Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Faith schools shouldn't receive government funding Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drukarale )
    Not the lowest common denominator, more pulling everything towards the mean. Some schools would get worse, and some better.
    It's not even worth having a discussion with someone as stupid as you. That you suggest that making some things worse (and they would get much worse) so everyone can have an equal chance in a crappy system is ridiculous.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drukarale)
    Thank you for a better argued point.

    Yes, my suggestion would pull down the top schools, but it would also pull up the bottom ones. Ideally, all the state schools would be made as good as private schools, but this would be practically impossible when they draw students from deprived backgrounds and have far less money than their private counter-parts. Yes it's the government's failure, but failure is the only possible outcome when presented with an impossible task.

    You seem to have the opinion than anyone can make a lot of money if they try hard. Whilst it's a lovely sentiment to have, it simply isn't true. Chance also plays a huge role.

    I maintain my view that it should not be possible to buy children an unfair advantage.


    As for the private healthcare thing, I think it's quite unrelated. (Education and healthcare are not the same thing.)

    I would not prevent him from spending his money on himself no, although ideally, the healthcare system should not be so poor that he feels the need to do this.

    A better analogy would be 'should he be able to buy his way up the NHS waiting list?' What do you think?

    Oh, perhaps this is just semantics, but do you really think wealth makes a person's life more valuable? That's basically what you're saying by claiming that a rich person in ENTITLED to a better doctor.
    Yes, he is ENTITLED to a better doctor if he can pay for it. You seem to have some very strong views, far left I assume?

    About this "unfair-advantage". I think you're completely wrong. It's not about an unfair advantage, it's about children learning as much as they can when they're young as that's when it is easiest to learn. You seem to come to the conclusion that people only send their children to private school so that they can get better grades and go to better universities. That's not the point, the point is that I want my child to learn as much as he can at a young age.

    Scenario:

    I send my son to a public school, the lessons are noisy and disruptive as the vast majority of students there don't value their education. The quality of teaching isn't very good, despite talking to the school/council about this they ignore this and there is nothing we can do. Now.. my son is spending 6 hours a day in a noisy and disruptive environment, he isn't learning to his potential, the school say there is nothing they can do about this. After 11 years my son leaves school, disregarding his grades, he hasn't learnt as much as he could of, he isn't very academically able due to the schools low standards.

    Now.. you want my son to have a worse education because I am not allowed to spend MY money on a school that will better suit the needs of my child? My child should be permanently "disabled" if you like due to some sort of "equality" rule that says everyone has to recieve the same low quality schooling.

    How about this: When the schools are at a high standard that meet the needs and demands of parents, there would be NO reason for private schools.

    Don't you think that's a fair point? You have to offer me a decent alternative here, there's no way you're going to make me send my son to a school that has low standards.

    You say that not everyone can work to a good paying job? I have to disagree, the vast majority of people have the potential to get a decent paying job if they work hard. Fact is, most people are lazy and in this society where instant gratification is growing way overboard, most teenagers want to drink NOW.. sex NOW.. they don't want to work for anything.

    Point is, you don't have the power to decide where and how I educate my child. The law says that all children must have an EDUCATION, not go to school. So I can choose my own ways of educating my child, if that happens to be paying for a private school, so be it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kevin_123)
    Yes, he is ENTITLED to a better doctor if he can pay for it. You seem to have some very strong views, far left I assume?

    About this "unfair-advantage". I think you're completely wrong. It's not about an unfair advantage, it's about children learning as much as they can when they're young as that's when it is easiest to learn. You seem to come to the conclusion that people only send their children to private school so that they can get better grades and go to better universities. That's not the point, the point is that I want my child to learn as much as he can at a young age.

    Scenario:

    I send my son to a public school, the lessons are noisy and disruptive as the vast majority of students there don't value their education. The quality of teaching isn't very good, despite talking to the school/council about this they ignore this and there is nothing we can do. Now.. my son is spending 6 hours a day in a noisy and disruptive environment, he isn't learning to his potential, the school say there is nothing they can do about this. After 11 years my son leaves school, disregarding his grades, he hasn't learnt as much as he could of, he isn't very academically able due to the schools low standards.

    Now.. you want my son to have a worse education because I am not allowed to spend MY money on a school that will better suit the needs of my child? My child should be permanently "disabled" if you like due to some sort of "equality" rule that says everyone has to recieve the same low quality schooling.

    How about this: When the schools are at a high standard that meet the needs and demands of parents, there would be NO reason for private schools.

    Don't you think that's a fair point? You have to offer me a decent alternative here, there's no way you're going to make me send my son to a school that has low standards.

