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

Private schools should be banned? watch

  • View Poll Results: Should private schools be banned?
    Yes
    134
    21.65%
    No
    457
    73.83%
    Not Sure
    28
    4.52%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Oh dear god, poor people :sigh:

    You do know that poor people go Private as well, right?
    I think you have the wrong end of the stick. The only difference (in terms of demographic) between private and state schools is that in one there is a mix of social classes and in the other there is not (I think you'll find that the lower classes are not represented very much in private schools). That was why I asked my original question when ISA said something about private schools having better social side.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by win5ton)
    I think you have the wrong end of the stick. The only difference (in terms of demographic) between private and state schools is that in one there is a mix of social classes and in the other there is not (I think you'll find that the lower classes are not represented very much in private schools). That was why I asked my original question when ISA said something about private schools having better social side.
    No I haven't gotten anything wrong, although there may not be as many of these poor people, some do go private it just puts strain on the family finances.

    But yes Private schools have better opportunities, more of your own kind and just generally better.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by colin4president)
    yes, what is the cost? working class seem to hate toffs. toffs look down on working class. symbiotic relationship innit, toffs pay lots of taxes and in return get to use the working class as a vehicle for their snobbery.

    an immensely flawed argument i know... but both cultures do hate each other and love themselves, so why not leave them to it?
    Read 'The Spirit Level', mate. There's a massive cost in terms of crime, mental health, etc.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acerbic)
    Read 'The Spirit Level', mate. There's a massive cost in terms of crime, mental health, etc.
    I suggest you look at another similar book called 'Beware false prophets'.
    Not all statistics are misleading or false in Wilkinson's book, but a great deal are.

    Edit : Or indeed, 'The spirit level delusion'.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by win5ton)
    I think you have the wrong end of the stick. The only difference (in terms of demographic) between private and state schools is that in one there is a mix of social classes and in the other there is not (I think you'll find that the lower classes are not represented very much in private schools). That was why I asked my original question when ISA said something about private schools having better social side.
    Are you going to answer the nice explanation I gave you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    No I haven't gotten anything wrong, although there may not be as many of these poor people, some do go private it just puts strain on the family finances.

    But yes Private schools have better opportunities, more of your own kind and just generally better.
    "More of your own kind"

    Excuse me whilst I reach for my sick bag...

    Last time I checked I was still a human, the guy with the fancy suit walking down my road was still a human and the hobo on the corner was still a human. The amount of money your parents own does not change your species. Period.

    Why would you just want to socialize with (I'll carry on your warped train of thought) your "kind" any way? Its because people like you do not like socializing with different people that society ends up with a deep rooted class problem. If private schools were gone the roots of the class system would wither, leaving the tree that is society to flourish.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Are you going to answer the nice explanation I gave you?
    You have not commented on any of my comments. I have not commented on any of your comments. So to answer your question directly, no.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by win5ton)
    The amount of money your parents own....
    I have my own money
    Why would you just want to socialize with (I'll carry on your warped train of thought) your "kind" any way?
    More in common? don't get me wrong going to public school in UK was nice and all but tbf it was dreadful, my education went downhill compared to in France... I have mother to thank for this unfortunately the country club has very few less well off people so I only socialise with my 'kind'.
    Bold.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by win5ton)
    "More of your own kind"

    Excuse me whilst I reach for my sick bag...

    Last time I checked I was still a human, the guy with the fancy suit walking down my road was still a human and the hobo on the corner was still a human. The amount of money your parents own does not change your species. Period.

    Why would you just want to socialize with (I'll carry on your warped train of thought) your "kind" any way? Its because people like you do not like socializing with different people that society ends up with a deep rooted class problem. If private schools were gone the roots of the class system would wither, leaving the tree that is society to flourish.
    I think you are throwing vast amounts of generalisations around here, but anywho.

    The reason people want to socialise with people like themselves is simply because there will be less conflict between them. If children from a working class background mix with children from an upper class background outside of school, there is a greater probability they will most likely be friends. In school however, people tend to converge on likeminded individuals, the sports people go with the sports individuals, the indies go to the indie crowd, etc. This applies to the wealthy and the poor too.
    I will go further and say it is MORE LIKELY that children in a working class environment are not going to be as motivated by a good work ethic as an upper class one who has been coerced into it by their parents. The issue is that if an individual with no work ethic is allowed to disrupt a class with people who have a good work ethic, then you will risk damaging the learning process for the ones with more drive to learn.

    Please address the post i quoted you in which has several further examples [and reiterates these ones] as to why Private and Grammar schools do so well.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Strange, I DID quote you, oh well.

