Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Private schools should be banned! watch

Announcements
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    you really have swallowed the hype from the the lazy soap dodger end of the left haven't you ...
    I fail to see how somebody can label me as a "Leftist-propoganda swallower" while similarly acknowledging in the same post that I agree a voucher system as the best way to run an education system. (Though perhaps your definition of what that is may be different to mine?).


    The reason I support the system ties in with my reasoning for not agreeing with a Private School system. The market is, in my opinion, the most effective way of providing goods. Where the market stalls is that there is a great incentive to cheat. Let's use a voucher system as an example. I did some research last night, and it costs approximately £7000-£8000 year to educate a pupil in a Secondary School. In a voucher system, Companies can get contracts to run schools for say, 1000 pupils, competing with other companies for the same role. (The way this works is that the government owns the property, but the day to day running of the school is private).

    Now, the incentive to cheat could arise in a scenario where one company has, for example, particularly close ties with an exam board. If a company gets excellent exam results, they can get more contracts from schools. Thus it makes sense to co-operate with the exam board and exploit the system. This is where it is critical that any alleged misconduct is investigated and punished severely. Fines and Prison sentences. As long as the companies are too scared to break the rules, as long as there is a profit incentive standards will keep rising.

    If a company is in the game of cutting costs (Low staff wages so low skilled staff) then the results will show, and the contracts can be awarded to other companies.

    This ties in with Private Schools because private schools distort the state system by withdrawing pupils from affluent backgrounds, thus diluting the classes of state pupils as they have a natural advantage regardless of private school or not, and the removal of high quality teaching.

    Meritocracy > self-perpetuating plutocracy.


    And yes, in a few years we'll just learn through online videos, and then attend school maybe 2/3 times per week for understanding/socializing.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I believe that every child should spend so long at a comprehensive followed by so long at a grammar school followed by so long at a public school. The order of this could be changed according to desirable circumstances.

    There is enough inequality caused by the circumstances of birth itself without this being continued at a time before individuals have had a chance to properly develop their talents. It would be unusual if some comprehensive schools were not better than some grammar schools in some respects, even if it's just to do with the individual teachers. However you reduce the risk of children receiving an inferior standard of education if they attend the 3 tiers of schooling- and if their parenting is proving detrimental to them then they may permanently board by the age of 14 or so.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnathon16)
    Ooooh what a pathetic argument that is, you're argument is essentially 'people say nasty things to me and me not like it'
    You're doing the typical privileged person thing of referring to a system in which you won't unfairly benefit 'communism.'
    It's just called equality of opportunity not 'childhood communism'




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I don't really think you understood. You ALL make some reference or another to us being privileged in a sort of derogatory way, almost as if we had a choice on where we went to school. If some of the people I have spoken to at university actually opened their ears and not decide to judge based on education, they would realise that we are normal individuals on the whole, just like everyone else.

    Everyone has equal opportunities and a good chance of advancing in life but it's not all about the school you go to and I don't really think people understand that. Out of the 6 people on our course, there are 4 that were not privately educated, for a start.

    If this privilege you so narrow-mindedly talk about was true, then I don't really think that would be the case; I would be swanning around University and the other Russells that my friends go to with an almost exclusively privately educated student population.

    Above all, the state educated children seem to have it ingrained in them that we have things better and you almost all use it as an excuse to be bitter about it and where we went to school. Everyone has chances to sit exams if they so wish and also to apply to university- maybe if you just think about it for 10 minutes, you will realise it is about how clever and how willing you are as a person to succeed and NOT ALL about the school you attended. We all have to sit the same exams and read the same textbooks, regardless of where we went to school. This is the point I was trying to make and I think that it would be unfair to abolish private schools for that reason.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 3309will)
    I don't really think you understood. You ALL make some reference or another to us being privileged in a sort of derogatory way, almost as if we had a choice on where we went to school. If some of the people I have spoken to at university actually opened their ears and not decide to judge based on education, they would realise that we are normal individuals on the whole, just like everyone else.

    Everyone has equal opportunities and a good chance of advancing in life but it's not all about the school you go to and I don't really think people understand that. Out of the 6 people on our course, there are 4 that were not privately educated, for a start.

    If this privilege you so narrow-mindedly talk about was true, then I don't really think that would be the case; I would be swanning around University and the other Russells that my friends go to with an almost exclusively privately educated student population.

