Turn on thread page Beta

Conservatives plan on state-education... watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Referee)
    This would include doing the same exams...I'd love to see the results if everyone had to sit the qualification exams that the vast majority of private students do. :yep:

    It's not only private schools that are praised for academic excellence, ANY outstanding school gets the praise it deserves.

    To be quite honest, you could give every school in the country the same syllabus for any given subject and give the same funding per person...you still wouldn't get 'equality' in the results. Discipline, expectation and personal philosophy with respect to the importance of education will be more than enough to ensure that the perceived inequality remains. Even if you outlawed private tuition, you can't prevent parents teaching their children or children working together to learn from each other (thus balancing strengths and weaknesses!).
    It doesn't justify the state condoning a system that disadvantages the majority of students so that the minority can get a better education. Social change often follows change in social policy. I know there are other factors involved in educational attainment, but these are things you can't change without affecting people's autonomy. Inequality could be reduced by providing help for people who need it, rather than people who can afford it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Suffer? Excuse me? State schools are hardly akin to concentration camps you know.
    The private education system is a huge barrier to social equality and cohesion, and as such, I find it abhorrent. If private schools were abolished it would force the overall quality of state schools to be increased, and would ensure that all children benefit from equal opportunities.
    If you abolish private schools you do not guarantee an increase in the quality of state schools. You do, however, create a situation where bright students who would have went private, now suffer state schools.

    Also by abolishing private schools you deny individuals their right to purchase the education they want for their children.

    Private school results; on average, out perform state schools. If you remove private schools, Universities will not receive as many high quality candidates.

    To abolish private schools is just overall a foolish thing to do.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by andy5788)
    A good teacher is not necessarily one with a good degree. For starters the best teachers empathise with the difficulties their students may have in understanding the conceps they are explaning. Not to mention the fact that knowledge of a subject and ability to communicate it may overlap to an extent but are clearly different things.

    As for grammar schools, they are no longer (if indeed they ever were) centres of social mobility. Private courses and tuition for the 11+ are more widely available than ever and the socio-economic background of the vast majority of grammar school pupils is overwhelmingly affluent.
    A good degree is vital to having a good teacher, of course you need a teacher to be enthusiastic and motivate the students, aswell as all the things you mentioned, but if they have a 2.2 or third they obviously don't know their stuff.

    If you get a 2.2 or third in your degree it is a pretty obvious statement that you either don't know your stuff or your incredibly lazy, either way you shouldn't be teaching others subject matter you yourself obviously don't understand.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    If you abolish private schools you do not guarantee an increase in the quality of state schools. You do, however, create a situation where bright students who would have went private, now suffer state schools.

    Also by abolishing private schools you deny individuals their right to purchase the education they want for their children.

    Private school results; on average, out perform state schools. If you remove private schools, Universities will not receive as many high quality candidates.

    To abolish private schools is just overall a foolish thing to do.
    Private schools do get better results largely due to the fact they hand pick their teachers. However, going to a private school does not guarantee any better grades than state schools. But that aside its undeniable that many parents if they could afford it, would send their children to a private school to give them the best start they can in life. That said there are some particularly good state schools which perform on par or better than many private schools.

    And to say private school students would 'suffer' in a state school is ridiculous i'd just like to say.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MonsterMash)
    Private schools do get better results largely due to the fact they hand pick their teachers. However, going to a private school does not guarantee any better grades than state schools. But that aside its undeniable that many parents if they could afford it, would send their children to a private school to give them the best start they can in life. That said there are some particularly good state schools which perform on par or better than many private schools.

    And to say private school students would 'suffer' in a state school is ridiculous i'd just like to say.
    I didn't say suffer in state schools, I said suffer state schools.
    Private school students are different to state school students in how they see things and their mannerisms thus would be uncomfortable in a state school.

    But to abolish private schools would very exceptionally foolish in my opinion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    I didn't say suffer in state schools, I said suffer state schools.
    Private school students are different to state school students in how they see things and their mannerisms thus would be uncomfortable in a state school.

    But to abolish private schools would very exceptionally foolish in my opinion.
    I went to a private school, but i certainly am not uncomfortable around people who went to state schools, and would definitely not have been uncomfortable in a state school.

