This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Are single-sex schools a thing of the past? Should they be abolished or not?
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- opinions on scrapping GCSEs?
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Fire Work
- Rough schools and the attainment gap
- 2020 - 5 wasted years, what could have been?
- predicted grades
- I didn't watch a single minute of the coronation today!
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- Should the royal family exist?
- Social class prejudice and private schools in Britain
- Transferring from IGCSE to GCSE after year 10
- Should I consider switching to a grammar (state school) for sixth form?
- Widening Participation Rant
- A Level Resits
- Should children be forced to take RE for gcse?
- Oxbridge must help pupils from state schools
- Is Durham University’s reputation true?
- Will you feel British without the monarchy?
- Oxford vs Bristol
Do you think we should abolish private schools?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by DaveSmith99
Private schools take around 10% of all school children in the country (IIRC), we ban them then these 10% just have to be absorbed by the state and resources will be stretched even thinner.
Parents of these 10% would also become obsessed with improving state schools, which would help raise the educational standard for all.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by JamesTheCool
So being wealthy was still a requirement?
True, but I reckon the wealthy would also be keener on improving state schools if private schools were abolished.
True, but I reckon the wealthy would also be keener on improving state schools if private schools were abolished.
Sorry being wealthy isn't a requirement... after all you can get scholarships to pretty much all private schools if you are intelligent enough.
Of course they would. That's pretty much part of the reason why Grammar schools are good, most of the students are from well-educated backgrounds if not wealthy ones and the cost of a house in the catchment area is crazy high and the 11+ requirements are ridiculous too. Both of which are more achievable if you are from a well-off background.
Apparently all the people who want private schools abolished are under the assumption that all kids who go to private schools are toffee-nosed twits whose parents can buy them whatever, whenever they want.
Let me clear this up for you. I went to a private school, my parents spent every spare penny they had to send me there, and that was even with a scholarship. 90% of my classmates also had parents who spent most of their salary to send their kids there. The posho snobs you are talking about probably represent <10% of the privately educated kids you are tarring with the same brush (and let me tell you, some of their parents wasted their money, a few left without any GCSE's to go and live off mum and dad, so why not let them?).
None of you have successfully explained how abolishing schools would be good for everyone and many of you have assumed that money can buy you a place there - I don't know many schools that let kids in without an entrance exam no matter HOW rich they are (could be wrong in this instance, but certainly there was a test to get into all of the schools my parents applied to). Also, parents who send their children to private schools pay taxes (and pretty high rates of this if you still think kids that go there are as rich as you say they are) which go towards educated others' children, as well as freeing up spaces in the schools themselves.
So, in summary: Abolishing private schools means an influx of new students into existing schools, leading to a greater burden on those existing schools. Teachers at private school are not necessarily better paid than in the state sector (source: the internet), therefore the spread of teachers around the new body of pupils would not greatly increase (if at all, on average). Pupils with potentially bright futures will continue to be dragged down by trouble-makers and the ill-behaved.
But hey, as long as everyone's equal who cares if it's equal at the bottom?
Let me clear this up for you. I went to a private school, my parents spent every spare penny they had to send me there, and that was even with a scholarship. 90% of my classmates also had parents who spent most of their salary to send their kids there. The posho snobs you are talking about probably represent <10% of the privately educated kids you are tarring with the same brush (and let me tell you, some of their parents wasted their money, a few left without any GCSE's to go and live off mum and dad, so why not let them?).
None of you have successfully explained how abolishing schools would be good for everyone and many of you have assumed that money can buy you a place there - I don't know many schools that let kids in without an entrance exam no matter HOW rich they are (could be wrong in this instance, but certainly there was a test to get into all of the schools my parents applied to). Also, parents who send their children to private schools pay taxes (and pretty high rates of this if you still think kids that go there are as rich as you say they are) which go towards educated others' children, as well as freeing up spaces in the schools themselves.
