Turn on thread page Beta

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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's not the fault of wealthier students that others can't afford the fees (personally, I went to a private school, but on a bursary, etc.) The fact is that if they were banned (stupid idea, sorry), that would mean an influx of thousands of students into the state school system, putting extra strain on the already swamped system, meaning that everyone would have to pay more taxes to pay for it, etc. etc and it would end up having a far more negative effect on those in state schooling than some students attending private schools in the first place. Banning private schools would be a viable option only (barely conceivably) when the same level of funding and teaching is available on the state. Since this would only be possible under severe taxation circumstances, or through complete overhaul of the public funding structure, it is not likely to be a solution any time soon. No, it isn't right that just because your parents are rich, you may go to an expensive school wich may or may not provide a higher level of teaching, but there are not many viable solutions to the problem at the present time, and banning private schools just isn't the way to go.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by No Future)
    Why? Anyone can get some books and study in a library and get good exam results, regardless of class.
    You are definitely a person has who everything in front of them. Probably in private school, or the better state schools.
    I really don't think you understand. Go into a workingclass school, and try and see what it's like. Parents might be on drugs, in prison, just have no money, see no point in education. If they work hard they are picked on, laughed at, excluded, beaten up. Why should they suffer even though they are bright, just because of the family they were born in?
    In the poorer areas, there are also worse schools, who don't teach the children A grade content, they teach the children C grade content in the hope that some will get 5 Cs. Even if children try they are deprived from so much of the content of the courses that we are just given.
    In addition, many of these children will work. I don't just mean a part time job for less than 20 hours a week, but well above 30 hours so they can afford to live quite frankly. Often they are supporting their family too.

    Seriously, open up your eyes.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwerty54321)
    You are definitely a person has who everything in front of them. Probably in private school, or the better state schools.
    I really don't think you understand. Go into a workingclass school, and try and see what it's like. Parents might be on drugs, in prison, just have no money, see no point in education. If they work hard they are picked on, laughed at, excluded, beaten up. Why should they suffer even though they are bright, just because of the family they were born in?
    In the poorer areas, there are also worse schools, who don't teach the children A grade content, they teach the children C grade content in the hope that some will get 5 Cs. Even if children try they are deprived from so much of the content of the courses that we are just given.
    In addition, many of these children will work. I don't just mean a part time job for less than 20 hours a week, but well above 30 hours so they can afford to live quite frankly. Often they are supporting their family too.

    Seriously, open up your eyes.
    This is why I think that people should do tests before secondary school, and the school they go to be based off these. So an A grade student is in a school teaching A grade content (which would lose the C grade students) and a C grade student is in a school teaching C grade content (which would bore the A grade student).
    It's truly an awful shame when academic promise is wasted due to somebody being born in a poorer area! This should not be the way the system works.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    This is why I think that people should do tests before secondary school, and the school they go to be based off these. So an A grade student is in a school teaching A grade content (which would lose the C grade students) and a C grade student is in a school teaching C grade content (which would bore the A grade student).
    It's truly an awful shame when academic promise is wasted due to somebody being born in a poorer area! This should not be the way the system works.
    All the statistics tell us that the grammar school system led to greater social mobility than our current system but very few politicians want to admit this because of 1 main obstacle.

    They don't want to be seen to be giving a better education to some children than to others, especially when they know the main beneficiaries of a streaming system will be the middle class. They forget about the working class kids who were successful under the previous system. There main concern seems to be with trying to help the students who don't want to be in school in the first place.

    Half our kids don't get 5 GCSE's. Without trying to demean the effort of current GCSE students, If you put any effort into these exams whatsoever it is impossible not to pass them. In my mind these statistics show us that half the children in our schools clearly don't want to be there. If we insist on compulsory education in this country then why don't we ask these students what they want from school? Why is it failing them? Why don't they turn up? Why don't they bother studying for their exams? What do they want from their school? Until you establish a system of education that engages students no matter where their abilities lay, nothing will change.