    A quick question, are you a student of a private school? And why do you think private school kids would be uncomfortable in a state school?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    I didn't say suffer in state schools, I said suffer state schools.
    Private school students are different to state school students in how they see things and their mannerisms thus would be uncomfortable in a state school.

    But to abolish private schools would very exceptionally foolish in my opinion.
    I didn't know private schools mollycoddled their students. Perhaps they should not got to university where they have to interact with the underclass from the comps.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MonsterMash)
    I went to a private school, but i certainly am not uncomfortable around people who went to state schools, and would definitely not have been uncomfortable in a state school.

    A quick question, are you a student of a private school? And why do you think private school kids would be uncomfortable in a state school?
    I do admit that I base it on a small number of private school students, but I have seen many who are not comfortable around state school students. They differ greatly.

    (Original post by Maker)
    I didn't know private schools mollycoddled their students. Perhaps they should not got to university where they have to interact with the underclass from the comps.
    I think you mean working class -_-
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think people realise how silly an idea having only 'brazenly elitist' teachers is. I've seen an apparently world class geography academic get paper balls thrown at him while being told "geography's f-ing ****".

    I've attended both a grammar school and now a comprehensive; the biggest issue in a comprehensive is the sheer number of people who couldn't give a stuff about their education. All the money or academics in the world wont solve that, only siphoning off the talent into grammar schools or 'possibly' grammar streaming might help.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    If you abolish private schools you do not guarantee an increase in the quality of state schools. You do, however, create a situation where bright students who would have went private, now suffer state schools.

    Also by abolishing private schools you deny individuals their right to purchase the education they want for their children.

    Private school results; on average, out perform state schools. If you remove private schools, Universities will not receive as many high quality candidates.

    To abolish private schools is just overall a foolish thing to do.
    Private schools do not solely comprise 'bright' students; they discriminate against on grounds of wealth, not academic ability. Many bright students attend state schools (Oxbridge takes 50% from the state sector) - you would not be sending 'lower' quality candidates to university simply by abolishing private schools. Attending a private school does not make one 'cleverer', but it does give one an unfair advantage over children who attend state schools, the level of funding of which means smaller classes and first-rate facilities cannot always be maintained.

    While the private sector may out perform state schools in general, happily grammar schools still out perform private schools. Of course, I am ambivalent about increasing the number of grammar schools, but one must recognise they do provide an excellent education, be it for the lucky few who are bright enough/can afford to pay for 11+ tuition to attend them.

    Abolishing private schools would result in a fairer and more equal society, and would have no adverse effect upon society.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Private schools do not solely comprise 'bright' students; they discriminate against on grounds of wealth or academic ability.
    Fix nya~

    Offering scholarships is nice~
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    Private schools do not solely comprise 'bright' students; they discriminate against on grounds of wealth, not academic ability.
    Hence why they are private -_-

    Also, if memory serves me correct, a system was in place that allowed for poorer students to attend private schools... Labour abolished it.

    Many bright students attend state schools (Oxbridge takes 50% from the state sector)
    50% of the student population do not go to private schools.
    Thus one can state that the proportion of private schools in the top universities in grossly disproportionate. Surely there is a message here? That though there can be many many bright students from state schools, the disproportionate bulk (the 50% you referred to) are provided by the private sector.

    - you would not be sending 'lower' quality candidates to university simply by abolishing private schools.
    You would no longer have those 50% private school students who are bright. They would be forced into state education where the provisions for success are not as substantial thus the academic success becomes smaller, thus requires Universities to accept students from a slightly lower level to fill places that would once be filled by bright private sector students.

    Attending a private school does not make one 'cleverer', but it does give one an unfair advantage over children who attend state schools, the level of funding of which means smaller classes and first-rate facilities cannot always be maintained.
    A private school allows for the provisions which allow for a student to academically develop at a greater rate. To abolish private schools is to abolish those first rate facilities and to remove freedom to those that wish it.

    While the private sector may out perform state schools in general, happily grammar schools still out perform private schools. Of course, I am ambivalent about increasing the number of grammar schools, but one must recognise they do provide an excellent education, be it for the lucky few who are bright enough/can afford to pay for 11+ tuition to attend them.
    However, the wide spread introduction or maintenance of grammar schools is not a policy maintained by the major parties. Thus we will lose vital educational establishments.