So, in summary: Abolishing private schools means an influx of new students into existing schools, leading to a greater burden on those existing schools. Teachers at private school are not necessarily better paid than in the state sector (source: the internet), therefore the spread of teachers around the new body of pupils would not greatly increase (if at all, on average). Pupils with potentially bright futures will continue to be dragged down by trouble-makers and the ill-behaved.
But hey, as long as everyone's equal who cares if it's equal at the bottom?
People should be free to spend their money and if that's it to give their kids the best education then so be it! I think it is rediculous to ban private schools, considering the country is governed through democracy and based on 'free market' principles.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by DaveSmith99
No, how will that help anyone? We need to make state schools as good, if not better than public schools.
I doubt state schools will ever be better than public schools, certainly not in our lifetimes anyway. Making state schools good is a tricky thing to do because it's usually the pupils who are the problem, not the teachers or the environment (although I went to a school which had some nice architecture so I may not be right about this).
(edited 10 years ago)
The only way to overcome the depravity of state schools is to get rid of 'mixed ability' classes and have rigorous streaming for every subject - selection should be based on the child's ability of each subject and their behaviour. It is not fair for kids who are quiet and studious, whose parents can't afford to send them to a private school, to have to be dragged down by menacing little thugs and turds in their class. Teachers at my school tended to place quiet kids next to noisy kids in seating plans. Some of them even acknowledged this and their justification was essentially that quiet kids have a 'calming' effect on disruptive kids and therefore the rest of the class. In reality this works to very little extent, all at the psychological expense of quiet kids who are now at an even greater risk of being picked on. I think noisy kids at school should just be rounded up separately like cows in a pen and taught a different, non-academic syllabus that might actually be of some use to them. Even the most gutless and Blairite of teachers would have to agree that attempting to teach these turds English, Maths and Science is a waste of everyone's time...
Another thing would be to abolish tutor groups, because being in the same class full of horrible sods for almost every lesson of the week can have a lasting negative impact on the way you feel around people in later life. I suffered this myself for 3 miserable years between the ages of 11 and 14. It was a constant tightrope and a period of my life devoid of any nostalgia or happy memory which I don't think I'll ever have any longing to re-live. On the other hand, being 'that Billy-no-mates in the corner' in almost all my classes (despite the fact I still had a good circle of close friends at school, just never in class!) made me a lot more focused and passionate about my work, and determined to be successful.
Another thing would be to abolish tutor groups, because being in the same class full of horrible sods for almost every lesson of the week can have a lasting negative impact on the way you feel around people in later life. I suffered this myself for 3 miserable years between the ages of 11 and 14. It was a constant tightrope and a period of my life devoid of any nostalgia or happy memory which I don't think I'll ever have any longing to re-live. On the other hand, being 'that Billy-no-mates in the corner' in almost all my classes (despite the fact I still had a good circle of close friends at school, just never in class!) made me a lot more focused and passionate about my work, and determined to be successful.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
First of all, there has been a long term shortage of maths teachers. Therefore others had had to be persuaded into it. The alternative was to offer no maths course.
Furthermore contrary to what a 17 year old might think, the state of someone's knowledge of a subject isn't fixed at 18 or indeed 21.
A teacher without a maths degree who is teaching A level maths probably has a degree in the physical sciences or if not, has undertaken in service retraining into maths.
Moreover, I posted on another thread a selection of the grades required in clearing in 1988 (so that's a teacher in their early 40s today) and I will repeat a selection here.
Mathematics
KCL CCD
LSE BCC
Leeds BBB
Reading BCC
Manchester CCC
Mathematics and Education
Cambridge DDE
Exeter DDD
Warwick DDE
Furthermore contrary to what a 17 year old might think, the state of someone's knowledge of a subject isn't fixed at 18 or indeed 21.
A teacher without a maths degree who is teaching A level maths probably has a degree in the physical sciences or if not, has undertaken in service retraining into maths.