    The criticisms of the previous grammar system were mainly aimed at the 11 plus tests. If you failed you were punted to the local comp where your life chances were drastically reduced. If you passed, you went to the grammar school where the world was your oyster. Instead of destroying the grammar schools that clearly worked, we should maintain these and improve upon them but also have different types of schools. Whatever your talents are, there should be a school to cater to that skill set. Also we shouldn't have just 1 test to decide where you end up and there should be opportunities to move within these different types of schools if your aspirations change or you discover a hidden talent.

    I'm afraid it all comes down to parenting. Parents have to pass on the idea that education is worthwhile and valued to their children and that through it they can achieve whatever they desire.

    The sad fact is that if you're unlucky enough to be born into a family that places no value in education or pass on any aspirations to their children, it doesn't matter how good or bad our education system is, these children's life opportunities are severely limited.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    This is why I think that people should do tests before secondary school, and the school they go to be based off these. So an A grade student is in a school teaching A grade content (which would lose the C grade students) and a C grade student is in a school teaching C grade content (which would bore the A grade student).
    It's truly an awful shame when academic promise is wasted due to somebody being born in a poorer area! This should not be the way the system works.
    Finally, someone who agrees with me! Why should spoilt, not clever middle class children be given a better education over a working class child who is much brighter and would thrive on the knowledge (and perhaps save the world, haha :P).
    But this would never happen, cus the govt consists of all the middle class people who want the best for their children who, might not be the brightest, therefore know that by imposing these laws their children would suffer.
    Dear oh dear!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwerty54321)
    Finally, someone who agrees with me! Why should spoilt, not clever middle class children be given a better education over a working class child who is much brighter and would thrive on the knowledge (and perhaps save the world, haha :P).
    But this would never happen, cus the govt consists of all the middle class people who want the best for their children who, might not be the brightest, therefore know that by imposing these laws their children would suffer.
    Dear oh dear!
    I still think that private education should be allowed to exist.

    I come from an area (I think they had to change since then though) which had all the secondary schools ranked and completely based on your ability in tests. Sort of like the university system. And it worked well - you were placed in schools with people around your ability.

    Yet people complained until they scrapped most of this in the UK, because people found it unfair that C grade students couldn't go to an A grade school (completely missing the point that some people are smarter than others, and an A grade school would actually be worse for a C grade student).

    My area also, like most areas, had the possibility of going into private education. But it was pointless unless you just did poorly on the day and deserved to be in a higher school. It should all be this system imo. Nobody loses out - the rich people can do private, and everyone else is in a school completely tailored to their abilities.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    All the statistics tell us that the grammar school system led to greater social mobility than our current system but very few politicians want to admit this because of 1 main obstacle.

    They don't want to be seen to be giving a better education to some children than to others, especially when they know the main beneficiaries of a streaming system will be the middle class. They forget about the working class kids who were successful under the previous system. There main concern seems to be with trying to help the students who don't want to be in school in the first place.

    Half our kids don't get 5 GCSE's. Without trying to demean the effort of current GCSE students, If you put any effort into these exams whatsoever it is impossible not to pass them. In my mind these statistics show us that half the children in our schools clearly don't want to be there. If we insist on compulsory education in this country then why don't we ask these students what they want from school? Why is it failing them? Why don't they turn up? Why don't they bother studying for their exams? What do they want from their school? Until you establish a system of education that engages students no matter where their abilities lay, nothing will change.

    The criticisms of the previous grammar system were mainly aimed at the 11 plus tests. If you failed you were punted to the local comp where your life chances were drastically reduced. If you passed, you went to the grammar school where the world was your oyster. Instead of destroying the grammar schools that clearly worked, we should maintain these and improve upon them but also have different types of schools. Whatever your talents are, there should be a school to cater to that skill set. Also we shouldn't have just 1 test to decide where you end up and there should be opportunities to move within these different types of schools if your aspirations change or you discover a hidden talent.