    (Original post by Ocassus)
    We can't stop money, but why should a child who has absolutely no control over their parents income have to get anything less then someone down the road that has no control either.
    Why should a child who has no control over their genetic level of intelligence blah blah....

    See the issue here? Being born into wealth is just as random as being born intelligent.


    Now, let us address a more fundamental, underlying issue here, one that you haven't addressed yet. Do you not think it would be a better solution to bring state schools to the level of private schools? Thus removing their existence by providing an equal standard of education. Banning them reinforces what I call Morality enforcement, something i see a great deal in left-leaning politics, where people try to enforce morality on others and make them 'guilty' for giving themselves a head-up over one another.

    Lets look at a crucial element here, and look at why Private schools [And indeed Grammar schools are so successful]. It is not merely the facilities and teaching staff that make a school good, but it is the Pupils too. If one creates an environment of prestige, then one can expect an individual pupil to respond positively to that. It is a wide generalisation, but part of the reason State schools are failing is through a lack of engagement on the pupils behalf. This is not the teachers fault, as I would wager that teacher would easilly teach pupils at a private school/grammar school who were readilly engaged from the get-go, rather than requiring the teacher to entice them into the subject. To put it simply, teaching in a state school is HARDER by a considerable margin because of the human element involved. You can give kids a great school, but in the end, if the child is brought up believing 'academia is for pussies' at home, it won't make a blind bit of difference because other factors will always act against the other, probably making the life of the pupil worse. Referring back to the 'prestige' factor i mentioned earlier, the school does not only create this through tradition, old buildings etc, but is also creates it through accepting only a very specific type of pupil, namely, the offspring of wealthy parents, who will have laid the groundwork whilst the pupils are young.

    I am also going to posit you a more abnormal example, I attend a Private school, but i attend it not purely because of my academia, but because of my needs as a sportsmen. No state school in the country [One that is bound by the national curriculum], would be able to make my schedule flexible enough to facilitate my extensive training regimes. Lets pass this onto somebody else you might know of, Tom Daley, if i recall correctly he became a national star whilst in State school. What happened? He was socially outcasted because of his ability to perform well, not only has transferring to private school allowed him to mix with people who are well acquainted with success, but it has also granted him access to the facilities which I have prior mentioned [Flexible curriculum, dedicated diving facilities etc].

    The truth at the heart of the matter is this, aspirational and high achieving pupil will do better when they are surrounded by other aspirational and high achieving pupils. Even though people can pluck examples out of the air where 'second-rate' Private schools achieve mediocre grades [thereby invalidating your point ANYWAY], the majority all provide similar environments with pupils who have an innate understanding of why they are there and will work to get it.


    I will surmise my post with the following; 'It is not the instruction that makes a man intelligent, for if he was intelligent, he would seek out his own source of knowledge regardless'.
    (Original post by win5ton)
    ...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Strange, I DID quote you, oh well.
    I have looked back through the thread and your post was not there.

    You seem to conflate being high achieving and wanting to succeed with going to a private school. This is a massive generalization and I see no evidence for it. Motivated people can be found in the state and the private sector and thus I do not see either of these sectors having a monopolization on motivated people (unless you are assuming that rich parents breeds motivation, which is a sweeping generalization with no evidence to back it up). Your whole ramble seems to boil down to a simple phrase. "Poor people are less motivated and thus are going to disrupt the education for the bright rich kids". I hope that once distilled you will be able to see your foolish argument without the waffle you interject
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Bold.
    Your writing lacks coherence. It is hard to discern what points your are trying to make.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by win5ton)
    I have looked back through the thread and your post was not there.

    You seem to conflate being high achieving and wanting to succeed with going to a private school. This is a massive generalization and I see no evidence for it. Motivated people can be found in the state and the private sector and thus I do not see either of these sectors having a monopolization on motivated people (unless you are assuming that rich parents breeds motivation, which is a sweeping generalization with no evidence to back it up). Your whole ramble seems to boil down to a simple phrase. "Poor people are less motivated and thus are going to disrupt the education for the bright rich kids". I hope that once distilled you will be able to see your foolish argument without the waffle you interject
    Ad Hominems do not make your argument stronger.