Moreover, I posted on another thread a selection of the grades required in clearing in 1988 (so that's a teacher in their early 40s today) and I will repeat a selection here.
Mathematics
KCL CCD
LSE BCC
Leeds BBB
Reading BCC
Manchester CCC
Mathematics and Education
Cambridge DDE
Exeter DDD
Warwick DDE
I once had a wonderful A-level maths teacher who cheerfully admitted mucking up his A-level Maths "due to too much drinking". But he evidently pulled himself together afterwards, got into university, did his maths degree and attained mathematical mastery!
We need to remove the impact that an unchosen financial status has on a child's future because let's face it, it's a bit of a joke. We're supposed to be living in the 21st Century where this is no longer a factor.
If anything, the poor are in greater need of the best quality of education; not the rich. Just like students at university from lower-household incomes are entitled to more funding. Children of rich parents are usually highly-strung anyway (and spoiled enough as it is).
If anything, the poor are in greater need of the best quality of education; not the rich. Just like students at university from lower-household incomes are entitled to more funding. Children of rich parents are usually highly-strung anyway (and spoiled enough as it is).
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by kidomo
People should be free to spend their money and if that's it to give their kids the best education then so be it! I think it is rediculous to ban private schools, considering the country is governed through democracy and based on 'free market' principles.
'rediculous'...
Original post by Collierja
'rediculous'...
Lol ridiculous!
Original post by kidomo
Lol ridiculous!
The consensus of people on this thread is that people are 'unequal'. Presumably by their guidelines, your inability to spell relatively easy words renders you undeserving of a private education. Even if your spelling error is a one-off, it's still not good enough!
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Collierja
The consensus of people on this thread is that people are 'unequal'. Presumably by their guidelines, your inability to spell relatively easy words renders you undeserving of a private education. Even if your spelling error is a one-off, it's still not good enough!
Fine.
Lol I know how to spell it, clearly, but I left it for my phone to correct it! Alas it failed me on this occasion
Out of curiosity, have you been privately educated?
Original post by kidomo
Fine.
Lol I know how to spell it, clearly, but I left it for my phone to correct it! Alas it failed me on this occasion
Out of curiosity, have you been privately educated?
Lol I know how to spell it, clearly, but I left it for my phone to correct it! Alas it failed me on this occasion
Out of curiosity, have you been privately educated?
No. I wasn't born to rich parents. I have above average intelligence but I'm not MENSA material so therefore I don't deserve it.
Original post by Collierja
No. I wasn't born to rich parents. I have above average intelligence but I'm not MENSA material so therefore I don't deserve it.
Of course, you seem very clever to me
What's MENSA?
You don't have to be rich to be accepted by Oxford/Cambridge.
Original post by kidomo
Of course, you seem very clever to me
What's MENSA?
You don't have to be rich to be accepted by Oxford/Cambridge.
What's MENSA?
You don't have to be rich to be accepted by Oxford/Cambridge.
I detect your sarcasm. Feel free to ridicule your underlings though; I do the same. I prefer to think of myself as a 'creative' intellectual.
MENSA is a society for people who score at the 98th percentile or higher on IQ tests. In other words, people who are very clever, whereas I modestly deem myself to be 'above average intelligence'. I think that assumption is fair enough given that I went to a state school where most people were barely capable of typing a sensical message. Then again, on TSR, it seems as though your grammatical ability needs to be equivalent to the mastery of someone who can slay a level 500 three-headed dragon with wings on RuneScape in order to be taken seriously.
I never said that you did. But obviously it helps...
(edited 10 years ago)
It's a difficult one, because as much as it is easy for someone like me to say they should all be closed, I know for a fact that if I had the income and I had a kid I would be sending them to one.
It's also too easy to say that state schools should just be made as competitive. You're living in a dream land if you think that the public purse can pay for that.