    I'm afraid it all comes down to parenting. Parents have to pass on the idea that education is worthwhile and valued to their children and that through it they can achieve whatever they desire.

    The sad fact is that if you're unlucky enough to be born into a family that places no value in education or pass on any aspirations to their children, it doesn't matter how good or bad our education system is, these children's life opportunities are severely limited.
    It's the thing of "they have a better situation than I do, so we'd better rip down the top rather than pulling up the bottom" - both grammar schools and private schools come under this attack.

    You know one thing that I would think would be good? If they stopped focussing on academic subjects so much. I mean, if you were highly academic, then you should be praised for that. But if you are absolutely brilliant working with wood in technology, then that should be equally praiseworthy. They shouldn't then push for these people to do a whole host of sciences etc. when that is not their skill set. A maths genius is thought to be a genius, even if he can't cook to save his life. The greatest young chef would be seen as a failure if he couldn't get his head around algebra.
    People forget that we need both chefs and mathematicians, and their worlds don't collide once they start work.
    (I've bolded the bit that sent me off on a rant )
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Acerbic)
    The total lack of evidence and historical precedent for that claim.
    Uh, free market bro. More competition = higher quality services, lower prices. Maybe America's rise to world dominance isn't enough evidence or historical precedent for you?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    This is why I think that people should do tests before secondary school, and the school they go to be based off these. So an A grade student is in a school teaching A grade content (which would lose the C grade students) and a C grade student is in a school teaching C grade content (which would bore the A grade student).
    It's truly an awful shame when academic promise is wasted due to somebody being born in a poorer area! This should not be the way the system works.
    oh we have this where i come from in Trinidad, it's called secondary entrance exam or SEA, well i have to tell you the system is under attack now, people are claiming putting all the "bright" kids in one school is elitism at its highest, even though the kids are from all backgrounds and are admitted based on merit (education is free all schools).

    so this counter point may sound good, but it will be attacked again, many people just have a problem with everything and hate success.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    It's the thing of "they have a better situation than I do, so we'd better rip down the top rather than pulling up the bottom" - both grammar schools and private schools come under this attack.

    You know one thing that I would think would be good? If they stopped focussing on academic subjects so much. I mean, if you were highly academic, then you should be praised for that. But if you are absolutely brilliant working with wood in technology, then that should be equally praiseworthy. They shouldn't then push for these people to do a whole host of sciences etc. when that is not their skill set. A maths genius is thought to be a genius, even if he can't cook to save his life. The greatest young chef would be seen as a failure if he couldn't get his head around algebra.
    People forget that we need both chefs and mathematicians, and their worlds don't collide once they start work.
    (I've bolded the bit that sent me off on a rant )
    Speaking as someone who was working as a chef for the previous 6 years before I re-entered higher education to study maths I would say I agree with you to a certain point. I still believe all of our children should reach a certain standard in English and Mathematics since these are every day skills that will help them in any career they wish to pursue. The chef won't be a chef for long when they can't maintain a healthy Gross Profit for their kitchen or write up a menu.

    The problem is, we have something like 20% of kids who go through 12 years of schooling and are still effectively illiterate and innumerate. These are the same kids that are getting taught algebra and Shakespeare at GCSE when they can't read or count. I would have hoped that primary school would have taught these basics but clearly not. Another problem is that no one wants themselves or their children to have the stigma of going to a school for "dummies".

    I think we have to concentrate on teaching everyone the basics first then bring in streaming in order to match the education provided to the child's requirements.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This:

    (Original post by lightburns)
    It's the thing of "they have a better situation than I do, so we'd better rip down the top rather than pulling up the bottom" - both grammar schools and private schools come under this attack.

