Private Schools Ought to be Abolished Watch

Paper_planes
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#521
Report 9 years ago
#521
In theory yes, but then you have a problem - a HUGE number of people to find places/funding for. You couldn't do it overnight, people would be upset at the loss of the really old institutions Westminster/Eton/Harrow etc. I think it's one of those things that is a glorious idea in theory, but sadly will never work in practice.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#522
Report 9 years ago
#522
(Original post by Ylem)
I do not wish to take away your right to give your children a better life. I simply disagree with the method used to achieve this. Can you explain to me why not all children should not be entitled to a good education and an equal chance to a good future?
No child is 'entitled' to a top-quality education - one might suggest they are entitled to a fairly basic education, that is all. For everything else, it's the luck of the draw really.

Sitting around moaning about 'entitlement' is frankly just as silly as suggesting that disabled children should be 'entitled' to use of their legs.

Firstly, lets not forget, that although as you say the poor are reliant on the middle/ upper classes for a 'free meal ticket', the middle/upper classes are equally reliant on the working class to provide labour and do the jobs they themselves would never do.
Evidently it is not an equal dependence, or else the poor could command the same wages as the rich.
0
reply
Ylem
Badges: 0
#523
Report 9 years ago
#523
(Original post by L i b)
it's the luck of the draw really.

This becomes tiresome, so I shall be brief.

'luck' is nothing to do with it and you know it. Luck involves chance, there is no element of chance, only predetermined inequality.

(Original post by L i b)
Evidently it is not an equal dependence, or else the poor could command the same wages as the rich.
For people to be at the top, somebody has to be at the bottom. Just as lions could not exist without prey, the rich could not exist without the poor.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#524
Report 9 years ago
#524
(Original post by Ylem)
This becomes tiresome, so I shall be brief.

'luck' is nothing to do with it and you know it. Luck involves chance, there is no element of chance, only predetermined inequality.
What circumstances you are born into is entirely a matter of chance - and indeed, even the poorest in British society are far, far, far better off in that great lottery than the vast majority of people on this planet.

For people to be at the top, somebody has to be at the bottom. Just as lions could not exist without prey, the rich could not exist without the poor.
Wealth at all can only be understood in terms of being able to pay someone to do something, but ultimately if everyone on earth died tomorrow and I had access to everything I wanted (ignore the 'what would happen to the nuclear reactors' type questions) then I'd be very well-off materially.

Of course capitalism reflects inequality; I support that entirely. Whilst I am happy to support raising the standard of living of the poor, inequality per se does not bother me in the least.
0
reply
fraser101
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#525
Report 9 years ago
#525
(Original post by graffic)
Private schools serve no other purpose than propagating raging in-equalities and acting as a cartel on resources and opportunity : an insidious monopoly with no social conscience. We are still the only country in the world where you can tell somebody's class by the way they speak. If you look at the rest of Europe then look at the UK it's unbelievable
Private schools provide a rounded education that in most cases would not be available at a standard state school. In an ideal world all schools would be at this standard but the fact is there isn't enough money, resources, land etc to go around. Yes this does cause inequalities but ultimately in a capitalist society this will always be so. If parents wish to pay for their child's education then let them.
0
reply
lovett
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#526
Report 9 years ago
#526
(Original post by Ylem)

In fact, we do not disagree on all that much; all you want is for your children to be given a good education and a fair chance to be all they can be. All I want; is for all children to be given a good education and a fair chance to be all they can be.
I don't think you're really understanding his argument.

He is saying that abolishing private schools will not engender 'good education for all children'. Rather it will mean that the average level of education will fall. Private schools, which tend to be better than state schools, will no longer exist and the educational benefits they conferred on attendees will not be transferred to state school pupils. They will disappear.

He say this is because private schools superiority (in terms of educational attainment) stems from their selective nature; only reasonably good students with reasonably engaged families tend to attend. This means class time is not wasted dealing with disruptive pupils. If these 'good' students were spread thin across the system they would not improve state schools; state schools would (on average) degrade them.

You haven't really got to grips with this argument, as I see it.

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, Ellipsis.