Personally, I would have fewer issues with them if it wasn't for the concept of nepotism (and that probably only really exists at the top end of independents anyway - Eton, Harrow, etc). I don't think we as a society can sit back and say "all's fair" when we have a cabinet, top jobs, etc, dominated by independently educated individuals. If a true meritocracy exists, and I believe we should be striving for that, then you would expect a much lower proportion of independently educated individuals in the upper echelons of influence - of course proportionally they will be larger than 10%, because of their superior education, but not by the amount seen today.
Will eradicating private schools achieve this 'true' meritocracy? Probably not. It's difficult to say that it wouldn't shift a focus in education and opportunities, though.
I think the solution lies in a gradual shift to making independent schools centres of academic excellence (rather than opulence) by ensuring a large number of poorer individuals can enter through substantial bursaries. If 50% of your students came from poorer backgrounds, you would get a mixture of cultures and ideas. Privileged kids would have to mix with poorer kids, and that, in my opinion, would be of benefit to everybody - especially if those pupils are to be leaders of the future.
So yeah, meritocracy.
It's also too easy to say that state schools should just be made as competitive. You're living in a dream land if you think that the public purse can pay for that.
Personally, I would have fewer issues with them if it wasn't for the concept of nepotism (and that probably only really exists at the top end of independents anyway - Eton, Harrow, etc). I don't think we as a society can sit back and say "all's fair" when we have a cabinet, top jobs, etc, dominated by independently educated individuals. If a true meritocracy exists, and I believe we should be striving for that, then you would expect a much lower proportion of independently educated individuals in the upper echelons of influence - of course proportionally they will be larger than 10%, because of their superior education, but not by the amount seen today.
Will eradicating private schools achieve this 'true' meritocracy? Probably not. It's difficult to say that it wouldn't shift a focus in education and opportunities, though.
I think the solution lies in a gradual shift to making independent schools centres of academic excellence (rather than opulence) by ensuring a large number of poorer individuals can enter through substantial bursaries. If 50% of your students came from poorer backgrounds, you would get a mixture of cultures and ideas. Privileged kids would have to mix with poorer kids, and that, in my opinion, would be of benefit to everybody - especially if those pupils are to be leaders of the future.
So yeah, meritocracy.
Original post by Collierja
I detect your sarcasm. Feel free to ridicule your underlings though; I do the same. I prefer to think of myself as a 'creative' intellectual.
MENSA is a society for people who score at the 98th percentile or higher on IQ tests. In other words, people who are very clever, whereas I modestly deem myself to be 'above average intelligence'. I think that assumption is fair enough given that I went to a state school where most people were barely capable of typing a sensical message. Then again, on TSR, it seems as though your grammar ability needs to be equivalent to the mastery of someone who can slay a level 500 three-headed dragon with wings on RuneScape in order to be taken seriously.
I never said that you did...
MENSA is a society for people who score at the 98th percentile or higher on IQ tests. In other words, people who are very clever, whereas I modestly deem myself to be 'above average intelligence'. I think that assumption is fair enough given that I went to a state school where most people were barely capable of typing a sensical message. Then again, on TSR, it seems as though your grammar ability needs to be equivalent to the mastery of someone who can slay a level 500 three-headed dragon with wings on RuneScape in order to be taken seriously.
I never said that you did...
That was not my intention, sorry
. You clearly are very clever chap, but you need to understand that not gaining a place within MENSA doesn't mean your life is over and that you are not worthy.... Think Einstein, he was deemed stupid, but he turned out to be the greatest scientist of all time! People will take you seriously if you write something very serious and thought provoking but you cannot be expected to do it all the time! Remember TSR is not real life; it's merely a place to relax and have fun
Obviously it's also great for asking for help.(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by JamesTheCool
So being wealthy was still a requirement?
True, but I reckon the wealthy would also be keener on improving state schools if private schools were abolished.
True, but I reckon the wealthy would also be keener on improving state schools if private schools were abolished.