    Above all, the state educated children seem to have it ingrained in them that we have things better and you almost all use it as an excuse to be bitter about it and where we went to school. Everyone has chances to sit exams if they so wish and also to apply to university- maybe if you just think about it for 10 minutes, you will realise it is about how clever and how willing you are as a person to succeed and NOT ALL about the school you attended. We all have to sit the same exams and read the same textbooks, regardless of where we went to school. This is the point I was trying to make and I think that it would be unfair to abolish private schools for that reason.
    What is the point you try to make? You have not made one? And 4 of the 6 will be state educated on your uni course as most of the population are.
    This inequality has been proven as Russell groups like Oxford and Cambridge have a far greater percentage of private school students than they actually represent of the population.
    Also not once did I blame you for the opportunities/privileges you have, I do not blame a person for the position that they are in without good reason.
    I do not have any problem with a person being wealthy/privileged. I am not going to simply call you a snob or call people that are privileged bad people, I know people from private schools myself and I am aware they are no different.
    I don't blame a person for their wealth (that's a silly idea), I blame society for allowing it to play a factor in the education system.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Johnathon16)
    <snip>
    This inequality has been proven as Russell groups like Oxford and Cambridge have a far greater percentage of private school students than they actually represent of the population.
    <snip>[/SIZE]
    has it or does it just reflect the aspirations of parents and the culture of some some private schools in encouraging students to aim for HEIs which require them to stretch their A level grade objectives , rather than poor advice or 'play safe' advice in the state sector.

    Also given OXbridge have none standard admissions processes within UCAS and all the mythology of their interview processes it is unsurprising that some people are put off ...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    has it or does it just reflect the aspirations of parents and the culture of some some private schools in encouraging students to aim for HEIs which require them to stretch their A level grade objectives , rather than poor advice or 'play safe' advice in the state sector.

    Also given OXbridge have none standard admissions processes within UCAS and all the mythology of their interview processes it is unsurprising that some people are put off ...
    Partly yes but I don't think it is stay safe advice from state schools that create this but it is more to do with the whole culture of safety and just staying in your local area.
    That mentality plays apart, but it tends to be much more in average students that genuinely wouldn't be able to attend a russell, which is why I still don't think this is a big enough factor to account for the vast divides.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    i forgot, what was the difference between private and public school?
    public is also a private but traditional???

    screw that, state schools should be called public schools...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dmon1Unlimited)
    i forgot, what was the difference between private and public school?
    public is also a private but traditional???

    screw that, state schools should be called public schools...
    'Public School' in the UK sense of the term ;

    "These schools emerged from ancient charity schools established to educate poor scholars. The term 'public' is derived from the fact that access was not restricted on the basis of religion, occupation or home location"

    ...

    "The Public Schools Act 1868 regulated and reformed these public schools, for which is provided the first legal definition, being schools which were open to the paying public from anywhere in the country, as opposed to, for example, a local school only open to local residents, or a religious school open only to members of a certain church"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_...nited_Kingdom)
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGuy117)
    Why all the negs with no explanation?
    Theres clearly a load of capitalist, posh people on here who like going to a private school.

    I think private schools schould be banned.

    Although I think the idea of the secondary modern/ grammar school is a good idea. HOWEVER I think 11 is too early to separate children. Perhaps the same schools until year 9. Then the more academic people can go to one kind of school and do gcses. Then the less academic people go to another kind of school and carry on with english and maths but then do vocational courses such as btecs and nvqs instead of having to pick history or geography at gcse which some schools make students do (which would have annoyed me as i love both and did both at gcse). At my school there was however, a policy of having to pick a technology (food/textiles/graphic design/resistant materials) which luckily I wasn't forced to do as I was in the gifted and talented group. Which I think is bizarre. Some people love two or three of those subjects. My friend wanted to do ict, graphic design, resistant materials and business. But even though they were all in different blocks, he had to change one of the technology subjects. He did geography instead as it was the only subject that remotely interested him. He got a C in that and A*/A in all his other subjects. He probable would've got an A in resistant materials too if he couldve done it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why not just raise the quality of the under-performing state schools, than undermine the parents Right to Choose.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Is it not more desirable that the ‘best’ is only available to a few than to none at all?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I'm from an ordinary background and went to a state comprehensive, and now I'm at a Russell group university, I don't fit in at all. I'm fascinated by the nature of some of the students here. The way these privately educated twurps behave is strange, and pretty intimidating. It's like they have this aura of elitism and 'yeah, I really am better than you'. Not always on purpose though, it's just the way they've been raised. It's almost as though they're from another world. I haven't witnessed anything like this before in people my age.