    You know one thing that I would think would be good? If they stopped focussing on academic subjects so much. I mean, if you were highly academic, then you should be praised for that. But if you are absolutely brilliant working with wood in technology, then that should be equally praiseworthy. They shouldn't then push for these people to do a whole host of sciences etc. when that is not their skill set. A maths genius is thought to be a genius, even if he can't cook to save his life. The greatest young chef would be seen as a failure if he couldn't get his head around algebra.
    People forget that we need both chefs and mathematicians, and their worlds don't collide once they start work.
    (I've bolded the bit that sent me off on a rant )


    For example, I would say that I am the academically gifted child in my family. However, my brother can make ANYTHING with his hands and make it beautifully, whereas I would just screw it up. He recognizes this, and is taking a university degree that is tailored to his abilities. It's a shame that the average kid is so pressured to attend college and get certain degrees these days. Anyways, moral of story: Figure out what you like to do and what you are good at and work with those things to make yourself a better life.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vozhak)
    oh we have this where i come from in Trinidad, it's called secondary entrance exam or SEA, well i have to tell you the system is under attack now, people are claiming putting all the "bright" kids in one school is elitism at its highest, even though the kids are from all backgrounds and are admitted based on merit (education is free all schools).

    so this counter point may sound good, but it will be attacked again, many people just have a problem with everything and hate success.
    Maybe they should ban employment, because it's not fair that some people have jobs, and it's elitism for those with jobs to get more money. :lol:

    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    Speaking as someone who was working as a chef for the previous 6 years before I re-entered higher education to study maths I would say I agree with you to a certain point. I still believe all of our children should reach a certain standard in English and Mathematics since these are every day skills that will help them in any career they wish to pursue. The chef won't be a chef for long when they can't maintain a healthy Gross Profit for their kitchen or write up a menu.

    The problem is, we have something like 20% of kids who go through 12 years of schooling and are still effectively illiterate and innumerate. These are the same kids that are getting taught algebra and Shakespeare at GCSE when they can't read or count. I would have hoped that primary school would have taught these basics but clearly not. Another problem is that no one wants themselves or their children to have the stigma of going to a school for "dummies".

    I think we have to concentrate on teaching everyone the basics first then bring in streaming in order to match the education provided to the child's requirements.
    Agreed that everyone needs to get the basics of maths and English. Once this is done however, there shouldn't be such a difference in the worth of someone who can do advanced mathematics or is a similar level chef. I just felt that people were pushed into doing things like sciences in my school (which apparently was a specialist at technology, though to be fair, its physics department was far stronger). I don't know if this is the same at other schools. This ties into how I think it's wrong that so many people are getting random degrees because they feel that's the norm, when they'd benefit more from getting an apprenticeship or something.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    I still think that private education should be allowed to exist.

    I come from an area (I think they had to change since then though) which had all the secondary schools ranked and completely based on your ability in tests. Sort of like the university system. And it worked well - you were placed in schools with people around your ability.

    Yet people complained until they scrapped most of this in the UK, because people found it unfair that C grade students couldn't go to an A grade school (completely missing the point that some people are smarter than others, and an A grade school would actually be worse for a C grade student).

    My area also, like most areas, had the possibility of going into private education. But it was pointless unless you just did poorly on the day and deserved to be in a higher school. It should all be this system imo. Nobody loses out - the rich people can do private, and everyone else is in a school completely tailored to their abilities.
    That seems fairer than this system. Therefore rich but dumb people can still get a good education, but also allowing poor but smart. Makes so much more sense, but this would never happen. *sigh* ..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    Maybe they should ban employment, because it's not fair that some people have jobs, and it's elitism for those with jobs to get more money. :lol:


    Agreed that everyone needs to get the basics of maths and English. Once this is done however, there shouldn't be such a difference in the worth of someone who can do advanced mathematics or is a similar level chef. I just felt that people were pushed into doing things like sciences in my school (which apparently was a specialist at technology, though to be fair, its physics department was far stronger). I don't know if this is the same at other schools. This ties into how I think it's wrong that so many people are getting random degrees because they feel that's the norm, when they'd benefit more from getting an apprenticeship or something.
    Yeah, I agree. When I told my teachers I didn't want to go to university and wanted to become a chef I was told not to be so ridiculous. I was practically forced by my school and parents to go down the university route which was probably why I despised it so much first time round.

