Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Would you like Private schools to be banned? (POLL) Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should we ban private schools?
    Yes
    284
    25.33%
    No
    837
    74.67%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bm127)
    Haha yeah there's a big argument about whether they should be forced to operate as businesses, as the majority of the "charitable" ones are I think doing it for the tax breaks. Well that's what my brief bit of research showed anyway.
    Yar most do but to be entirely fair most peoples idea of private schools are very jaded along the lines of the elite ones like Harrow, Eton, etc. etc. who have vast sums of money tucked away, the reality is most dont ... i went to a moderatly prestigious one and i remember asking one of the teachers what the schools turn over was and the difference between income and expenditure was tiny, to build any new buildings or buy any new equiptment theyd have to borrow or do a hell of a lot of fund raising. Running one of those schools isnt cheap, i had friends at a couple of smaller local ones which went bust, one of them repeatedly so
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    How do you propose that?
    By having a "tough ****" kind of attitude towards most problems. At the moment kids aged eleven are either treated like 3-year-olds and babied constantly or they're treated like little adults, getting to make decisions that they're probably not mature enough to make. I'd discourage appealing against exam results unless there really is something wrong, sending off for remarks is fine but when you get parents who appeal to the exam board, indignant that the board just doesn't recognize little Tarquin's genius when really they can't accept that their son isn't academic, it's not exactly setting the kid up for life very well. When they're thirty and get turned down for a job, Mummy can't appeal the decision anymore. If people are unhappy with their grade after a re-mark, they re-sit, simple as.

    Also with more practical lessons such as learning early how to craft a good CV, interview techniques etc in space of lessons like Drama and Music which, although they are good for creativity, will not prepare a 13 year old for the job market like these sessions will.
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by madders94)
    By having a "tough ****" kind of attitude towards most problems. At the moment kids aged eleven are either treated like 3-year-olds and babied constantly or they're treated like little adults, getting to make decisions that they're probably not mature enough to make. I'd discourage appealing against exam results unless there really is something wrong, sending off for remarks is fine but when you get parents who appeal to the exam board, indignant that the board just doesn't recognize little Tarquin's genius when really they can't accept that their son isn't academic, it's not exactly setting the kid up for life very well. When they're thirty and get turned down for a job, Mummy can't appeal the decision anymore. If people are unhappy with their grade after a re-mark, they re-sit, simple as.

    Also with more practical lessons such as learning early how to craft a good CV, interview techniques etc in space of lessons like Drama and Music which, although they are good for creativity, will not prepare a 13 year old for the job market like these sessions will.
    Oh I must have interpreted your first post - I thought you were arguing against that. .


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Please take more freedoms away from me

    thanks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A child should not have his life dictated to him by the economic status of his parents. A wholly state education system would allow every child the chance to succeed, it would give children from all socio-economic backgrounds a more equal starting position in life. Why should one child suffer because his parents earn less than another child's parents? The current system is simply unfair.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HeyyImRyan)
    Instead of moaning they could've worked harder to be able to afford it for their children? Most of the people sent to private schools probably do so because their parents earned a good living... I intend to do the same for my kids despite not being privately educated myself - just have to work hard to make it a possibility.
    I fully agree with this! I am at an advantage of being brought up so that I can pass my exams to get into a grammar school and want to do this and more for my kids so that they can have all the advantages in life that other people don't and I will keep reminding them that most people don't have their opportunities so to make the most of them. Don't demonise the rich and or parents who rely on scholarships so their kids can get into private education for working their asses off to get their kids into private education, demonise the parents who decide not to do a days work in their lives and continue to live on the dole and not motivate their kids to do better than them, because those are the kids that are going to repeat the cycle, those are the kids who are going to grow up thinking not working is normal and that having to live off of the government is fine.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by muddywaters51)
    One of the stupidist things I've heard.

    Why not ban private healthcare too because of how "unfair" it is. While you're at it ban ferraris and mansions because it is unfair that some cannot afford these.

    Did you realise there are actually people who wan't to ban legitimate businesses/organizations?
    What's so hypocritical and disingenuous is that they are actually state subsidized to keep privilege in place.



    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7464951.html

    http://schoolsweek.co.uk/labour-to-e...tions-are-met/

    (This one is Labour ffs!!)

