Private Schools Ought to be Abolished Watch

Turdburger
Badges: 14
#81
Report 9 years ago
#81
(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
Completely wrong, the big chunk of students at my university pretty much destroy the academic environment for those who deserve it. All the dim but well educated can manage is to parrot their parents views in an articulate fashion, i.e. they show no geniune academic ability whatsoever.
I see you are at Durham. Im at another top 10 university. Here at least, results for state and private school pupils are very similar.
0
reply
Boy with The Arab Strap
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#82
Report 9 years ago
#82
(Original post by 35mm_)
This is so ignorant. Oh, let's just preserve the better education for the middle-classes. Let's just forget all the working-class kids with parents who cannot afford to get private tuition or move into areas with "better" state schools.
The point I was trying to make earlier is that being middle class is a vague concept but can usually be defined through certain indicators. I lived in what was traditionally a working class area but my mother likes to buy organic food, would cut back on many things so we could go abroad each year and did everything she could to further my sister and I's education. I would define myself as middle class through these and other indicators and although my state school was not brilliant in Ofsted terms the friends I made and my family created my 'enabling environment' if you like. There were plenty of "chavs" who dropped out before A-level and only aspired to owning a flat. I was taught to aspire for more. Families and the kids have differing priorities and outlooks and that is where failure lies for some.

There's more to the british class system than the schools basically. If you get rid of private schools the richer parents, who are more likely to push their kids to be middle class like them, will do all they can to root out the best schools and/or pay for private tuition. The elitism will not be broken.
0
reply
fire2burn
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#83
Report 9 years ago
#83
I had the fortunate position of attending a state school which was actually decent, however I recognise that in many places the comprehensives are simply shocking.

At my school 90% achieved A*-C in all subjects at gcse level, yet a few miles down the road at another the pass rate was less than 30%. If I hadn't have gotten my place at the better school there is no way i'd have attended the place with the crap pass rate, no way in hell. My parents would have sent me to Kimbolton and paid to ensure that my education was not harmed.

If the state cannot provide education at the same standards as private institutions then the option should always remain open to seek out better opportunities.
0
reply
Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#84
Report 9 years ago
#84
(Original post by Turdburger)
But your method of equality of education involves worsening the education of the rich.
From my point of view it improves it - means they get to experience the real world for a change.
0
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#85
Report 9 years ago
#85
(Original post by 35mm_)
No, I don't agree. And, to be frank, I can't see your logic. I don't want poorer education for the rich, I want an equal quality of education for the rich and poor. Your parents economic status shouldn't grant you a better quality of education than another kid. Children in state schools aren't encouraged to have high ambitions, nor are they given the same opportunities as private school kids. If they were given these (I'm talking really simplistically, of course) then poorer kids would be more able to attend top universities and thus top jobs. The disparity in education isn't allowing this, not the disparity in jobs.
If all schools had equal funding per student then the schools who have a rich catchment area would end up doing better again... It already happens.
0
reply
Olivia_Lightbulb
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#86
Report 9 years ago
#86
I agree completely! I have been proposing this for quite some time. :yep:
Although, I am undecided as to whether I would abolish grammar schools (where they exist). I think their propensity to be exploited by the wealthy who can afford tuition means they like private schools, are also a barrier to social equality and cohesion.
Ultimately, we need a truly egalitarian education system if we want to award all children equality of opportunity.
0
reply
Kolya
Badges: 14
#87
Report 9 years ago
#87
(Original post by DougieG)
Its not the same thing at all. Private jets don't stop other people from getting a perfectly good flight, and people who use them are using the money that they own. If your parents buy you a private jet, then I think that's wrong, but at least you won't be taking a Higher Education slot from someone more intelligent from a poorer background.
I don't recognize the idea that higher education 'slots' are being denied to people unreasonably. If there were people who we could reasonably expect to be involved in higher education, and who were unable to gain a place, then there would be cause for concern. However, that is not the case: anyone with sensible grades can quite easily gain a place on a higher education course. The demand for higher education courses is not all that greater than the supply of courses, so I cannot see why you think slots are being denied to intelligent students from poor backgrounds.
0
reply
Oh I Really Don't Care
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#88
Report 9 years ago
#88
You only made that post because you scraped an A at AS physics and only got three As at A level. You ought to not be jealous.