    You say that not everyone can work to a good paying job? I have to disagree, the vast majority of people have the potential to get a decent paying job if they work hard. Fact is, most people are lazy and in this society where instant gratification is growing way overboard, most teenagers want to drink NOW.. sex NOW.. they don't want to work for anything.

    Point is, you don't have the power to decide where and how I educate my child. The law says that all children must have an EDUCATION, not go to school. So I can choose my own ways of educating my child, if that happens to be paying for a private school, so be it.
    As I said, it would be an evening out rather than just pulling down the good schools. So ultimately, those from currently the worst schools would benefit, but yes, those from the best schools would lose out.

    Your example illustrates your point well, but I think it can also illustrate mine. Thousands of children have an education like this. Their parents can't afford, or won't pay for private school. They are will be academically "disabled" while an elite few have a much, much better standard of education with better teachers, more money and more resources. Would it mot be better to see the resources, and indeed pupils, spread between these schools. Then you don't have the segregation between the rich kids and the poor ones and they all get a similar standard of education (Worse than the private school, but better than the current state school). You seem to be considering things from the top of the ladder rather than the bottom. I admit that this would be a worse system for a lot of people, but I believe that it would be a better one for many others, as well as breaking down a sort of rich-poor segregation and providing a more equal, fairer system.

    As for the 'entitled' to a better doctor, I refuse to believe that someones life is intrinsically more valuable than someone else's due to nothing more than their wealth.

    We're obviously not going to agree, but I still think it's an interesting discussion. Out of curiosity, if you had the opportunity to create an entirely new education system from the ground up, what would you do? What do you think that the best possible system would be given the limited resources available?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paella)
    It's not even worth having a discussion with someone as stupid as you. That you suggest that making some things worse (and they would get much worse) so everyone can have an equal chance in a crappy system is ridiculous.
    Good point! Let's all make unsubstantiated claims and radical assumptions! Yes, I did suggest making some things worse, but only in order to make other things better.

    Does your lack of ability to construct a decent counter argument mean you have to resort to personal insults? Or are people who disagree with you just stupid?

    If you're so confident that you're right (even though 'right' in this discussion is subjective) then the best thing that you could do would be to logically or even morally try to show me that I'm wrong. Throwing your toys out the pram won't change anyone's mind.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drukarale)
    As I said, it would be an evening out rather than just pulling down the good schools. So ultimately, those from currently the worst schools would benefit, but yes, those from the best schools would lose out.

    Your example illustrates your point well, but I think it can also illustrate mine. Thousands of children have an education like this. Their parents can't afford, or won't pay for private school. They are will be academically "disabled" while an elite few have a much, much better standard of education with better teachers, more money and more resources. Would it mot be better to see the resources, and indeed pupils, spread between these schools. Then you don't have the segregation between the rich kids and the poor ones and they all get a similar standard of education (Worse than the private school, but better than the current state school). You seem to be considering things from the top of the ladder rather than the bottom. I admit that this would be a worse system for a lot of people, but I believe that it would be a better one for many others, as well as breaking down a sort of rich-poor segregation and providing a more equal, fairer system.

    As for the 'entitled' to a better doctor, I refuse to believe that someones life is intrinsically more valuable than someone else's due to nothing more than their wealth.

    We're obviously not going to agree, but I still think it's an interesting discussion. Out of curiosity, if you had the opportunity to create an entirely new education system from the ground up, what would you do? What do you think that the best possible system would be given the limited resources available?
    It's not about being 'entitled' to a better doctor, it's about letting the world be and let give people the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't effect other people.

    I do see your point, but taking away private schools is NOT going to improve public schools. I believe in letting the world do it's own thing, let things happen as they happen. It's not like private schools are effecting public schools.

    If I was able to create an entirely new education system. Well, firstly I would give all students more freedom, no school uniform, they should be allowed to leave school in between lessons. By treating them like adults they have no reason not to behave like adults. I have seen this in other european countries where students are treated very differently, they are given more freedom and they behave differently, I don't think there is something written in the DNA of British school children that makes them behave the way they do. However, I still think there needs to be strictness in certain areas.. going to school is a privilage, teachers shouldn't waste their energy to teach people that couldn't care less, therefore there should be more "seperation" a little bit earlier on, so people that want to carry on academically do one thing, people that want to go into construction do one thing, etc. Teachers should also be given more freedom, I know teachers nowadays need to think of everything they do and say so they don't get sued, they should be given guidelines and limitations obviously, but they shouldn't feel defenceless against students, students know this and take advantage of it immensly. I also think that students that are naturally more able should be given the resources and ability necessary to expand.

    Basically, more freedom to students, more freedom to teachers, more responsibility to students, students put the work in themselfes, seperate hard working people and chavs as early as possible. :p:
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • 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.