This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Do you think we should abolish private schools?

Scroll to see replies

It seems like you're one of those people who like having the last word on everything, even if it's pointless. The reason I say that is because in either of your two posts that I've now responded to, you haven't given any reasoning thus making your posts of no use to a forum.

You could say that I'm now also someone who wants the last word on everything, but no, I actually want to know why you think how you do(so please answer :biggrin:

) as that's the only way I can challenge my thinking by considering if I'm correct or not.

My reasoning is that we should make all schools of a similar (high) standard, which is currently more in line with private schools than state schools, before we think about abolishing private schools.

you seem to be suggesting that we make all schools terrible and your reason is that this will somehow boost a few people at the bottom. that makes no sense. please feel free to explain.

Reply 61

username1296076

People who send their children to private schools pay taxes too. They ease pressure on the state school system by paying for their children to go to private school. This allows better state education. It's not fair, but at the same time it improves education for both the students at the state school and at the private school.

Reply 62

RVNmax

Original post by thewagwag

Well my theory was that it would balance out a lot, the improvement in the State school students would be greater than the fall of the what would otherwise be private students. If you're judging on averages then IF this were the case, it makes sense. It also makes sense if you judge the situation on the lowest percentile of students which is something key in society. In turn it also makes sense if basing on the range(equality).

Saying that, there are no guarantees that it will all balance so I think I've come across to your side on this one(nothing that you've said has influenced this), partly because it's a free country, there shouldn't be a problem with rich people spending on education. By spending money, they are in turn spending on education anyway and so this positive light(and others) could be used to help the issue I raised about the poorer ones thinking that the world is against them. :redface:

Reply 63

lucas13

no the problem is with the state schools not private schools

Reply 64

LottieL0o

Personally I'm only in a private school because where I live my catchment area state school was completely awful in terms of results and some of the people that went there were into drugs etc. at the time, and my parents didn't want that for me. So if you were to completely abolish private schools people would be forced to go to the state schools in their area which may not be up to the standards that their parents want.
(Also I refer to the school that I would have gone to in past tense because it has now shut down. Yes, it was that bad)

Reply 65

username1114381

The difference between state schooled and privately educated students at university is stark to the point that you feel worthless if you're not privately educated yourself. When I lived in halls I was the only state-educated person in my flat and I felt completely ostracised...

To be fair I was living with a very horrible, arrogant medicine student who probably helped shaped my prejudice towards private schoolers, but it doesn't seem at all fair for ordinary kids who go to university to get an education and further their mind to be made to feel inadequate and absolutely shunned and intimidated by these artificial know-it-alls who went to superior schools and thus already appear university-educated.

Private schools should not accept children based on parental income alone because having well-off parents is an unearned privilege, one which too many people abuse and are heavily smug about. I'd rather live in a fair, meritocratic society than one which wants to show off its tour-de-force just so it can look good on the atlas.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 66

The_Dragonborn

Original post by IlexBlue

The middle class ignorance is almost suffocating.

Provided that more effort would be put into bringing state schools up to the current private standard, only then would I say yes. I think it's disgusting that enjoying a happy school environment and doing well in your academic work depends a great deal on your parents' wealth.

I moved from a state to a private school - I was fortunate enough that I had the grades necessary to receive financial support - and the difference was overwhelming. But some children desperately want to do well, and want to work hard, and yet if they're not naturally "wired" (intelligence =/= school marks) to achieve top grades in school, and their parents aren't well off, they get stuck in with the pillocks who ruin it for everyone and have to cope with substandard schooling.

For one thing, much harsher penalties need to be brought in for the ones who bully/ mess around/ generally cause mayhem so that conditions can improve for all students. I'm sick to death of this mollycoddling approach where some twisted little chav gets away with murder because "they just need to be understood" and the teachers are too gutless to do anything, so everyone else gets disrupted.

I absolutely agree with this.

Reply 67

chocolatesauce

I think private schools are cherry picking from the society, at the end of the day the best goes in and the very best come out.

Reply 68

mynameisntbobk

Thread's been done before.

But simply, no.

Reply 69

username1114381

Original post by Cnuofesd

It's almost as if Student Room is a circlejerk of middle-class suburbia and privately educated people who have been guided by their parents into the mentality they are only of worth if they get into Oxbridge...

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 socially, 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 efficient 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. While this is a very utilitarian view to take it is to do with upbringing and is linked to the opening line.

The second 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 attend University with 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.

Best comment on this thread. It's also shocking how predominantly middle-class the student bodies are at Russell Group universities. Shows how great the UK's social mobility is...

I've also noticed the level of superiority and entitlement in some privately educated people at university, and it gets on my nerves. :angry:

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 70

Cnuofesd

Is there anybody who has been to a private school but feels that they should be abolished?

Reply 71

Dylann

Yes abolish them. Give everyone an equal chance at life, no advantages based on parents' wealth. We could then focus on improving state schools.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 72

username1114381

To those who think we should keep private schools so that state schools can emulate them and become equally efficient: that's a utopia. I think that would be great, and yes, state education needs significant improvement, but I personally don't think there's a need for any school to be so overwhelmingly efficient - if everyone had it that easy then there wouldn't be any meritocracy at all! Education is important but I don't see why it's essential that we need to over-educate the whole world just yet. That would be cool but I just don't see why it's so necessary, let alone realistically achievable. The answer is obvious: abolish private schools and let their richness spread over state schools across the country, so that the general education can become efficient to an acceptable level.