    I think we have a funny snobbery still prevalent in this country about which jobs are "respected" and which aren't and it doesn't just come down to money. When I was a chef I was on a higher salary than the vast majority of graduates and did all my training on the job.

    When I was travelling through Europe I noticed that skilled tradesmen are valued and held in just as high regard as doctors or lawyers, but in the UK we still have an attitude that if you don't go to university and enter the professions then you're a failure.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by qwerty54321)
    That seems fairer than this system. Therefore rich but dumb people can still get a good education, but also allowing poor but smart. Makes so much more sense, but this would never happen. *sigh* ..
    As it used to happen, at least in some areas (like my hometown), but it got scrapped. It's just because parents of dumb kids think that their kids should be the brightest kid in the world (and therefore go to the top school) without understanding that the top school is likely to not benefit them nearly as much as the school tailored to their abilities! ARGH!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    Yeah, I agree. When I told my teachers I didn't want to go to university and wanted to become a chef I was told not to be so ridiculous. I was practically forced by my school and parents to go down the university route which was probably why I despised it so much first time round.

    I think we have a funny snobbery still prevalent in this country about which jobs are "respected" and which aren't and it doesn't just come down to money. When I was a chef I was on a higher salary than the vast majority of graduates and did all my training on the job.

    When I was travelling through Europe I noticed that skilled tradesmen are valued and held in just as high regard as doctors or lawyers, but in the UK we still have an attitude that if you don't go to university and enter the professions then you're a failure.
    The snobbery is insane.. Yes, we need doctors and lawyers. But we also need skilled tradesmen.
    A teacher asked a guy in my year what he was going to study at uni - he replied that he wasn't going to uni. The teacher laughed at him! Wtf?? And we were given no information whatsoever about alternatives to uni, it was just assumed that we would all be going to university.

    Now, I'm one of the people who fails miserably at anything using my hands, and to top it off, I also fail miserably at anything requiring social confidence. I do quite well in the areas our society view as most prestigious, but I don't think it should be viewed that way. I'd much rather that everyone who was at university actually wanted to be there, rather than them being full of students pushed into it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing wrong! its a free market, this is not a communist country.
    What the government should do is to push up the teaching standard of public schools. Beside end of the day private school or public social mobility is still avail through levelers such as University where generally result count more
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Rather doing something ridiculous like banning Private Schools, why dont you discuss a realistic target. Making State Schools better so those kids can compete with Privately Educated kids. Why the hell should the best Universities take on State School kids if they are getting lower grades than their Privately Educated peers ???????
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by arabcnesbit)
    Yeah, I agree. When I told my teachers I didn't want to go to university and wanted to become a chef I was told not to be so ridiculous. I was practically forced by my school and parents to go down the university route which was probably why I despised it so much first time round.

    I think we have a funny snobbery still prevalent in this country about which jobs are "respected" and which aren't and it doesn't just come down to money. When I was a chef I was on a higher salary than the vast majority of graduates and did all my training on the job.

    When I was travelling through Europe I noticed that skilled tradesmen are valued and held in just as high regard as doctors or lawyers, but in the UK we still have an attitude that if you don't go to university and enter the professions then you're a failure.
    I 100% agree with you, for the record.

    If you aren't suited for university, imo, you shouldn't be going there.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    I 100% agree with you, for the record.

    If you aren't suited for university, imo, you shouldn't be going there.
    Yea, but doesn't that already happen?, people who won't be able to handle the difficulty of a degree attempt to get an apprenticeship.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.