^^ Unfounded speculation and little understanding of a person may lead to the above being said (jokingly - noone cares hho many A grades you got) by me about you. Do you see how this might be a metaphor? Without actually becoming seriously involved education you only have at best a shared opnion while if you were involved you could make some informed decisions.
0
reply
Aeolus
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#89
Report 9 years ago
#89
(Original post by JW92)
I find it abhorrent that extortionate social and economic advantage can be purchased by your parents.

So parents should be stopped from buying nice property in safe areas, that happen to be located near the best schools and jobs? Or maybe we should stop parents who are able to, from buying their children books or taking them to the theatre, prevent them from going abroad aswell perhaps? Maybe we should all just live in collosal concrete tower blocks, absolutely identical in every way, luxury and privilege outlawed?.
0
reply
JW92
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#90
Report 9 years ago
#90
Why are so many people here assuming getting rid of private education would drag the rich down, and would thus make everyone have an equally crap education?

More affluent students and better teachers would be pumped into the state system, improving work ethos and raising achievement all round.
0
reply
Turdburger
Badges: 14
#91
Report 9 years ago
#91
(Original post by Hopping Mad Kangaroo)
From my point of view it improves it - means they get to experience the real world for a change.
Oh come on. A) Exposure to different cultures is only a very small part of education B) Otherwise its worse C) Its naive to think that private school pupils dont know what the real world is like. Thats like me saying you dont know what the life of middle class people is about (assuming from your previous post you are working class.) and im sure you do.
0
reply
Rainbow-Dream
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#92
Report 9 years ago
#92
(Original post by Terrorfication)
i got into 2 of the best grammer schools in the country but because i got offered a humongous scholarship at a private school i felt it was more bang for your buck to go to the private school. i am elegible for free school meals, need i say more to disprove your hypothesis that you need to be moderately rich to attend private school? but overall i agree that for 90% of families that attend piravte schools they are wasting their money in comparison to grammar schools, although looking at the state sector i think its fair to say that generally if you were rejected places at good grammers then you should invest in the private sector over the state sector.. although i wouldn't start stereotyping and saying all grammar kids are this and all private kids are that but the points you make do bear resemblance in the real world and should not wholely be mistaken for onslaughts.
You were lucky. However the two schools in my area don't give more than a 40% grant, which, and wait for it, is only available if your parents earn less than £18,000. I'm not suggesting they allow people to go for free, but the private schools must know that nobody earning less than £18,000 can afford 60% of £12,500 a year for education.
Having gone to a state school all my life, I'm undecided as to whether they should be banned, because if my parents had more money they would send me to a private school along with my brother and sister, however I do agree with some saying that it gives the poor an unfair advantage. It is a tricky topic though.
0
reply
Melz0r
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#93
Report 9 years ago
#93
(Original post by Elipsis)
It only offers better chances because the premium filters out any wouldbe naughty children. I mean my state school was filled with children who had about 6 brothers and sisters throughout the school to 1 parent. I would happily pay a premium to not have my children get dragged down by scummy families.
Are you SERIOUS?

Rich = well-behaved, poor = scum. It's no more culturally complex and multilayered than that. Of course, of course, why didn't I see it all this time? It's those scummy POOR. Damn them.
0
reply
Hopping Mad Kangaroo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#94
Report 9 years ago
#94
(Original post by Turdburger)
I see you are at Durham. Im at another top 10 university. Here at least, results for state and private school pupils are very similar.
The problem is that the exams are little more than memory tests - which require time rather than geniune academic ability. It also gives the publically educated students a massive advantage, they are already socialised into the enviroment here, which means they have more time to commit to rote learning. Not to mention they have been schooled in how to study in the university environment, we haven't to anything like the extent.

Though in all honesty, Durham do not operate a credible examination system. I doubt its any different at your university.
0
reply
JW92
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#95
Report 9 years ago
#95
(Original post by Aeolus)
So parents should be stopped from buying nice property in safe areas, that happen to be located near the best schools and jobs? Or maybe we should stop parents who are able to, from buying their children books or taking them to the theatre, prevent them from going abroad aswell perhaps? Maybe we should all just live in collosal concrete tower blocks, absolutely identical in every way, luxury and privilege outlawed?.
Yeah, pretty much.

For the umpteenth time, I'm going to point out I was just explaining my gut reaction to the way in which advantage can be bought. I didn't propose anything.
0
reply
Libtolu
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#96
Report 9 years ago
#96
I will read your whole post at some point but as for the main discussion, i do not think private education should be abolished, simply because like it or not we live in a capitalist society and i like it, i didn't go to private school but the fact is if you're thick it doesn't matter what school you go to and if you're bright it doesn't matter what school you go to.

