanding re-marks or making appeals. Public schools simply don't have the finances to pursue such matters.
There are overwhelmingly unfair advantages regards access to certain areas of higher education as well; take medicine and dentistry for example. A lot of private schools offer UKCAT advisors to their pupils, should they require it. This certainly doesn't happen in public schools, as far as I'm aware.
I'm talking about my experiences and observations of a Scottish educational system, btw.
having been a student at both a state and a public school I could not disagree with you more, 1st of all many public schools are too small to be converted to being a state school and taking on any applicants, if our school were to be closed due to "equality" then some of the most historic places of education in the country would be lost, secondly the state schools could not cope with the influx of people from public schools being moved into them, thirdly all public schools have a bursary and scholarship scheme so that if you have the aptitude to get in finances are not a problem, if Public schools were to be banned then what is your view on private health care etc, if equality was to be created should this not be done by pushing those at the bottom of the scale up as apposed to bringing those at the top back down, its not like public school places are allocated on grounds of money only , in fact ability comes before income.
and before anyone starts hating on me, yes, I know how lucky I am
and before anyone starts hating on me, yes, I know how lucky I am
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/should-private-schools-be-abolished
The top argument puts into words what I've been trying to tell you abundance of silly right-wing gits.
The top argument puts into words what I've been trying to tell you abundance of silly right-wing gits.
(edited 10 years ago)
I think that anybody who had an unfair advantage over other students with less money e.g tutors, private education that a state school cannot compete with should have that taken into account when an exam paper is marked or something.
At this point its not about who is the smartest, its about who's parents were able to get them into the best schools and force them to revise with a tutor.
Posted from TSR Mobile
At this point its not about who is the smartest, its about who's parents were able to get them into the best schools and force them to revise with a tutor.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Asterisk49
I think that anybody who had an unfair advantage over other students with less money e.g tutors, private education that a state school cannot compete with should have that taken into account when an exam paper is marked or something.
At this point its not about who is the smartest, its about who's parents were able to get them into the best schools and force them to revise with a tutor.
Posted from TSR Mobile
At this point its not about who is the smartest, its about who's parents were able to get them into the best schools and force them to revise with a tutor.
Posted from TSR Mobile
That's a silly suggestion. The student shouldn't have to face unfair treatment when they didn't choose it themselves. Private school students and students with tutors still need to work.
Original post by GoodDay
Look, I agree that people can succeed from a poorer background if they work hard and that the type of school you go to is not the ultimate deciding factor.
And I agree that this cycle does exist but exists because as soon as poorer kids are born they are at a disadvantage. For a country to be truly meritocratic and for people to be truly rewarded for how hard they work they need to start with a level playing field. At GCSE I worked much harder than my friend but because he's much wealthier he is doing his A Levels at a private school. He's now going to get the better education and possibly the better A Level grades and why? Because his parents are richer. Now I'm determined not to let this happen and I do work very hard but the fact is I'm in the minority.
It's so easy for you in your comfortable smug life to say 'why don't you just work harder' but the fact is, statistically speaking, had you grown up in a working class family you would probably be in the exact same position as the people you blame. You would be born knowing that to succeed you will have to work harder than people who have done nothing to earn the position they're in. So yeah, I guess there is a bit of a 'chip on peoples shoulders' but not on a conscious level and it makes a large difference between what I just mentioned and being born knowing that your special. That you're getting an excellent education. That you're better than the poor idiots you see in the street. You really can not be so arrogant as to assume that had you been from a working class family the chip wouldn't have been on your shoulder. I personally believe that the problems start with the family not the school but the difference in schooling really is the final nail in the working class coffin.
And I agree that this cycle does exist but exists because as soon as poorer kids are born they are at a disadvantage. For a country to be truly meritocratic and for people to be truly rewarded for how hard they work they need to start with a level playing field. At GCSE I worked much harder than my friend but because he's much wealthier he is doing his A Levels at a private school. He's now going to get the better education and possibly the better A Level grades and why? Because his parents are richer. Now I'm determined not to let this happen and I do work very hard but the fact is I'm in the minority.
It's so easy for you in your comfortable smug life to say 'why don't you just work harder' but the fact is, statistically speaking, had you grown up in a working class family you would probably be in the exact same position as the people you blame. You would be born knowing that to succeed you will have to work harder than people who have done nothing to earn the position they're in. So yeah, I guess there is a bit of a 'chip on peoples shoulders' but not on a conscious level and it makes a large difference between what I just mentioned and being born knowing that your special. That you're getting an excellent education. That you're better than the poor idiots you see in the street. You really can not be so arrogant as to assume that had you been from a working class family the chip wouldn't have been on your shoulder. I personally believe that the problems start with the family not the school but the difference in schooling really is the final nail in the working class coffin.
I'm glad that you agree on some of my previous points and that you didn't try to include any false statistics this time. My point is however that if you do work hard you can succeed in life, a point of which you agree with to an extent however even though, admittedly, there is some degree of inequality and 'cherry picking' from the better schools at some universities they are more interested in your grades and indeed your passion for your subject. As for your point about your friend, you could just of easily applied for a free grammar school, where the teaching tends to be better than that at some public schools. In addition there is no time in life to have a chip on one's shoulder because in the real world nobody could care less about anybody's hopeless moaning about their lack of education or poor background therefore if I was in a less fortunate person's position I would work all the more harder to outdo everybody who thinks that your path in life is defined by the type of family you are born into and those who are at better schools because some people are naturally clever and some people like to kid themselves into thinking that they are in fact geniuses but are working stacking shelves because of their bad education when in fact there is no such thing as a bad education. I would also like to apologise for my lack of paragraphs, it doesn't seem to work when I press enter.
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 2 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 2 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 ?