    Private healthcare isn't a good analogy- would you want the US system unfettered and the misery it has caused for example, the complete lack of human rights for the poor?

    Another point is that Britain has had both state and private healthcare, but until very recently due to Tory ideology, the NHS has been vastly more respected and trusted by people of all classes and incomes.

    I think education, with an 'NES' should follow exactly the same principle, not to mention treating every individual as having human rights from birth, not based on their parent income or circumstance, and for all people to be able to fulfill their potential and have opportunities for progress.

    It's a question of balance.

    Tory ideology is totally regressive in this sense, and I always find it frustrating how glib and superficial their supporters arguments are, there is very little reflection that goes on. They seem quite dogmatic about sticking to past ideas and wisdom in general.

    I think if we got rid of private schools, you would still have ghettoisation, between pushy ambitious deeply middle class state schools, and left behind ones, so it would solve nothing in that sense, there'd still be a clear class divide, a state sixth from near me was a selective grade factory hothousing people from the right backgrounds with the highest grades nationally for example.

    I am, however opposed to boarding schools, as another part of the post imperial culture, I can observe that huge amounts of child abuse has occurred in them, and I also think it's inhumane and wrong to take kids away from their parents home at that age- no-wonder so many people ruling our country are pathological weirdos.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    TL;DR-

    I don't think we should ban them, but they definitely shouldn't receive state subsidies. I'd also like to see more prosperity and opportunity spread across the regions educationally, and maybe would like to see some scholarships for bright poorer kids to private schools.

    I support the banning of boarding schools.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Private healthcare isn't a good analogy- would you want the US system unfettered and the misery it has caused for example, the complete lack of human rights for the poor?

    Another point is that Britain has had both state and private healthcare, but until very recently due to Tory ideology, the NHS has been vastly more respected and trusted by people of all classes and incomes.

    .
    You are a poster who has no clue what he is talking about. It is time some calls you out on your utter ****.(across the forum, you make me laugh).

    Singapore has state and the private sector involved heatlchare, this is a model we should aspire to. According to the world health organisation Singapore healthcare system is far superior to the NHS. The NHS is inefficient and is not our best achievement(sorry this breaks your dreams and common leftist thoughts)
    https://producaoindustrialblog.wordp...ealth-systems/

    Let us examine why US healthcare is so bad.

    Prices are high there because of a lack of a consumer base. In the US some of the reason costs are so high are the fact that you can't purchase health insurance from a company based in another state, which kills competition. Also, medical malpractice lawsuits drive up the cost of malpractice insurance, which drives up the cost of practicing medicine, so non-economic damages from those suits should be capped. Also, individual market and employee market (how you get your private health insurance) is treated differently for tax purposes, with individual market plans kind of getting shafted. The tax treatment needs to be equalized so that people buy more individual market insurance which is portable from job to job. Also, standards for what a health insurance plan is were greatly heightened by the ACA and should be scaled back so that cheaper plans can be offered to those who want them. If I bought health insurance, for example, I would only want catastrophic illness/injury insurance, but I am legally required to buy a comprehensive plan which is more expensive. Also, individuals with disabilities aren't allowed to pool their money together and thus increase their weight in buying health insurance, which is why so many aren't covered. Additional taxes implemented under Obamacare, as well as mandates on companies, drive up the cost too.

    In the U.K., you could very easily preserve universal access but privatize the system
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Beebumble)
    I can however see where these people are coming from state schools lose a lot of good teachers because by going to the private sector they get better pay and more freedom in terms of what they teach and how they teach it but then maybe the public sector should look at why that is happening.
    This. Rather than blaming the private sector for being more attractive, the public sector needs to become more efficient and better run.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    This. Rather than blaming the private sector for being more attractive, the public sector needs to become more efficient and better run.
    The public sector is inefficient, government is inefficient.(on the whole)

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    The public sector is inefficient, government is inefficient.(on the whole)

    Indeed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)

    Singapore has state and the private sector involved heatlchare, this is a model we should aspire to. According to the world health organisation Singapore healthcare system is far superior to the NHS. The NHS is inefficient and is not our best achievement(sorry this breaks your dreams and common leftist thoughts)
    https://producaoindustrialblog.wordp...ealth-systems/
    Where did I say the NHS was perfect, stop attributing arguments to me I didn't make. I said it has been, until recent stress, but even still now, way better and more trusted than private, within this country. It has also been, besides France and maybe some in Scandinavia, the best in the world, again it has weakened due to lack of support and the ideology of Tories.