As an addendum, we could not that private school education spending represents surplus expenditure above and beyond state school spending. Even if educational outcomes were a function of spending abolishing private schools would not solve the issue; it would just lead to a net reduction in expenditure and a corresponding reduction in attainment.
0
reply
The_Octopus
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#527
Report 9 years ago
#527
(Original post by graffic)
Indeed, there are lots of extremely mediocre people running this country; in Westminster, in the city, in the courts etc etc who excel at nothing more than having a superior sense of self-entitlement because of being educated at the right school.

Bad parents are usually "bad" because they themselves also had "bad" parents. Most of these people never had the opportunity or hope to do anything worthwhile in society precisely because of the economic equalities in this country which keep people at the bottom and preserve the cream at the top. Studies repeatedly show that the majority of people stay within a certain income bracket throughout life.

Nearly three quarters of judges, about a third of FTSE 100 chief executives, half of all senior journalists, and a third of MPs were privately schooled. Also just under half of the pupils accepted at Oxford and Cambridge universities come from the 7% of the population educated at private school.

Private schools serve no other purpose than propagating raging in-equalities and acting as a cartel on resources and opportunity : an insidious monopoly with no social conscience. We are still the only country in the world where you can tell somebody's class by the way they speak. If you look at the rest of Europe then look at the UK it's unbelievable
People have to take some personal responsibility. While you can blame bad kids on bad parents, you can't let people blame their own lack of parenting skills on their own parents lack of skills. Adults make their own choices in this regard. It is perfectly possible for someone to have a poor upbringing themselves, but give their own children a good upbringing. While what you say about income brackets may be true, just because you don't earn a lot doesn't mean you can't bring up your kids properly.

There is a reason that lawyers, businessmen, politicians and good university graduates are more likely to have gone to private school - those jobs require a good education and a private school is the best place to get a good education. It is that simple. There is not some massive conspiracy to keep the working classes out of money using private schools.

By having schools which operate under a fairly free market and aren't under government control, we have schools which care about education enough to only let in kids who behave properly and want to work. It is no wonder then that society's high fliers went there.

That fact that many judges and MPs and the like are from state schools show it is more than possible to succeed without private schools, but that private schools provide a better education.

I am aware that private schools prevent equality of education, but that is not a bad thing it itself. I would rather 93% of the population gets a reasonable education and 7% (most of which are intelligent and well brought up) will get a better education, than have 100% of the kids have that reasonable education. The impact on society of losing these educated people will be huge, as your stats show us.
0
reply
blondie :)
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#528
Report 9 years ago
#528
I wasn't sent to a private school, although my parents would have loved for me to have had that priviledge, we simply couldn't afford it and we're not poor, really. If parents want to send their child to a private school then they should let them, the same way people pay for private health care; it's their money. A girl who I used to be friends with was sent to the private school in my town, because her parents believed that the school I'm at wasn't pushing her enough. At the private school now, she's doing no better than she was at my school, because she just cannot be bothered. You can get a good education if you're willing to learn, if you're not then you won't get the outstanding grades. Obviously, a natural ability in whatever subject is needed as well and good facilities and everything else. But paying for an education doesn't necessarily mean you're going to perform better.

I don't think they should be banned. Expensive clothes and cars and fancy holidays are targetted towards rich families as well and no one has suggested to ban them? Not everyone is equal and they'll always be people richer and have a better lifestyle than some.
0
reply
fraser101
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#529
Report 9 years ago
#529
(Original post by graffic)
It's not a "massive conspiracy" because it is right there in front of your very own eyes to see. The rich send their kids to private schools because they HATE the poor in the UK. They loathe them because they haven't "made it". They don't want their kids to brush shoulders with the "scum" of the U.K, to have their chances diluted.

The rich kid born into a rich family is ALWAYS going to be ahead of the state child because daddy put his money into his future, into his childs future. There are exceptions; the nouveau riche like Sir Alan Sugar, Sir Phillip Green and Sir Richard Branson have done well, but they are 1 in a million example. A FREAK result which has as much to do with luck as with hard work, and besides they will never be fully accepted into "the club", they will always be outsiders. Buying privilege does what it says it does, people would not pay the fees if they did not get results.