The fact that we even have private schools just validates what an evil world this is...

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 73

nulli tertius

Original post by LottieL0o

Whilst I do not think private schools should be closed, you do realise don't you that one of the reasons why schools perform poorly, is the lack of committed parents willing to hold schools to account for the quality of the education or willing to be school governors or sit on PTA committees or willing to help out the school in other ways.

Back in the day with a much more rigid catchment area system, it was far harder to opt out of the local school (and for reasons I won't go into private day schools were much rarer) and so even with schools in working class areas there was a cohort of able parents preventing schools from "sinking".

Your parents wanted a good education for you, were willing to pay money for it, but were not willing to give time and effort to your local community.

Reply 74

wndms

Original post by Munrot07

Before thinking about abolishing private school you should look at what actually is the difference between state schools and private schools. I go to a private school (my parents are literally spending their last penny to send me there so they are not wealthy and my not arrogant or posh, just a normal guy (i hope :P )) but I have also been to a state school. I was talking to a teacher at my school about this. She has worked in both state schools and private schools. Now look at just her, her teaching didn't improve from being in a private school. She also said that the majority of pupils in the state school were no different from most of us in the private. We we all kind, hardworking, got along, were quite clever.

The differences were this: Smaller class sizes in private schools (I'm in A level and my class sizes and 3, 4 and 5 and the school has 250 pupils, which is less than some years in state schools). More disruptive pupils in a class (due to bigger class sizes and people who don't want school). At Private schools, if you mess around a lot, bully other pupils etc. you are punished very quickly and harshly in cases (fair enough, bullying should not be tolerated) but at state schools the punishments aren't as effective (my teachers words).

The differences in the standard of teaching aren’t that great. At my school I have had some absolutely awful teachers, no one in the class knew anything about the subject lots had to get tutors (myself included) and then we did well and equally there are some amazing teachers at state schools.

Anyway, of course this is very generalised and taken from the experience of a few people but basically my point is that we should look at what are the real differences in the experiences children have at state schools and private schools and look to reduce those changes in the state system to help, e.g. perhaps reducing class size in state schools (obviously would be harder in practice) but something like that could help.

This is just my opinion but essentially, no we shouldn't ban them :smile:

So true! My parents would give up a lot of things to send me and my sister to a private school. I moved from state to private in year 11 and I honestly couldn't notice much difference between both systems... only a few things would be: smaller classes and the teachers are slightly better(?) than the state school I went to. But your grade doesn't fully depend on how good your teacher is tbh, so no :biggrin:

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 75

tazarooni89

Original post by tania<3

Not every private school is "good" though. The secondary school I went was a private girl's school and their results were considerably worse than some state schools in my area :dontknow:

And quite a lot of the girls left after year 11, so A Level results weren't great either...

Whether or not a school is "good' isn't just a case of how high their average grades are though. There may still be good reasons why a parent may want to send their child to a private school even if it's not an academic powerhouse.

For example, there's one private school near to me whose target market comprises those students who struggle a lot with their studies or have failed their exams once over. They have hardly any sports/extra curriculars, they just specialise in retake and revision courses, teaching in extremely small class sizes (in many cases even one-on-one). The idea is that, even if the pupils aren't great at a certain subject, they can still be trained in exam technique, memorising stock answers etc. to push their grade up a bit, perhaps to meet their university offer, or to get a C instead of failing altogether.

Rather than having an entrance exam to take the best students like many private schools, this school is intentionally doing the opposite. Obviously it's exam results are nowhere near as high as many state schools in the area, but parents still send their children here, because they need the extra help - they'd do even worse in a normal state school because they'd get left behind. It's still a "good" school, in that for many people, it's worth the money they pay for it.

Reply 76

tazarooni89

I don't agree with the concept of abolishing private schools for the sake of "equality", because I don't think it is advantageous to society for everyone to get an equal, but mediocre standard of education and academic opportunity. We make ourselves more successful by providing an excellent standard of education to some, but not necessarily all children. Inequality is often very useful.

Consider the analogy: There are 10 starving people who will die if they don't get at least one meal that day. There are only 2 meals available. What should we do? Should we seek equality by giving everybody 0.2 meals each, and then they all die? Or should we give one full meal to two people, and give 8 people nothing, so then 2 people will survive at least? Obviously the latter. In this situation, it is not important that everyone gets an equal amount of food. It is more important that as many people as possible get a large amount of food (an entire meal) to themselves, even if it means that other people will get less. We'd rather have 2 survivors than 10 almost-survivors.