Sure, but surely just the state schools in the affluent areas they live in?
Posted from TSR Mobile
My state school is by anyone's standards quite a high-performing school; we come near the top of the league tables every year for state schools.
However, this does not appear to be enough… they've now started a riding club in a bid to appear more private...
In all seriousness, I don't think it is right to abolish private schools given that some people are paying money to allow their children to have a better education than others and therefore are making that investment towards their child's education. Incidentally, a private school will be easier to get into than a state school - although they often have admissions tests for prospective students, they are not going to offer you a place unless you can pay the fees for a school (and as a result have a fewer pool to choose from).
However, what I do object to is the difference in standards between private schools in general and some state schools. Just because someone might be privileged enough to pay for their child's education, it doesn't mean at all that everyone does. I don't think it is fair that someone should have access to potentially a higher standard of education than someone of the same academic ability just because their parents have more money to spend on them.
Therefore, I don't think we should abolish private schools but I do think something should be done to diminish the difference between the standards of education (I know I'm conflicting with my earlier point about paying for this higher standard but that's my personal view)
However, this does not appear to be enough… they've now started a riding club in a bid to appear more private...
In all seriousness, I don't think it is right to abolish private schools given that some people are paying money to allow their children to have a better education than others and therefore are making that investment towards their child's education. Incidentally, a private school will be easier to get into than a state school - although they often have admissions tests for prospective students, they are not going to offer you a place unless you can pay the fees for a school (and as a result have a fewer pool to choose from).
However, what I do object to is the difference in standards between private schools in general and some state schools. Just because someone might be privileged enough to pay for their child's education, it doesn't mean at all that everyone does. I don't think it is fair that someone should have access to potentially a higher standard of education than someone of the same academic ability just because their parents have more money to spend on them.
Therefore, I don't think we should abolish private schools but I do think something should be done to diminish the difference between the standards of education (I know I'm conflicting with my earlier point about paying for this higher standard but that's my personal view)
1. Absolutely not.
2. Humans are naturally competitive to varying degrees. Equality, though a nice idea will never, ever be a realised..
2. Humans are naturally competitive to varying degrees. Equality, though a nice idea will never, ever be a realised..
Related discussions
- Are single-sex schools a thing of the past? Should they be abolished or not?
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- opinions on scrapping GCSEs?
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Fire Work
- Rough schools and the attainment gap
- 2020 - 5 wasted years, what could have been?
- predicted grades
- I didn't watch a single minute of the coronation today!
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- Should the royal family exist?
- Social class prejudice and private schools in Britain
- Transferring from IGCSE to GCSE after year 10
- Should I consider switching to a grammar (state school) for sixth form?
- Widening Participation Rant
- A Level Resits
- Should children be forced to take RE for gcse?
- Oxbridge must help pupils from state schools
- Is Durham University’s reputation true?
- Will you feel British without the monarchy?
- Oxford vs Bristol
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 1 minute ago
GSK or AstraZeneca degree apprenticeship applicants?Last reply 2 minutes ago
Bank of America Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 3 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 4 minutes ago
What happens if i dont manage to find housing for second yr?- Uni of BathLast reply 6 minutes ago
The Official Funding questions/moans/possible joy ThreadLast reply 6 minutes ago
St dominics, henrietta barnett, RMS, parmiters or girls grammar??Last reply 7 minutes ago
Schroders apprenticeship 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
lse economics and economic historyLast reply 8 minutes ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme 2024 (2025 Start)Last reply 8 minutes ago
TSR Study Together - STEM vs Humanities - Tenth SessionLast reply 8 minutes ago
Official Veterinary Medicine Applicants thread 2024 entryPosted 9 minutes ago
will i get marked down drastically fro mixing up the names of theodicies?Last reply 10 minutes ago
Official LSE Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryTrending
Last reply 6 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 9 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 6 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 9 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