    Even if there was an equal amount of motivated people in Stateschools in relation to all the grammar and private schools in the country, this still does not solve the problem that these individual's potential is diluted by a majority who simply would not and will not learn.
    Are you really going to challenge the fact that wealthy or middle class children are more likely to have been engaged in academic material prior to primary education? To do so would be unwise.
    I do not believe one sector monopolizes all the motivated people [Look at the example I gave you], but that does not alter the fact [repeating my earlier point] that they are negatively influenced by those with no motivation. The problem starts at home, and with the draconian system we currently have in the state sector which forces kids to all go for academia, rather than affording them the choice of vocationals which would arguably lead them to a far better paid future with a greater contribution to society.
    You are essentially constructing one gigantic strawman, by taking one part of my argument [That Middle class kids are more likely to be motivated by external forces, IE parents] , blowing it out of proportion [By assuming i meant that all poor people have no motivation], something which is plainly untrue [They are less likely relative to their middle class counterparts if we factor external forces] and then using it to debunk my entire argument [That a great deal of negative influence, REGARDLESS of class, can disrupt positive learning.]

    You cannot dispute that both Grammars and Privates grades are simply down to their teaching, else Grammars especially would be absolutely no different from their comprehensive counterparts. The only difference is they select their intake, and BAM, they are competing with the best Private schools on a level playing field, why? Because they have the most important resource for creating an environment of cohesion whilst simultaneously filtering out potentially disruptive individuals that will only slow them down.

    tl;dr - In short, the type of pupil [Most private schools also have academic selection tests similar to that of grammar schools ANYWAY, and won't hesitate to boot out weak candidates [as a good friend of mine discovered]] that makes up the majority of the school has a BIG impact on the learning process of all concerned.


    EDIT : Also, you completely ignored my other argument, would it simply not be better to bring the state schools up to the level of private schools? Because then Private schools would theoretically vanish.

    EDIT EDIT : And what about mine, and a minority of other athletes/musicians who require a more flexible curriculum that only a system not constrained by the state can provide? You want to chuck all that talent out the window by confining them to the 'same' learning standard, even though this will compromise them elsewhere.

    EDIT EDIT EDIT : Triple edit for the lulz, you negging me in unrelated threads now? D'awwww, too bad your little -rep is not really that effective...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think the issue lies here in the ambiguity of the word 'ban'- I began contributing to the thread based on the general debate, but I don't advocate demolishing the private schools or anything; merely that they become part of the state sector.

    I do think it would be 'better to bring state schools to the level of private schools'- I'm not suggesting to worsen private education for the sake of equality. However, it is impossible to level out two systems running completely at odds with each other; they must be combined. At the very least, private schools could share their resources (theatres, sports facilities) with state schools.

    I'm new to TSR and can't figure out the quoting stuff so:

    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Banning them reinforces what I call Morality enforcement, something i see a great deal in left-leaning politics, where people try to enforce morality on others and make them 'guilty' for giving themselves a head-up over one another.
    would you include police services within that?
    As for the feeling of guilt... isn't that what society is about? Helping those less fortunate than you? Don't you feel lucky for what you have and thus want to use your skills to help others?

    If one creates an environment of prestige, then one can expect an individual pupil to respond positively to that. It is a wide generalisation, but part of the reason State schools are failing is through a lack of engagement on the pupils behalf.
    Your point about pupil engagement is EXACTLY why I believe private education IS unfair. An intelligent child in a state school often has to suffer within an environment whereby many of their peers do not want to work. This is why private school children also succeed in university interviews: in general, at these institutions, you are taught to keep up with your peers by articulating your views extremely strongly... at a state school (up to GCSE level at least) you learn the sense of when to keep quiet.

    I believe that it is not right that pupils attending private schools should only mix with those in a similar financial or cultural situation to themselves. If the private and state systems were mixed, children from wealthy backgrounds would meet a greater variety of 'class' of person, teaching tolerance and acceptance. In return, those struggling at school would be inspired by an atmosphere of greater ambition, rather than the life they may lead at home which teaches them that the heights of university may be beyond their social reach.


    The school does not only create this through tradition... through accepting only a very specific type of pupil, namely, the offspring of wealthy parents, who will have laid the groundwork whilst the pupils are young.
    Many children from disadvantaged backgrounds have the ability to succeed at uni, but simply don't believe it is attainable. I find this extremely sad. It is NOT that they fail to 'engage' but that their family background discourages them from seeing education as a force for social change. I find it quite insulting that someone who (perhaps) may not often 'engage' with state school pupils can try to revert to the lazy argument of 'it's their own fault'.

    Private education is one of the ways in which society is so terribly segregated, leading to narrow-minded views such as the one you seem to imply above- that only pupils of 'good breeding' should mix with each other at school. This is wrong.