The people who do badly at school tend to have parents who don't think education is neccessary thus don't push their kids or even make them go to school and therefore the kids get this bad attitude and fail their exams.

It's the parents fault not the school system.

If everyone had to pay huge fee's for their childs education then the parents would push their kids to achieve because they have invested so much money in their education.

if anything, all schools should be private, yet compulsory.

People should be forced to pay a much larger chunk of their wage to send their kids to school this waythe parents would take an interest in the kids education and it would stop poor wasters on benefits having millions of chilldren because all that benefit would be taken and some to pay for schooling= population control.

Personally i think thick people should be banned from having children unless they can prove they can earn enough to keep them and pass an aptitude test, otherwise the kids should be put up for adoption.

So basically to me if you have the money you should be able to spend it on whatever you want, be it private goods or private alternatives to government provided merit goods(bupa,schooling,security etc)



P.s

Someone has to be poor because otherwise who would do the low paying jobs? And these jobs are always going to be needed.
0
reply
DougieG
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#97
Report Thread starter 9 years ago
#97
(Original post by Turdburger)
Im sorry for being rude. I just get frustrated, but thats not really an excuse. Im not a hardline conservative by any means. Im a slightly libertarian centrist. The (schools) tax bill would presumably increase long term by the percentage of children currently in state education (7%), which is a considerable if not huge increase. In the short term the costs would be simply enormous. Im assuming you want the government to seize the private property of these private schools, (with no compensation?) which I find a little morally objectionable.
No, the government would have to pay a fair price for the school property, but it would be compulsory to sell it. The owner(s) could take it to court if they didn't feel that the price was fair. I don't think cost covering would be impossible at all, for reasons I previously stated to another poster, because the money would be introduced from the change in fees for all state schools.

(Original post by Turdburger)
I think you have been a little rude or at least unfair in reply to be honest (ok I was rude so its forgiveable.) Its totally untrue that conservatives dont want "plebs" getting a good education. Thats not the issue on the table, everybody wants everybody else to do as well as possible. Im sure you want the best for everybody, I do as well. We just disagree on method.
That's what I've found, on the whole. The issue is usually focused around method, and I've even found that a lot of conservatives agree with me 100% in principle, though don't think that it would work in practice.

(Original post by Turdburger)
One further question: what would you do about people sending kids abroad for education and also about home schooling.
I did originally mention home schooling, but I think its something that can't really be combated.
0
reply
34253
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#98
Report 9 years ago
#98
(Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
I agree completely! I have been proposing this for quite some time.
Although, I am undecided as to whether I would abolish grammar schools (where they exist). I think their propensity to be exploited by the wealthy who can afford tuition means they like private schools, are also a barrier to social equality and cohesion.
Ultimately, we need a truly egalitarian education system if we want to award all children equality of opportunity.
Tons of children who could have done better have already been dragged down because of abolishing grammar schools in the past. It should be enough that the well off pay for the poor to live and be educated for nothing, it is simply unfair to expect the children to go to school together and sacrafice their opportunities in the process. The main motivation for most people to work hard in life is so their children can have a better life afterall.
0
reply
bun
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#99
Report 9 years ago
#99
(Original post by CERECEREREVOLUTION)
I went to a private school for sixth form and most of the people I met were no richer than the ones I met at the comprehensive I went to for secondary education. Rather than being rich, most just had parents who'd made big sacrifices to send their childrens to a private school.

Regardless, I think what you're suggesting is wrong on account of being to meddling and authoritarian. Parents should be allowed to spend their money on whatever they want, and if that means giving their children a better chance in life then let them.

If you want to make the country more meritocratic then the way to go about it is to improve the alternatives, rather than to take away private schools. Is it really sensible reducing the quality of education for many just to make it fairer?
I agree completely - for example, at my school (private school) at least 3 are not paying any fees at all, and many - including myself - are on scholarships (I get just over half fees.)

Also - I agree that parents should be able to spend there money on giving their children a better education if they wish.
0
reply
Turdburger
Badges: 14
#100
Report 9 years ago
#100
[QUOTE=JW92]Why are so many people here assuming getting rid of private education would drag the rich down, and would thus make everyone have an equally crap education?

More affluent students and better teachers would be pumped into the state system, improving work ethos and raising achievement all round.[/QUOTE]

eh? Surely this means that the level of education for the poor would improve rather than what your first paragraph states.
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! (503)
37.65%
No - but I will (103)
7.71%
No - I don't want to (92)
6.89%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (638)
47.75%

Watched Threads

View All