    Love the way you ignore my entire post by the way, the thread is about schools not healthcare you utter fool.

    You glib adolescent free market idealists think you're so cool and have read Ayn Rand a little too much, you are literally blind to the complexities and downsides and it wouldn't surprise me if you wanted to emulate Singapore in all ways, yet the place is a toilet.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Where did I say the NHS was perfect, stop attributing arguments to me I didn't make. I said it has been, until recent stress, but even still now, way better and more trusted than private, within this country. It has also been, besides France and maybe some in Scandinavia, the best in the world, again it has weakened due to lack of support and the ideology of Tories.

    .
    Seems you didn't address my point.

    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Love the way you ignore my entire post by the way, the thread is about schools not healthcare you utter fool.

    You glib adolescent free market idealists think you're so cool and have read Ayn Rand a little too much, you are literally blind to the complexities and downsides and it wouldn't surprise me if you wanted to emulate Singapore in all ways, yet the place is a toilet.
    You made claims about healthcare which were false.

    You marxists think you're so cool and you have read too much Marx, you are are blind to the real world.
    Funny how you don't address any points and just use ad hominens.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Seems you didn't address my point.



    You made claims about healthcare which were false.

    You marxists think you're so cool and you have read too much Marx, you are are blind to the real world.
    Funny how you don't address any points and just use ad hominens.
    Well, address the many irrefutably logical points in mine before picking out the one part that wasn't about the thread subject?

    Oh, and you were the one to first use ad hominems too.

    Are you deliberately trying to be as transparently hypocritical as possible?

    Another daft tactic of those who idealise a certain kind of politics, and no by the way, I'm not someone who sees no positives in it, is to put words in the mouth of their opponents and create broad brush strawmen arguments, such as, for example, trying to attribute 'communism' to people who don't want foodbanks or an indefinite rise in inequality. That's where I come to the whole sixth form, childish element going on with some people on this side of the political spectrum.

    The libertarians who only support economic exploitation, but think that issues like the continual assault on civil liberties in the name of anti-terror legislation are good, are usually the most ignorant, myopic and regressive.

    In this sense Thatcher was no Libertarian, Ron Paul is more like it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaucissonSecCy)
    Well, address the many irrefutably logical points in mine before picking out the one part that wasn't about the thread subject?

    Oh, and you were the one to first use ad hominems too.

    Are you deliberately trying to be as transparently hypocritical as possible?

    Another daft tactic of those who idealise a certain kind of politics, and no by the way, I'm not someone who sees no positives in it, is to put words in the mouth of their opponents and create broad brush strawmen arguments, such as, for example, trying to attribute 'communism' to people who don't want foodbanks or an indefinite rise in inequality. That's where I come to the whole sixth form, childish element going on with some people on this side of the political spectrum.

    The libertarians who only support economic exploitation, but think that issues like the continual assault on civil liberties in the name of anti-terror legislation are good, are usually the most ignorant, myopic and regressive.

    In this sense Thatcher was no Libertarian, Ron Paul is more like it.
    I called you out for BS on healthcare, I don't care about this thread and what you said about schools some it made sense IIRC.
    I was illustrating how stupid your point was about rand so I said marx. You are the hypocrite.

    You don't what you are talking about and I am not a conservative supporter.
    I will leave this discussion as it is not achieving anything
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    I called you out for BS on healthcare, I don't care about this thread and what you said about schools some it made sense IIRC.
    I was illustrating how stupid your point was about rand so I said marx. You are the hypocrite.

    You don't what you are talking about and I am not a conservative supporter.
    I will leave this discussion as it is not achieving anything
    You are in the Thatcher society. I was referring to her.

    Ah, hypocrisy, selective arguments, and regal, haughty proclamations of 'You don't know what you're talking about', it's so beneath me....

    T-wat.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling about Results Day?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.