    Abolishing private schools would result in a fairer and more equal society, and would have no adverse effect upon society.
    Are you familiar with Margaret Thatcher?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

    Watch that - I believe it explains the point quite nicely.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Hence why they are private -_-

    Also, if memory serves me correct, a system was in place that allowed for poorer students to attend private schools... Labour abolished it.



    50% of the student population do not go to private schools.
    Thus one can state that the proportion of private schools in the top universities in grossly disproportionate. Surely there is a message here? That though there can be many many bright students from state schools, the disproportionate bulk (the 50% you referred to) are provided by the private sector.



    You would no longer have those 50% private school students who are bright. They would be forced into state education where the provisions for success are not as substantial thus the academic success becomes smaller, thus requires Universities to accept students from a slightly lower level to fill places that would once be filled by bright private sector students.



    A private school allows for the provisions which allow for a student to academically develop at a greater rate. To abolish private schools is to abolish those first rate facilities and to remove freedom to those that wish it.



    However, the wide spread introduction or maintenance of grammar schools is not a policy maintained by the major parties. Thus we will lose vital educational establishments.



    Are you familiar with Margaret Thatcher?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

    Watch that - I believe it explains the point quite nicely.
    If Labour abolished a policy whereby bright (but less wealthy) children could attend private schools, they were right in doing so. The solution would be not to take bright children out of the state sector where they would flourish regardless, but to send 'failing' children to private schools where they could benefit from the smaller classes. Of course, I don't believe in private education to I wouldn't really agree with this idea either.

    Yes, you are right the 50% of Oxbridge entrants who come from independent schools do represent a disproportionate amount, given that 7% of children attend such schools. A fairer, more proportionate percentage would be 25%, and hopefully this will be achieved in the near future. Increased public spending in education will help, but I accept that many members of the public sadly lack the imagination or humility to send their children to state schools.

    I have long found the views and policies of Margaret Thatcher wholly repulsive. Her attempts to justify a growing inequality between rich and poor were weak and futile then, and remain so today. Growing inequality is never desirable or fair, and we have a duty to tackle it - abolishing private schools is one such way.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meowmeowmutiny)
    Fix nya~

    Offering scholarships is nice~
    ... But is not the solution.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    If Labour abolished a policy whereby bright (but less wealthy) children could attend private schools, they were right in doing so. The solution would be not to take bright children out of the state sector where they would flourish regardless, but to send 'failing' children to private schools where they could benefit from the smaller classes. Of course, I don't believe in private education to I wouldn't really agree with this idea either.
    SO you believe Labour were justified in removing a policy that allowed bright students to attend private schools? That is hilarious.

    You don't believe in private education and thus cannot claim to support freedom of choice.

    Yes, you are right the 50% of Oxbridge entrants who come from independent schools do represent a disproportionate amount, given that 7% of children attend such schools. A fairer, more proportionate percentage would be 25%, and hopefully this will be achieved in the near future. Increased public spending in education will help, but I accept that many members of the public sadly lack the imagination or humility to send their children to state schools.
    I do not accept your argument at all.
    To send your children to state schools when a private school is the better choice you do not have humility or imagination... you are merely making a terrible choice that holds your children back for the sake of ideology.

    I have long found the views and policies of Margaret Thatcher wholly repulsive. Her attempts to justify a growing inequality between rich and poor were weak and futile then, and remain so today. Growing inequality is never desirable or fair, and we have a duty to tackle it - abolishing private schools is one such way.
    The gap between rich and poor is irrelevant. The issue is how poor are the poor. A person with 1million pounds is relatively poor in comparison to billionaires, however, the millionare can live comfortably.
    The gap is irrelevant - It is always about how poor are the poor.

    Inequality is a fact of life. The only way to create total equality is to drag everyone down to the same level, which is unbelievably disgraceful.

    Abolishing private schools is a stupid thing to do and solves nothing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olivia_Lightbulb)
    ... But is not the solution.
    That would be grammar schools and even more scholarships. Fascist measures are a bad thing~.
 
 
 
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?
Useful resources

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.