Private Schools Ought to be Abolished Watch

Terrorfication
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#321
Report 9 years ago
#321
(Original post by Thomasmc135)
*Eligible

oh please
0
reply
bun
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#322
Report 9 years ago
#322
(Original post by 46Bit)
My local school down the road gets ~33% of pupils their 5 A*s - Cs, and it's not the worst in the area. If the government brings that above 75% without another 10 years of making GCSEs easier then I'll tentatively give my support to this.
I would also give my support, but not at a stupidly low pass rate such as 75% - If the government can get a pass rate of 98% - which is still lower than most private shools still. then I would support this.
0
reply
The Referee
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#323
Report 9 years ago
#323
(Original post by Kolya)
Your position is absurd. Am I acting in a morally abhorrent way if I let my children use my large collection of books, or if I teach them additional maths, or if I speak a foreign language to them at home? Intuitively, preventing me from doing that simply because other parents might not be able to do the same is unacceptable. Heck, we could achieve equal schooling opportunities for children by abolishing schools altogether. Presumably you would think that the current school system is better than abolishing all schools in the country, so equal opportunities is not the fundamental motives behind our actions. There are more important considerations which take precedence over equality.

If everybody is worse off by your scheme then one has to seriously question your motives. To accept being worse off just so that other people are also worse off is highly dubious morally. It stems from jealously and resentment, rather than the more acceptable goal of giving everyone the chance of a high quality of life.
Good question! I grew up speaking 3 languages fluently, my dad taught me mathematics and I always had access to my parents' library of reference books and more texts than I could have wished for...abhorrent?
0
reply
Olivia_Lightbulb
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#324
Report 9 years ago
#324
(Original post by Kolya)
Your position is absurd. Am I acting in a morally abhorrent way if I let my children use my large collection of books, or if I teach them additional maths, or if I speak a foreign language to them at home? Intuitively, preventing me from doing that simply because other parents might not be able to do the same is unacceptable. Heck, we could achieve equal schooling opportunities for children by abolishing schools altogether. Presumably you would think that the current school system is better than abolishing all schools in the country, so equal opportunities is not the fundamental motives behind our actions. There are more important considerations which take precedence over equality.

If everybody is worse off by your scheme then one has to seriously question your motives. To accept being worse off just so that other people are also worse off is highly dubious morally. It stems from jealously and resentment, rather than the more acceptable goal of giving everyone the chance of a high quality of life.
How does abolishing private schools make everyone worse off?

My position is not absurd; you have merely placed my idea in absurd contexts. Of course you should not stop parents raising their children in an environment conducive to a good education, ideally with books and intellectual pursuits. However, the education system should provide for children who do not benefit from such a background, and should help them succeed and realise the potential which stems from their innate ability and intelligence, and not from an advantageous background. Therefore in the interests of social justice, we must ensure that certain vital aspects of life such as education, provide equally for all and offer equal opportunities.
0
reply
paella
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#325
Report 9 years ago
#325
(Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb )
Inequality is always morally abhorrent
Depends what your morals are.

Private schools oughtn't to be abolished. One should have right to pay for the best service they can, and as education is a service paid for by the taxpayer, why should the taxpayer not pay more for a better one. Ultimately, private school students will get better results overall, that's a given. The thing is, who can genuinely say that going to a state school gave them a particular disadvantage - you study from the same books, you take the same tests, why should you not achieve. At my (state) secondary school, a girl got 11a* - she wasn't particularly clever (byTSR standards, not the general population), her family was poor, but she achieved because she was motivated to go home every night, and on top of gymnastics (which she competes in at a top level) she spent an hour a night revising, and upped to spending about 4 hours a day from Easter revising. Now, state school pupils (who have similar grades as mine: 1a*8a1c) could say 'It would have been possible to turn those As into A* if I'd been at a private school" - and I probably would have done it - purely because a private school will get one to work. My point is, the only thing stopping intelligent state school students achieving the same as their privately schools counterparts, is their own lackadaisical attitude, and unwillingness to put in the time and the intensity to their studies that their private school counterparts would have been drilled to put in since year 7.
0
reply
CERECEREREVOLUTION
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#326
Report 9 years ago
#326
(Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
How does abolishing private schools make everyone worse off?