    ]I attend a Private school...because of my needs as a sportsmen. No state school in the country... would be able to make my schedule flexible enough to facilitate my extensive training regimes. Tom Daley, ......whilst in State school. .. was socially outcasted because of his ability to perform well ... [a] private school...has granted him access to the facilities [such as a] Flexible curriculum, dedicated diving facilities etc.
    Thank you for quoting me; I find the debate interesting. But as you are not responding to a specific post of mine, your arguments obviously do not directly rebut anything I personally have said:

    You suggest that those advocating a reform of the current education system are against the idea of the facilities & advantages available as part of a private school curriculum. Of course I agree that a private school can offer a far more flexible learning for aspiring athletes such as Tom Daley, whom you cited above.

    What I am against is the social exclutivity of the system, which means that solely those who can afford it (except for a very small percentage receiving bursaries) can benefit from these things. Tom Daley may have found private education more to his liking. Great. But every other non-olympic athlete might not have got the chance to transfer.

    The truth at the heart of the matter is this, aspirational and high achieving pupil will do better when they are surrounded by other aspirational and high achieving pupils.
    ; 'It is not the instruction that makes a man intelligent, for if he was intelligent, he would seek out his own source of knowledge regardless'.
    Your concluding point that 'aspirational and high achieving pupil will do better when they are surrounded by other aspirational and high achieving pupils' is completely valid. However, you seem to equate 'aspirational' with 'having parents able to afford private education'. Why should a disadvantaged pupil have the chance to learn with other aspirational people?


    The argument I see from a lot of right-wing people is something along the lines of 'it's their own fault; they should work harder'. Society is not, and never has been, that simple. It is necessary to change our rigidly engrained class system in order to help break the cycle of the wealthy.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    I disagree. It's better to try and pull up the bottom than cripple the top for the sake of equality.

    It's like having a village of 100 starving people. A minority have a sandwich. In this analogy, banning the private schools is like burning all the sandwiches. It doesn't benefit those who are worse off, and it makes those who are better off worse off. It's pointless.

    (I did not go to a private school)
    I think the idea would be to provide everyone with a sandwich?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It is very interesting discussion. Being a foreigner I arrived just 2 years ago to study for A-levels in one private school and now I'm finishing A2 and going to first choice university... hopefully

    As a I understand, the logic behind banning private schools is in fact of unequal opportunities for those who are going to public schools because the quality there is much lower than in private ones.
    Although, I share very left beliefs inclined to socialism, I don't think that private schools should be banned. First of all, because those people who were educated in such schools are going to somehow benefit to the whole society at the end. Likewise, becoming owners of large companies and guaranteeing jobs for hundreds or even thousands of workers.

    Unfortunately, lots of students in my private school are quite arrogant and do not appreciate the benefits which they have, hence don't study properly, spend all time in nightclubs, etc. Well, in this case they at least indirectly contribute to all service staff and later on their children might have a better education

    But what I really think should be done is a division of work. State schools would never (or very rarely) teach such subjects as business studies, economics, media or everything that directly links with money-making on the same level as private schools. Therefore, why not just drop those subjects out of the syllabus and make an emphasis on purely academic subjects (history, maths, chemistry, physics) and attract best teachers in this field. The finance released via not supporting other subjects will be paid for increased wages of top-class teachers. Why not do something like Escuela Moderna of Francisco Ferrer? He made very radical move at the beginning of 20th century and taught philosophy and other academic subjects with teachers, not clergy. So, here we might say that teachers would be focused more in subjects of ideas (making a direct route for students to academia, politics, civil service) while private school alumni will be more profit-focused.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    I disagree. It's better to try and pull up the bottom than cripple the top for the sake of equality.

    It's like having a village of 100 starving people. A minority have a sandwich. In this analogy, banning the private schools is like burning all the sandwiches. It doesn't benefit those who are worse off, and it makes those who are better off worse off. It's pointless.
    (Original post by Acerbic)
    ... It might be wise to treat private schools as a symptom of a larger problem, rather than the problem the problem itself.
    I love it when i come across intelligent counter-arguments like these.

    +rep
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    how do you quote/unquote little snippets of text amongst your main rebuttal on here?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Originally Posted by lightburns
    I disagree. It's better to try and pull up the bottom than cripple the top for the sake of equality.

    It's like having a village of 100 starving people. A minority have a sandwich. In this analogy, banning the private schools is like burning all the sandwiches. It doesn't benefit those who are worse off, and it makes those who are better off worse off. It's pointless.

    (I did not go to a private school)

    >>>>>

    It's refunding the bacon-and-chicken-and-mayo-and-avacado sandwich and then using the money to buy everyone a chicken sandwich,
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    TS is an idiot if he is seriously suggesting private schools should be banned. Although I am not suprised liberals are hell bent on making the UK weak and poor.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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.