    I wish I mucked about in A-Levels and ended up at an ex-polytechnic, like the rest of my schoolmates. At least then I'd be happy...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesTheCool)
    I'm from an ordinary background and went to a state comprehensive, and now I'm at a Russell group university, I don't fit in at all. I'm fascinated by the nature of some of the students here. The way these privately educated twurps behave is strange, and pretty intimidating. It's like they have this aura of elitism and 'yeah, I really am better than you'. Not always on purpose though, it's just the way they've been raised. It's almost as though they're from another world. I haven't witnessed anything like this before in people my age.

    I wish I mucked about in A-Levels and ended up at an ex-polytechnic, like the rest of my schoolmates. At least then I'd be happy...
    Come on, why would you want to belittle your achievements at A-level just because you don't fit in with a group of people? They're just different to you, that's all.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    Why not just raise the quality of the under-performing state schools, than undermine the parents Right to Choose.
    which Maggie, the grocer's daughter who attended a Grammar School (KGGS), attempted to do with GM by freeing Heads and governing bodies from the dead hand of LEAs and the political commissars they imposed.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Lady)
    Come on, why would you want to belittle your achievements at A-level just because you don't fit in with a group of people? They're just different to you, that's all.
    Because you know what, I don't care anymore. I'd rather have a happy life than a successful one. Besides, there's no such thing as meritocracy anymore. There never was. That's the cold machinery of the British class system (and right-wing politics) for you...
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    People from private shops are spoon fed. They struggle to stand on there own two feet. Someone who succeeds from state school should be given more praise.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anony.mouse)
    Theres clearly a load of capitalist, posh people on here who like going to a private school.

    I think private schools schould be banned.

    Although I think the idea of the secondary modern/ grammar school is a good idea. HOWEVER I think 11 is too early to separate children. Perhaps the same schools until year 9. Then the more academic people can go to one kind of school and do gcses. Then the less academic people go to another kind of school and carry on with english and maths but then do vocational courses such as btecs and nvqs instead of having to pick history or geography at gcse which some schools make students do (which would have annoyed me as i love both and did both at gcse).
    I agree with what you're saying, although I'm not a big fan of grammar schools either, as they can make some children really big-headed (at least in my experience). It's another potential breeding ground for snobbery in my opinion. Besides, grammar schools tend to be situated in affluent areas anyway, where nearby middle class parents encourage their offspring to pass the 11-plus, so they can hopefully save a little bit of money for themselves by not having to send them to private school by default (because sending their little angels to a state comprehensive is simply out of the question...)

    I think it's better just to divide children into different classes of ability for each subject, rather than into different schools. And children should have the right to move into higher (or lower) sets if they're succeeding (or struggling) based on how well they perform on termly tests or something.

    I'm aware that this system exists in most state comprehensives, although I don't think it's currently good enough. When I did my GCSEs we had a couple of 'top' sets for English and Science, and the rest were mixed ability. In Maths we were divided into six different classes, based entirely on how well we did in our Year 9 SATs, although I thought that was slightly criminal because the 'tier' of paper you were allowed to take depended on the class you were in between Years 7 - 9, which itself depended on how well you did in your Year 6 SATs, and we had very few opportunities to move into better classes where we could be taught the top-level stuff and sit higher papers - in fact we weren't even informed about them. So in other words, I could only get a crap grade at best, regardless of how well I really wanted to do in that subject...

    Just saying, some people, including me, are late bloomers, who don't actually give a f*** about education until GCSEs when it starts to become somewhat important. Yes, some people are categorically more stupid than others, but I think an eager child who screws once deserves another chance. People change a lot, especially in youth.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesTheCool)
    .
    But under my system, there would be an even spread of grammar and comprehensive schools and there wouldnt be private schools anyway.

    But then schools might have to be huge. If there ends up being 20% on the btec courses at the school. Then only a couple of them might want to do mechanics. In which case they won't be able to do it. 1) the school might not even have the right equipment and 2) they wouldnt run such a course for just two people.

    But if there's separate schools, there's more room for the specialist equipment that they need.

    About the late bloomers, that's why I said I don't like the 11+. I'd rather people were split up just before their gcses/btecs.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anony.mouse)
    About the late bloomers, that's why I said I don't like the 11+. I'd rather people were split up just before their gcses/btecs.
    I don't like exams in general. The amount of panic, worry, anxiety, depression, and smugness (from others) that comes out of them can't be psychologically healthy for us.

    Then again I suppose life would be quite boring if we didn't have those emotions every once in a while...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesTheCool)
    Because you know what, I don't care anymore. I'd rather have a happy life than a successful one. Besides, there's no such thing as meritocracy anymore. There never was. That's the cold machinery of the British class system (and right-wing politics) for you...
    But seeing as you might have the choice between a successful or happy life, you're obviously not that bad off.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

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

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