Our major scientific breakthroughs, technological advancements, life-saving drugs and medical techniques, and all the other benefits to society which have academia underlying them are made possible by the people in our country who are the most highly educated and academically able, not by your average Joe Bloggs. If we want this to continue, it is not particularly important for everyone to receive an equal standard of education. It is more important for some people to get an extremely high standard of education, even if it means other people get less. We'd rather have just one person being educated enough to develop a cure for cancer, than everybody in the country being educated enough to develop a cure for dandruff.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 77

Deycallmeboo

Nobody can argue that private schools are doing something right with the grades they achieve, and public schools should be brought up to a similar standard but is the way to do that by abolishing private schools?
put simply:no.

lets be realistic, the extra funding from the fees for private schools allows them to provide the best of the best and so they should! I never went to a private school myself but I know when I have children, if I can afford it I will send them to private schools because I think often the stereotypical snobbery associated with private schools is far from the truth and not only do they produce intelligent young individuals but well rounded ones also who are genuine and well mannered.

i know we all strive for equality and so we should but I hate to break it to you, society will never be completely equal. As long as there is desire and individual personality, society never will be equal because there will be people who are driven to do more and better themselves and those who won't. If a parent has the means to send their child to private school, why shouldn't they be allowed to? That is essentially taking away free will (which some may argue doesn't exist but that is just another tangent!)

so think about this for a second, should the production of beautiful yet incredibly expensive cars be stopped simply because not everyone can afford one? No it shouldn't. Those who cannot afford these luxury cars could afford a cheaper car that may not be as great but has the fundamentals of a car. This is like education, private schools are the ferraris of education with plush leather seats and the government run schools are the vw golf; not as spectacular as the Ferrari but a car nonetheless, a car that gets you from a to b without the fancy trimmings and that is what matters.

perhaps in our society we should just be thankful each child receives an education unlike many children in deprived societies, however it is ultimately up to the kid how hard they work and what they achieve, private school just sets their mind straight and encourages good work ethic.

Reply 78

username1114381

Original post by Deycallmeboo

lets be realistic, the extra funding from the fees for private schools allows them to provide the best of the best and so they should! I never went to a private school myself but I know when I have children, if I can afford it I will send them to private schools because I think often the stereotypical snobbery associated with private schools is far from the truth and not only do they produce intelligent young individuals but well rounded ones also who are genuine and well mannered.

The stereotypical snobbery associated with private schools may not be a reflection of all kids who attend them, but I've definitely noticed a few people at my university who have an intolerable aura of entitlement and superiority about them (I go to a Russell Group university and in my personal experience I find this mentality is especially common among Medicine students).

So you'd be happy to send your little angels to an affluent school when 93% of kids have to fight hard to overcome their circumstances? I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed that option, but if you did that, wouldn't you feel even a little bad for the 93% of people who don't have access to such a cushy privilege?

Your reasoning for sending them to private school purely because you want them to be 'genuine' and well-mannered (which is often the way their parents have brought them up; the school itself is irrelevent) is completely shallow. You sound like someone who just wants to show off your well-behaved 'cultured' little brats to your fellow tea-drinking middle-class fruitcakes at dinner parties. Oh, and intelligence is not related to class. There's a difference between intelligence and knowledge; private schooled kids appear more 'intelligent' than the rest of us because they've been spoon-fed with knowledge (usually too much for their own good). In fact, statistically you're more likely to find a greater portion of kids with higher raw intelligence in state schools simply because a much bigger sample of people (93% of kids in the country) go to them.

Original post by Deycallmeboo

so think about this for a second, should the production of beautiful yet incredibly expensive cars be stopped simply because not everyone can afford one? No it shouldn't. Those who cannot afford these luxury cars could afford a cheaper car that may not be as great but has the fundamentals of a car. This is like education, private schools are the ferraris of education with plush leather seats and the government run schools are the vw golf; not as spectacular as the Ferrari but a car nonetheless, a car that gets you from a to b without the fancy trimmings and that is what matters.

Not the best analogy. At the end of the day a car is just a piece of metal that gets you to places with more efficiency than public transport. A car isn't terribly important. I don't mind if someone has a nicer car than me because I'm not a materialistic person. However, education is very important and a decent education should be open to all. Giving kids a far superior education than the rest of us purely on the basis that their parents are well-off is the height of elitism. You're allowing people with a totally unearned privilege to get far in life through little merit, innovation or originality of their own. I'd only send my kids to private school in the exceptional circumstance that the local state schools were terrible and I could afford it - but even then I'd feel bad and even guilty for the millions of unfortunate people in a similar situation who can't afford to do that, and I'd become a self-loathing hypocrite in the cold truth that the centre of human existence is selfishness and that, let's face it, all we really care about is ourselves.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 79

Agapelove

Original post by thewagwag

What it says on the tin.

I just left a private school, and I think the government should try to get state schools (the average) up to private school level before thinking about abolishing them. Why drag everyone down just in the name of faux 'equality'?

Discuss

No. Private schools are a part of a free society. Making private schools illegal would mean to punish any person who dares to disobey such a restricting law.

In my opinion, the less laws that restrict freedom, the better. Basic laws such as no murdering, no torture (including no raping) and no stealing are of course mandatory for peace and protecting people, but restricting freedom in other areas just makes more people criminals and curbs freedom, obviously.

(I am fine with not allowing the freedom to kill, rape, torture and steal, but I am not fine with curbing other freedoms such as diversity in education.)