The fee paying schools represent precisely the opposite values of a "free", aspirational and meritocratic market. They reward wealth and privilege over ability. The private school system gives an unfair leg up to many extremely mediocre people simply because their parents could afford it. This of course means they're able to get jobs which state educated plebs of higher ability could, and should, be getting instead. One of them will probably be our next Prime minister.
I seems you have issues with the rich that go beyond private schooling. Why shouldn't parents want their children to be in an environment in which they can excel? "Fully accepted into 'the club"
..grow up
0
reply
StraightDrive
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#530
Report 9 years ago
#530
(Original post by graffic)
Nearly three quarters of judges, about a third of FTSE 100 chief executives, half of all senior journalists, and a third of MPs were privately schooled. Also just under half of the pupils accepted at Oxford and Cambridge universities come from the 7% of the population educated at private school.
If anything, this simply bolsters the argument that private schools provide a better environment for achieving excellence. Plus, there is likely to be self selection of talent parents with talented children into such schools if they can afford it.
0
reply
fraser101
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#531
Report 9 years ago
#531
this topic has dragged on long enough, I'm just thankful that private schools are here to stay.
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#532
Report 9 years ago
#532
(Original post by Ylem)
It is obvious that there are numerous elements to explain the gap between rich and poor, I'm am simply stating that education is one of them. Inequality has been an issue for many generations, therefore there are flawed values and attitudes deep-rooted into lower class culture as a result of decades of relative poverty.
I'll tell you what the problem is, they're all selfish, arrogant and downright ignorant! Think its just pure coincidence none of them care about their kids/would rather watch tv than work etc?

-Selfish
-Arrogant
-Ignorant

How can a class of people with those characteristics get anywhere?
0
reply
~~~MrsCellophane~~~
Badges: 0
#533
Report 9 years ago
#533
Wouldn't going back to Secondary Moderns and Grammar schools, start re-branding people as a success or a failure? Also, children who attend Grammar schools tend to have moderately well off parents anyway, as the 11 + has always been biased towards the middle class. Sure, the system is an absolute shambles, but abolishing independent schools is unlikely to solve the problem of class divide, if most of the people who are "successes" are middle class anyway, it's just going to make them richer because they now don't have to pay for school. This attitude actually worsens the divide.

I have to say that I totally agree with your idea of education up until KS4 being kept in the "Primary" stage of school, although maybe bringing back more middle schools would be a better option? Keeping kids in primary school until they are about to choose GCSE's may not provide them with the chance to mature to an extent where they are choosing for the future, rather than what they fancy doing at that time.
0
reply
oscarwildelike
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#534
Report 9 years ago
#534
Nope, I went to a state comprehensive, I go to an independent college. To be fair, I would have done much better in my GCSEs if I had gone to a private school because I would have been pushed to work, but in no way could I not have got straight a*s if I hadn't gone to a private school.

Private schools are a better learning environment, but face it, GCSEs and A-Levels aren't that hard. If you;re clever and you want it, no matter where you go you can get the top grades and attend a top university. If you didn't get the grades because you weren't in a good working environment and you didn't have great teachers, thats your fault for not working harder and not putting in the time outside school.

Banning private schools gives everyone the same :snow::snow::snow::snow: standard of education, and personally I like the fact that one can send their children somewhere that's not controlled by the government and where the government doesn't dictate what's taught and what's not.
0
reply
~~~MrsCellophane~~~
Badges: 0
#535
Report 9 years ago
#535
(Original post by oscarwildelike)
Nope, I went to a state comprehensive, I go to an independent college. To be fair, I would have done much better in my GCSEs if I had gone to a private school because I would have been pushed to work, but in no way could I not have got straight a*s if I hadn't gone to a private school.

Private schools are a better learning environment, but face it, GCSEs and A-Levels aren't that hard. If you;re clever and you want it, no matter where you go you can get the top grades and attend a top university. If you didn't get the grades because you weren't in a good working environment and you didn't have great teachers, thats your fault for not working harder and not putting in the time outside school.