My position is not absurd; you have merely placed my idea in absurd contexts. Of course you should not stop parents raising their children in an environment conducive to a good education, ideally with books and intellectual pursuits. However, the education system should provide for children who do not benefit from such a background, and should help them succeed and realise the potential which stems from their innate ability and intelligence, and not from an advantageous background. Therefore in the interests of social justice, we must ensure that certain vital aspects of life such as education, provide equally for all and offer equal opportunities.
Except abolishing private schools isn't going to help the situation at all. Improving the grammar school system is what is needed instead of an authoritarian, anti-choice system.
0
reply
Renner
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#327
Report 9 years ago
#327
(Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
How does abolishing private schools make everyone worse off?

My position is not absurd; you have merely placed my idea in absurd contexts. Of course you should not stop parents raising their children in an environment conducive to a good education, ideally with books and intellectual pursuits. However, the education system should provide for children who do not benefit from such a background, and should help them succeed and realise the potential which stems from their innate ability and intelligence, and not from an advantageous background. Therefore in the interests of social justice, we must ensure that certain vital aspects of life such as education, provide equally for all and offer equal opportunities.
How does having private schools make anybody worse off?

your treasured social justice is imposable (and undesirable, but that’s a different argument), state schools in poor areas do badly and state schools in rich areas do well despite the poor school probably getting more funding. Parents will always want what better for there kids which means the better off parents will pay for a house that’s in the catchment area of a good school, as many do already.
0
reply
Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#328
Report 9 years ago
#328
(Original post by Renner)
How does having private schools make anybody worse off?

your treasured social justice is imposable (and undesirable, but that’s a different argument), state schools in poor areas do badly and state schools in rich areas do well despite the poor school probably getting more funding. Parents will always want what better for there kids which means the better off parents will pay for a house that’s in the catchment area of a good school, as many do already.
Because swamping University's with the dim but highly educated shreds the academic environment for one. Also it means in the long run that the wrong people end up climbing the social hierarchy, to the detriment of nearly everyone.
0
reply
Kolya
Badges: 14
#329
Report 9 years ago
#329
(Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
How does abolishing private schools make everyone worse off?
I didn't specifically say that they did. I said that equality is not necessarily desirable in some circumstances because wider inequality, but with a higher medium, would usually be preferred to equality with a lower medium. So the primarily motivation is something other than a desire for equality.

In the case of private schools, there are complications that make the question more difficult. For example, if private schools were abolished then current schools would have to accommodate 110% more children with the same budget. One would expect that to decrease the quality of education that is provided. Of course, there are numerous other facts to take into consideration, some positive and some negative. However, it is far from easy to say that abolishing private schools will make the quality of education better for everyone else.

(Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
My position is not absurd; you have merely placed my idea in absurd contexts. Of course you should not stop parents raising their children in an environment conducive to a good education, ideally with books and intellectual pursuits. However, the education system should provide for children who do not benefit from such a background, and should help them succeed and realise the potential which stems from their innate ability and intelligence, and not from an advantageous background. Therefore in the interests of social justice, we must ensure that certain vital aspects of life such as education, provide equally for all and offer equal opportunities.
You're confusing two issues. You talk about helping children "succeed and realise the potential which stems from their innate ability and intelligence", and then you talk about equality. The two are /not/ the same. Helping children achieve does not require us to stop other children achieving as much. By all means, raise children up, but if attempting to raise them up means bringing other children down, as equality means, then you need to give it more serious thought.

I see social justice as about giving every child a reasonable chance to excel. That should be your goal. Equality is a different goal, and one that I think is misguided. Base your arguments on the desire to give each person as large a chance to excel as possible, not on giving everyone an equal chance.
reply
Don_Scott
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#330
Report 9 years ago
#330
No, abolishing important and ancient institutions because of your social engineering fantasies is not a good idea.
0
reply
coldfusion
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#331
Report 9 years ago
#331
(Original post by jacketpotato)
Op you have some good points, but your alternative system doesn't change much. Richer parents will still occupy the top schools by virtue of being able to afford moving to expensive areas and by virtue of tuition. Abolishing private schools won't get rid of the education divide, but could affect everybody: private schools provide a useful benchmark by which to assess state schools, and they often come up with good ideas which can benefit the state sector if they prove successful.


Google reveals that "The worst state school was The Ramsgate School, a secondary modern in Kent, where only 4% of the 129 students in 2003 achieved at least five good grades". Many other schools have 100% of their pupils getting five GCSEs.