Banning private schools gives everyone the same :snow::snow::snow::snow: standard of education, and personally I like the fact that one can send their children somewhere that's not controlled by the government and where the government doesn't dictate what's taught and what's not.
I agree totally. I went to a state comprehensive, and again I would have done so much better if I had been at a private school. I now attend a private college, and i'm already predicted an A for my exams in January. Thing is, I don't pay for this education, neither do my parents. Social Services does: meaning the tax payers. Basically the taxpayers are paying for my education, because i worked hard enough to get there. If all kids were like this, then there would't be arguments about this because no one would have a problem about people going to a school they pay for, and probably would be happier, because they weren't paying for an education that is dependent on how hard you work. That's what the education system is: you work hard you get far. Doesn't matter if you pay or not.
0
reply
tldr22
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#536
Report 9 years ago
#536
I do not agree.

My first two years of state high school seemed to be almost entirely the :snow::snow::snow::snow:, scummy working class kids disrupting the lessons and subsequently being thrown out. I'd have loved to have gone to a private school!

So many lessons, hours, wasted by these scum who have gone nowhere.
0
reply
Teaddict
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#537
Report 9 years ago
#537
(Original post by ~~~MrsCellophane~~~)
I agree totally. I went to a state comprehensive, and again I would have done so much better if I had been at a private school. I now attend a private college, and i'm already predicted an A for my exams in January. Thing is, I don't pay for this education, neither do my parents. Social Services does: meaning the tax payers. Basically the taxpayers are paying for my education, because i worked hard enough to get there. If all kids were like this, then there would't be arguments about this because no one would have a problem about people going to a school they pay for, and probably would be happier, because they weren't paying for an education that is dependent on how hard you work. That's what the education system is: you work hard you get far. Doesn't matter if you pay or not.
I would like to say that is true. But due to the nature of our education system, the statement "you work hard you get far" is absolute nonsense. There are people who do nothing all year, cram in the last weeks, and due to their good memory, pass the exams.

This is fundamentally unfair on those who work hard, but have not the memory nor the exam technique.

Whenever we look to Education, we should always look to Scandinavian countries - In some you don't do any exams until you are like 17. In Denmark, you can use the internet in exams now a days.

Scandinavian countries have a very good track record on a number of issues which we in Britain should look to emulate.
0
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#538
Report 9 years ago
#538
It should be a fundamental right of parents to spend (or waste, depending on your viewpoint) their money in whatever way they see fit for the benefit of their children, providing it's legal. And up till now, paying for a private school education is legal.

What is wrong imo, is paying for extensive coaching to ensure a free state education in what is perceived as the 'best available.'
0
reply
yawn
Badges: 13
#539
Report 9 years ago
#539
(Original post by ~~~MrsCellophane~~~)
I agree totally. I went to a state comprehensive, and again I would have done so much better if I had been at a private school. I now attend a private college, and i'm already predicted an A for my exams in January. Thing is, I don't pay for this education, neither do my parents. Social Services does: meaning the tax payers. Basically the taxpayers are paying for my education, because i worked hard enough to get there. If all kids were like this, then there would't be arguments about this because no one would have a problem about people going to a school they pay for, and probably would be happier, because they weren't paying for an education that is dependent on how hard you work. That's what the education system is: you work hard you get far. Doesn't matter if you pay or not.
I find it very hard to believe that Social Services would fund a private education for a child who's parents are on benefits simply because their parents wanted a private education for their child, particulary since attendance at FE colleges is not compulsory as schooling is from 5 - 16.

Of course, there may be extenuating circumstances that you are not divulging but the public purse does not fund private education any longer. Government Assisted Places were phased out from 1998.
0
reply
billydisco
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#540
Report 9 years ago
#540
(Original post by ~~~MrsCellophane~~~)
Also, children who attend Grammar schools tend to have moderately well off parents anyway, as the 11 + has always been biased towards the middle class.
Considering Kent and Bucks contain approximately 65 of the 160 grammar schools, what else did you expect them to be full of- lower class???

11+ is bias towards middle class? If thats true then so is:

SATs
GCSEs
A Levels
University
Jobs

actually life in general really! Like i stated above, how can ignorance, arrogance and selfishness get you anywhere in life????

So you're solution is to hold back gifted because just because a segment of our society need to sort out their personal attributes? Yeh ok darlin :rolleyes:
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! (553)
37.82%
No - but I will (115)
7.87%
No - I don't want to (103)
7.05%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (691)
47.26%

Watched Threads

View All