I find it difficult to believe that a smart pupil who went to Ramsgate would do nearly as well as a smart pupil from a top school. The implication of your argument would be that people who go to poor performing schools (which would usually be most people born in a small area as they are usually city comprehensives) are born stupid; but pretty much everybody who goes to a decent school is smart. This cannot be the case
What I meant was personally if you were willing to work hard and ignore the influence of others then my statement holds. I speak about individuals, not everyone as a whole.
0
reply
Renner
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#332
Report 9 years ago
#332
(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
Because swamping University's with the dim but highly educated shreds the academic environment for one. Also it means in the long run that the wrong people end up climbing the social hierarchy, to the detriment of nearly everyone.
How can they be dim if there highly educated? If they have the grades then they are more than entitled to take up university spaces. And what do you mean by the 'wrong people' anyway?
0
reply
Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#333
Report 9 years ago
#333
(Original post by Renner)
How can they be dim if there highly educated? If they have the grades then they are more than entitled to take up university spaces. And what do you mean by the 'wrong people' anyway?
Put it this way, they have no ideas of their own. All they can do is parrot their parents dated ideas in most cases. Academia is after all the world of ideas, stupid but articulate people should never be welcome.
0
reply
CERECEREREVOLUTION
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#334
Report 9 years ago
#334
(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
Put it this way, they have no ideas of their own. All they can do is parrot their parents dated ideas in most cases. Academia is after all the world of ideas, stupid but articulate people should never be welcome.
At a comprehensive we were only ever taught to pass exams. At a private school we were taught to think for ourselves and taught beyond the syllabus. You just sound overwhelmingly prejudiced to me.
0
reply
Renner
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#335
Report 9 years ago
#335
(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
Put it this way, they have no ideas of their own. All they can do is parrot their parents dated ideas in most cases. Academia is after all the world of ideas, stupid but articulate people should never be welcome.
There is more to university than the arts, for every student who wants to do the arts or sciences there are others who want to be an investment banker or a doctor. At the end of the day people only want to do what there good at, so if someone isn’t good at putting forward ideas then they won’t take up a course or career whereby you need to do that.

All they can do is parrot their parents dated ideas in most cases
OMG, people agree with other people who are older than them :rolleyes:
0
reply
Aeolus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#336
Report 9 years ago
#336
(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
Put it this way, they have no ideas of their own. All they can do is parrot their parents dated ideas in most cases. Academia is after all the world of ideas, stupid but articulate people should never be welcome.

Judging by this, i think you could have done with some private schooling to be honest. Being articulate isn't enough to get you four A's at A level, while agreeing and developing upon the ideas of our parents is generally how society moves forward.
0
reply
jacketpotato
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#337
Report 9 years ago
#337
(Original post by coldfusion)
What I meant was personally if you were willing to work hard and ignore the influence of others then my statement holds. I speak about individuals, not everyone as a whole.
Understood, but I think you are being unrealistic. Humans are not built to "Ignore the influence of others", we are social animals which have always lived and had our lives dominated by the communities we live in. Hence why only 4% at Ramsgate got even five C grades at GCSE - I very much doubt that anyone has achieved the kind of grades you are thinking about from that school, perhaps ever. Expecting individuals to ignore the social envrionment they are in - despite shoddy teaching and bullying for those who work hard - is unrealistic.
0
reply
Thomasmc135
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#338
Report 9 years ago
#338
(Original post by Terrorfication)
oh please
I was bored, plus if you go to a private school then you should be able to spell easy words.
0
reply
Aphotic Cosmos
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#339
Report 9 years ago
#339
Solution to all our problems:

GRAMMAR SCHOOLS

There is no greater equaliser within our education system. Having just come out of one after 7 years, I firmly believe that giving the best chance to those with ability, regardless of class, is the best way forward.

At any rate, private schools should not be awarded charitable status. Most of them are run as businesses with little room for charity; I should know because my mum works in one as a head of department.
0
reply
Aeolus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#340
Report 9 years ago
#340
(Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
Solution to all our problems:

GRAMMAR SCHOOLS

There is no greater equaliser within our education system. Having just come out of one after 7 years, I firmly believe that giving the best chance to those with ability, regardless of class, is the best way forward.

At any rate, private schools should not be awarded charitable status. Most of them are run as businesses with little room for charity; I should know because my mum works in one as a head of department.
Yes but surely that would just push them further into the realms of 'elitism' as the amount of scholarships dissapear?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (26)
50%
No - but I will (1)
1.92%
No - I don't want to (1)
1.92%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (24)
46.15%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise