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:
    Thanks for telling me about the quote stuff- sorry the formatting wasn't so clear on the last post.
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    By making them part of the state sector you are achieving the exact same thing as abolishing them though, as I mentioned to Win5ton, one of the reasons why these schools are so successful is because they mix like minded pupils who create an academic environment which is not disrupted by an undeniable precense that lies in our state system right now, it is not purely down to the facilities.
    'like-minded'? I'm assuming that not everyone at a private school is academicall-minded; I'm presume that there are also those who do not want to work at a private school. The one thing they all have in common is simply that their parents could afford the same high level of education.

    But that is the inevitable consequence of your proposal? If you don't allow some form of selection or filtering process to take place [Whether it be by the parents wallet (private) or by the pupils ability (grammar)] then you are inevitably going to compromise the most vital ingredient, the pupils.
    Yes- judging by ability is much fairer than by a wallet!!!!!

    However, I do agree that change is needed, and I would support more cross platforming between Private and state schools. I for one would love for a local comp in Plymouth to tie together with our Rugby Extra-curriculars, not only would it make for a stronger team but it would solidify social bonds and do exactly as you have described, break down the aforementioned social barriers.
    Cool : ) suggest it to your head...

    This might seem slightly selfish, but, no. I do not live my life for others, and I believe that deep down, no human does.
    This is sad.
    BUT, I do believe in altruism, what I do not believe, and this ties right back into 'enforced morality', is that the state should enforce this altruism, rather than allow it to be freely given, as it should be.
    Fair enough, but as I don't really think that the top public schools would be willing to through their doors open to all, this is one area which the state plays a vital role.

    This is why Grammar schools are really quite a good idea. You are acknowledging the very premise that Private schools exist to collect like minded individuals together, and Grammar schools do the same. So long as there is no filtering process, you will not collect like minded individuals together and make the best out of them.
    I believe grammar schools to be a better solution than private schools, but I have a few reservations about assigning a child his/her fate at 11. I also believe that intelligence comes in many different forms, and that passing an 11+ merely indicates an aptitude for passing exams. Maybe if entrance were recommended by teachers rather than purely based on exams; and if change between institutions were better facilitated?

    I think it is a HUGELY out-of-date concept that Privately schooled individuals are out of touch with people in state schools, are you proposing that the 17% or so of Private schooled individuals in the country do not socialise at all outside of their backgrounds? If so, we would probably know most of ourselves now.
    Hmmm okay, but I'd be interested to know exactly how much contact there really is...knowing the odd person doesn't really count as integration. In my opinion, many of the privately schooled pupils still know each other through the network of simply attending their area's best schools.

    The issue with your premise is that, if you acknowledge disruptive pupils are damaging to education, then you would have to FILTER out A : The people who risk slowing down the system by not comprehending fast enough and B : The people who disrupt. This is essentially what a Scholarship system/Entrance exam is and does, and thus the change to the system should be to encourage MORE not less filtration.
    I don't really think that disruptive pupils should be 'filtered out' (... to where?!) There's a reason for their being disruptive: they're not given a chance to see how education might be relevant for them. If they were exposed to the environment which you talked of, they would be encouraged to mix with this atmosphere of achieving.

    I have to say it is rather frustrating that people associate 'good breeding' with any of this. It is a widely accepted fact that Middle class parents are more likely to be vicarious and push their children harder, it is simply a facet of parenthood. This does not necessarily mean all working class parents are neglectful people who do not push their kids, it is just statistically it is less likely. It has nothing to do with breeding, but everything to do with ideals and work ethic. If a working class parent instills a good work ethic because they don't want for their kids the same fate they had, and the kids listen, then they are far more likely to do better, intelligent or not.
    There might be a point somewhere in there, but it's all phrased rather patronisingly.

    If you don't filter out the disruptive pupils who have shown no interest, how do you expect for them to adjust to high aspirations? Tom was ostracized heavilly during his time at State school, but after attending Private school he found it easier because people were well acquainted with success themselves, he found himself surrounded by people who were also high achievers in their respective fields, and he thus unlocked more potential within himself. This social cohesion has a big impact on a pupil.[]
    I don't think disruptive pupils should be 'filtered out' but dealt with and encouraged to take pride in their education, something they don't necessarily have access to at the moment.
    Socially cohesive, maybe- but also socially exclusive.

    [
    Concentrating all these high achievers together A : Prevents them from being mocked by a system which by its premise is built on mediocrity and B : Unlocks more potential within these already high achievers.
    Since when did attending a private school = high achiever?
    I find this 'mediocrity' point extremely insulting.

    Of course I don't, but that is again, the point of bursaries and grammar schools.
    Whilst some receive bursaries, they are certainly not in the majority. Grammar schools are very much a Southern England phenomenon; the model is not replicated as frequently in other parts of the country. It is either comprehensive or private.

    I feel I also need to add the additional point, the reason Private schools have their facilities is because they lack any state assigned budget or curriculum, they are able to assign their own priorities without a top-down state system trying to dictate a one-size fits all for every school. This is partially why Cameron is trying to copy it with his academies flagship, to give schools more independence from bureaucratic and quite frankly ineffective state education procedures. If you were to try and fund the facilities for all existing private schools via the tax payer, including teachers etc, taxes would need a considerable hike or cuts would have to appear.
    Backtracking a bit, the National curriculum is a blunt tool, Private schools tailor their teaching and subjects however they choose in order to produce the best results, and they can do it on the fly. It is another major contributing factor to their success, not just for academic individuals, but sportsmen and musicians aswell.
    well, I feel the national curriculum may be a different issue...

    Well, technically society has been like that until very recently
    could you elaborate?

    [/]and for the majority it was goddam awful. I also feel the need to argue a class system is not really in existence anymore, the majority of people in the UK are middle class [Although some would not define themselves as such].
    Well, maybe the majority of people you know might be middle class... doesn't mean that there is not major social disadvantages in other areas.

    Digressing a bit briefly, why do we necessarily need to break the cycle of the wealthy? [less than 10% of the worlds millionaires inherited their wealth].
    Breaking the cycle of the wealthy is important simply because the wealthy tend to look after their own vested interests (see your own attitude via your swimming analogy...) rather than working for a more equal society.

    ...lots of different points in there and I'm tired so that maybe lacked a bit of cohesion.

    WOW haven't used so much HTML since the myspace days. Sort it out TSR!!!!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    Hahahaaa, okay, lets get the sandwich into this.

    Rest of the village is allergic to the sandwich (nuts or dairy or something). If the non-allergic people didn't have their sandwiches (because the rest of the village had burnt them because it was unfair), then they would run and take first dibs on the rest of the food (they're fitter due to having eaten more sandwiches).

    It could be put to greater use.. but it wouldn't happen. Plus, I think it's a good thing to be able to pay your way up if you can. If you go to hospital and you are told "right, this thousand pound surgery will save your life.. you're going on a waiting list, you'll probably die before it happens...", then a whole bunch of people on the waiting list would say "look, I have one thousand pounds... train more surgeons, and we'll pay for our lives!"
    Yes, it's not fair. But it's senseless to not be able to pay your way out of a sticky situation.
    Don't get the allergy thing?! But as for first dibs... yes, I see your point- but this 'rest of the food' would still be some form chicken sandwiches as opposed to the deluxe version. (i like chicken sandwiches, okay?!!)

    The point is that not everyone CAN pay their way out of a sticky situation, so it is the job of the state to at least try to regulate this in some way. I realise this is my LW view (as opposed to a RW fatalistic 'the poor deserve it'), but that is what I personally believe.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098)
    Thanks for telling me about the quote stuff- sorry the formatting wasn't so clear on the last post.
    No problem, Politically at odds we might be, not reason we can't be civil and friendly to one another.


    (Original post by 098)
    'like-minded'? I'm assuming that not everyone at a private school is academicall-minded; I'm presume that there are also those who do not want to work at a private school. The one thing they all have in common is simply that their parents could afford the same high level of education.
    The odds are they will be MORE academically minded, simply because their parents pushed it onto them from a very early age, at that stage, it greatly affects how a child responds to further stimulation. I reckon I grasp literacy infinitely better than I would have had if my Dad hadn't read to me [and me subsequently have read to him ] when I was younger. I wouldn't have learned the times tables as quickly or learnt to spell as well if my Dad hadn't sat with me after school and constantly got me to repeat it out in order to ingrain the information deeper.
    The environment at home greatly affects the environment at school, and Private school pupils, like it or not, are more likely to receive that because of the nature of their parents. [If parents are willing to fork out for good schooling, chances are they care about their childs education more and so will do more to reinforce it].
    Your assumption is partially correct, there ARE people who do not want to work at school. But this is because they simply cannot be bothered, they are well aware of the standards imposed because it is drilled into them by the school, as opposed to people in state school who are less likely to have these standards imposed on them through discipline and environment. They have even less of an excuse than their state brethren.


    (Original post by 098)
    Yes- judging by ability is much fairer than by a wallet!!!!!
    You will, of course, never get rid of this through the advent of Private tuition, however it can be minimized by use of Grammar schools and entrance tests, with the opportunity for children to select their skills [vocational or academic] at around the time they select GCSEs, I find one of the largest problems facing the current education system is that all children are pigeon-holed into academia, when some are simply disruptive because they aren't suited to it. Some kids work better with their hands, and could be are far greater value to themselves and society if they were equipped with skills that suited them, we have a shortage of highly-skilled labourers in this country, and it certainly is where alot of money is [see Plumbers salary for details].

    (Original post by 098)
    Cool : ) suggest it to your head...
    Unfortunately my head, and infact the general mentality of a great deal of the 'senior staff' is snobbish and repulsive. It would be impudent of me, even as a Senior Prefect, to suggest such a thing. Not to mention the impracticalities involved.

    (Original post by 098)
    This is sad.
    Maybe, but that is my own personal belief. If I stand upon the podium after winning the National, I will have done it for me, my family, and my coach. i will not have done it for the people I beat, they didn't work for my achievement.

    You have your opinion that it is sad, this is Ok. But then surely it backfires when you attempt to coerce people into your mentality? Suddenly good intentions become not so good?

    (Original post by 098)
    Fair enough, but as I don't really think that the top public schools would be willing to through their doors open to all, this is one area which the state plays a vital role.
    And herein lies the issue, something which both sides are guilty of. Private schools have a negative stereotype of State schools, and State schools have an equally negative stereotype of Private schools. If the state tries to coerce anything, you will fight some VERY powerful individuals along the way, aswell as potentially alienating a vast majority of Britains highest State revenue stream. Not to mention, if the affluent members of the Private school parents see the holy grail of Public schooling being invaded by the insidious state, well they might just send their children abroad, depriving the United Kingdom of more potentially great minds, and undermining our education system as a whole.

    (Original post by 098)
    I believe grammar schools to be a better solution than private schools, but I have a few reservations about assigning a child his/her fate at 11. I also believe that intelligence comes in many different forms, and that passing an 11+ merely indicates an aptitude for passing exams. Maybe if entrance were recommended by teachers rather than purely based on exams; and if change between institutions were better facilitated?
    There are retakes at 13, 15, and post GCSE, so I fail to see the problem with the current iteration, which is based on cognitive reasoning and not on fact memorization. In other words, the 11+ is good at finding those who have a great capacity to learn.
    Intelligence comes in different forms, yes, but Grammar schools are only looking for ONE of those specific types, because that is the only type of intelligence it is going to teach.
    Not only would this change then hit the pupils who do poorly in class but produce fantastic results [which in the end are the things that count, I used to be one of these children, having gone to a state primary] but it would also then take a more subjective twist, something which can become quite insidious, especially within small, pastoral community primary schools.

    (Original post by 098)
    Hmmm okay, but I'd be interested to know exactly how much contact there really is...knowing the odd person doesn't really count as integration. In my opinion, many of the privately schooled pupils still know each other through the network of simply attending their area's best schools.
    I think it is slightly ridiculous to posit that all Private schoolers keep themselves to themselves, in truth, I tend to keep myself relatively detached from my Private school friends, occasionally going to the odd house party. I live further away from my school than most, I spend more time socializing with friends I went to state primary with [and who now go to comps] and Grammar schoolers. I also believe I am not the only one in this situation.


    (Original post by 098)
    I don't really think that disruptive pupils should be 'filtered out' (... to where?!) There's a reason for their being disruptive: they're not given a chance to see how education might be relevant for them. If they were exposed to the environment which you talked of, they would be encouraged to mix with this atmosphere of achieving.
    There might be a reason they are being disruptive, but if a redirection of resources away from a pupil who is NOT disruptive and who wants to learn costs them a better standard of education, well, how is that just? Not to mention the good teachers will inevitably favor teaching pupils who are willing to learn, any attempt by the state to stop this will cause a great deal of friction between the teachers and that is never a good thing.
    I suppose the long and short of it is that by its very nature, not everybody can be exposed to that environment. So you either spend those resources on the kids who could potentially be intelligent but simply don't have the motivation at the time, or the kids who DO have the motivation at that time, which one seems more just from the children's perspective? The ones who try or the ones who don't?
    I would also say that the number of disruptive pupils considerably outweighs the number of pupils willing to learn in State schools, making it impossible to create the cohesive atmosphere I talked about, since it requires a staggering majority of willing-to-learn students in order to coerce the disruptive ones through social pressure into learning themselves. This is how Private/Grammar schools do so well.


    [quote-098]There might be a point somewhere in there, but it's all phrased rather patronisingly. [/quote]

    Refer to my post about home environment, that i the gist.

    (Original post by 098)
    I don't think disruptive pupils should be 'filtered out' but dealt with and encouraged to take pride in their education, something they don't necessarily have access to at the moment.
    Socially cohesive, maybe- but also socially exclusive.
    It is Socially cohesive BECAUSE it is socially exclusive. To use my over-used example again, if Tom had been forced to stay at his state schools, being bullied and taunted, we could have very well ended up with a much less enthused, energetic sportsmen, and that would simply be another soul lost.


    (Original post by 098)
    Since when did attending a private school = high achiever?
    I find this 'mediocrity' point extremely insulting.
    Don't be insulted, because I challenge you to dispute the following;
    Privately educated kids [and Grammar school kids] are pushed into extra things by their parents in order to create a more rounded individual. Or they take it up themselves because they are heavily discouraged from filling their time with anti-social behavior. Combine the additional motivation and support from the schools and parents, and you have somebody who is far more likely to achieve higher. Its not necessarily anything to do with the individual.
    even if the individual is not a high achiever themselves, if you are a Private schooler and the son/daughter of millionaires, you are going to have seen alot of success in the world, you are going to be more likely to meet other successful people, this conditions you to achievement.
    Tying back to my 'Tom' point, he was outcasted because none of his peers knew how to respond to somebody among them doing so well. So they outcasted him rather than praised him, out of jealousy or whatever. Now, In private school, people are much more appreciative of him because they know precisely what he has had to go through and respect his achievement. hell, even I suffered this problem at a state comp here [Although not a state comp in the US which i attended for about 6 months]. In Primary school, I wasn't a footballer, which was obviously the predominant sport. **** it, I don't care about bullies, but I was not included often because I had chosen a path not familiar to the rest of them. The only time when they gained a marginal amount of respect for me was on a school swimming gala in year 6, and I handed them their arses on a platter? And you know what? It felt good, tying back into my point about not living for anybody else, those guys felt it necessary to socially isolate me for the path I had chosen, rather than being just like them, I felt victorious and I felt like I had triumphed in the face of adversity.

    (Original post by 098)
    Whilst some receive bursaries, they are certainly not in the majority. Grammar schools are very much a Southern England phenomenon; the model is not replicated as frequently in other parts of the country. It is either comprehensive or private.
    An issue I stalwartly believe should be addressed.

    (Original post by 098)
    well, I feel the national curriculum may be a different issue...
    Not really, it is a reason why Private schools can frequently outmaneuver them on performance in all aspects.

    (Original post by 098)
    could you elaborate?
    it was not long ago [comparatively] that no such thing as welfare existed, and it was either sink or swim. You could be left to die on the streets if you didn't have the money for food.

    (Original post by 098)
    Well, maybe the majority of people you know might be middle class... doesn't mean that there is not major social disadvantages in other areas.
    No, the majority of people in the UK are Middle class in terms of the luxuries they can afford and the assets they own.

    (Original post by 098)
    Breaking the cycle of the wealthy is important simply because the wealthy tend to look after their own vested interests (see your own attitude via your swimming analogy...) rather than working for a more equal society.
    Why shouldn't we? Our achievements are our own, we didn't do them for you or anybody else? is it just to force us to use our talents for YOUR gain? In my view that is dangerously lose to an authoritarian dictatorship on the part of the less fortunate in current society. I swim to be better than other people, not so that I can break a time, stand on the podium, then invite every single person I just beat onto it with me. They certainly deserve approval for taking part, as that itself requires effort, but they certainly don't deserve the reward I get for standing on the podium.
    I hope you would feel downright heartbroken if you were to agonizingly finish the London Marathon 10 minutes before everybody else, a gold mdel to be placed around your head, and then subsequently the same gold medal placed around everybody elses neck, with no special recognition for yourself.



    Sorry, but HTML is the way it will stay.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Have the option there for those who want it. Don't just ban them because a few people think its unfair, that's imposing a 'we're all equal so shove it' value-system down our throats. Very bad for a pluralistic democracy.

    Plus I could go into deep sociological (to an extent even psychological) discussions as to why private schools aren't a totally bad idea... but I'll wait for someone to prompt me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes and anyone who disagrees is an elitist prick who should **** off back to the dark ages with the lords overseeing the peasants where they belong.

    Money should not be a decisive factor for any social nessesity in a democratic society. If we lived in a fair world the so called superior private education standard would be the general standard.. you know.. we could raise the general IQ..maybe get some more scientists.. loose some groups like the BNP that prey on the mentally weak.. hell we might even get something done around here rather than supporting this caste system.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098)
    Don't get the allergy thing?! But as for first dibs... yes, I see your point- but this 'rest of the food' would still be some form chicken sandwiches as opposed to the deluxe version. (i like chicken sandwiches, okay?!!)

    The point is that not everyone CAN pay their way out of a sticky situation, so it is the job of the state to at least try to regulate this in some way. I realise this is my LW view (as opposed to a RW fatalistic 'the poor deserve it'), but that is what I personally believe.
    I was using the allergy to prevent "share the sandwich". It's just so that it's impossible to make a fair idealistic system.

    Not everybody can pay their way out. However, if you prevent the rich from being able to pay their way out, does this mean that any poor are going to be able to pay their way out? No. All it would do is bring the rich down to the same unfortunate situation as the poor.
    Private schools help many children get a good education, but there are many it doesn't help. Why take away those children's good education due to jealousy? It helps nobody, and it hurts many to ban private schools.

    It's not fair, sure. It's not fair that some people are disabled and others are not, but you don't go round crippling the legs of those who can walk for the sake of equality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098)

    Breaking the cycle of the wealthy is important simply because the wealthy tend to look after their own vested interests (see your own attitude via your swimming analogy...) rather than working for a more equal society.
    Yes, I know this is a thread on education and not societal ideals, but really? Serious question: Are you a socialist or communist?

    Back to the OP's question, and my opinion. You cannot ban private schools, fundamental rights are taken away if it happens. Come on people, can't you seethat? I see where people are coming from when they say "well it's not fair that someone was born with more money, etc...", it's very maddening to many, many people, including myself. However, the sooner people realize that's how life is, the sooner they can get out there, work for a better life, and provide their children with better opportunities (gasp, a private education?!) and higher standard of living.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This society will never get rid of private schools and there is absolutely no need to do so either.

    There will always be an elite class in this country and as lots of people have already pointed out if you don't like it try communism, we all know how well that always works out. This isn't the Victorian times, everyone has an opportunity to reach that elite if they work hard enough. Yes there'll be those who are born into money and yes it's unfair but if we spend our lives pointing fingers we will never actually solve the truth of problem.

    And just because I don't think independant schools are the worst thing in the world, it does not mean that I personally went to one. I'm from your stereotypical third generation Carribbean single-parent family, my brother went to one of the top private schools in the borough whilst I went to a mediocre state school and then one facing closure so I've felt a bit from all ends of the spectrum.

    The problem is that this country is failing poorer students, but in a very British way we don't really want to accept this and instead point the finger at someone else. I cannot understand why at one school it is ok to only aim to get students a C grade whilst at another they are all working towards A*? That is where the true inequality lies. The difference between private school kids and state school ones is that they are told from the start that they are privileged, many of them see it as their right to get the best grades and that attitude sets them up for success. However this same attitude can be applied in state school if only they were less concerned with meeting government targets.

    Then of course you have those schools where 70% of the students speak english as a second language and the vast majority are recipients of free school meals/EMA. No before you say it the problem is not immigration, but the "ghettoisation" of immigrant communities. Now if you have entire communities of poor and alienated people how do you think the majority of their children will grow up? As these communities grow larger, the middle class white families move away, and so the problem continues to grow. You also have the same thing happening in poorer areas around the countries regardless of race. Rather than throwing stones at the private schools why don't we stop sweeping this under the carpet and actually address inequality within the state system first.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Okay, here we go again. I feel there is a danger of this going round in circles as we just don't agree on a lot of fundamental concepts. However, I think it important to debate, as both sides learn something new. So:

    (Original post by Ocassus)
    No problem, Politically at odds we might be, not reason we can't be civil and friendly to one another.
    Quite.
    The odds are they will be MORE academically minded....The environment at home greatly affects the environment at school, and Private school pupils, like it or not,are more likely to receive that because of the nature of their parents.
    My parents sent me to a comprehensive school AND did all of the above and more. It is patronising to suggest that if a parent sends their child to a state school, they care less about their child's education. They simply can't afford to pay for it. Doesn't mean that they don't/can't encourage their child to learn.

    However it can be minimized by use of Grammar schools and entrance tests, with the opportunity for children to select their skills [vocational or academic] at around the time they select GCSEs, I find one of the largest problems facing the current education system is that all children are pigeon-holed into academia, when some are simply disruptive because they aren't suited to it
    I agree.
    Unfortunately my head, and infact the general mentality of a great deal of the 'senior staff' is snobbish and repulsive. It would be impudent of me, even as a Senior Prefect, to suggest such a thing. Not to mention the impracticalities involved.
    It's a shame that your inclusive views don't extend beyond a theoretical realm.
    Maybe, but that is my own personal belief. If I stand upon the podium after winning the National, I will have done it for me, my family, and my coach. i will not have done it for the people I beat, they didn't work for my achievement.
    I think sport is like life in many ways. This isn't one of them. I do believe you struggle for your achievements but I don't believe in individualism. In a race, you have to beat all the other participants to win. In society, you have to work with them. I fear this may be a key difference in ideology that we will never resolve.

    You have your opinion that it is sad, this is Ok. But then surely it backfires when you attempt to coerce people into your mentality? Suddenly good intentions become not so good?
    Is it coercion to enforce the law that stealing is morally wrong? To steal benefits one individual at the detriment of others...

    And herein lies the issue, something which both sides are guilty of. Private schools have a negative stereotype of State schools, and State schools have an equally negative stereotype of Private schools.
    yeah, probably.
    If the state tries to coerce anything, you will fight some VERY powerful individuals along the way, aswell as potentially alienating a vast majority of Britains highest State revenue stream. Not to mention, if the affluent members of the Private school parents see the holy grail of Public schooling being invaded by the insidious state, well they might just send their children abroad, depriving the United Kingdom of more potentially great minds, and undermining our education system as a whole.
    Remarkably similar to the arguments surrounding banking... but anyway; yes, powerful individuals may have to be tackled. So what? I can't see the children of the UK all mass emigrating- this is unrealistic.

    There are retakes at 13, 15, and post GCSE, so I fail to see the problem with the current iteration, which is based on cognitive reasoning and not on fact memorization. In other words, the 11+ is good at finding those who have a great capacity to learn. Intelligence comes in different forms, yes, but Grammar schools are only looking for ONE of those specific types, because that is the only type of intelligence it is going to teach.
    Fair enough.

    I think it is slightly ridiculous to posit that all Private schoolers keep themselves to themselves, in truth, I tend to keep myself relatively detached from my Private school friends, occasionally going to the odd house party. I live further away from my school than most, I spend more time socializing with friends I went to state primary with [and who now go to comps] and Grammar schoolers. I also believe I am not the only one in this situation.
    Okay; I guess this is an argument impossible to resolve as it depends on many different people...
    It is Socially cohesive BECAUSE it is socially exclusive.
    Well maybe, but it is morally wrong.

    Don't be insulted, because I challenge you to dispute the following;
    Privately educated kids [and Grammar school kids] are pushed into extra things by their parents in order to create a more rounded individual.
    I believe i addressed this above.

    even if the individual is not a high achiever themselves, if you are a Private schooler and the son/daughter of millionaires, you are going to have seen alot of success in the world, you are going to be more likely to meet other successful people, this conditions you to achievement.
    Exactly!!! So why should somebody from a poorer background not get the chance to see what this is like?!! (Before you cite bursaries again... these are limited, and not widely available)

    I felt like I had triumphed in the face of adversity.
    Okay, fair play to you and all, but I wouldn't use the word adversity lightly whilst we're on the subject of difficulties in education. You (and I) have no idea.

    [The presence of grammar schools being a Southern England phenomenon is] an issue I stalwartly believe should be addressed.
    Cool.

    it was not long ago [comparatively] that no such thing as welfare existed, and it was either sink or swim. You could be left to die on the streets if you didn't have the money for food.
    ...well, based on this concept, you advocate minimal state intervention why, exactly?

    As for the majority being middle class... I think the definition of 'middle class' is very loose- but it certainly doesn't include being able to afford private education. The minority of 'working class' may be a minority but one that needs to be served.

    Why shouldn't we? Our achievements are our own, we didn't do them for you or anybody else? is it just to force us to use our talents for YOUR gain? In my view that is dangerously lose to an authoritarian dictatorship on the part of the less fortunate in current society.
    The swimming/marathon analogies I think I addressed above....
    I think we just have a different idea of what morality is. I recognise how lucky I am to have been given a fantastic education, and I feel slightly guilty about that, and thus want others to have access to it.

    ]Sorry, but HTML is the way it will stay.
    Well your views on society and formatting are, at the least, consistent...

    I think we've gotten into the details about what private/state education is/not a little too much. I suppose my viewpoint is probably much simpler: I don't dispute that private education is, in some ways, more advantageous than state education. In fact, that's what I find is wrong; that there are two such different types of education, but that only those who can afford private education can benefit from this.

    Unsurprisingly, it obviously just boils down to a left-wing versus right-wing viewpoint. I believe those fortunate in society have a duty to help others; you don't.

    I find this interesting. I accept that our views as two different individuals are in no way representative of others, and that these opinions will have developed due to other many environmental factors, and that my friends from private schools (including yours) do not share your views.

    However, I think it is more than coincidence that these differing views stem from differing experiences of education. One might conclude that private education encourages high achievement, yes; but evidently engenders a spirit of individualism. Comprehensive education may have its faults in its current mode, as it sometimes does not accommodate for the needs of a bright individual quite as well, but teaches one humility.

    I find it interesting that these differing education systems thus become microcosms for the types of society favoured by the ideologies from which they stem.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    I was using the allergy to prevent "share the sandwich". It's just so that it's impossible to make a fair idealistic system.

    Not everybody can pay their way out. However, if you prevent the rich from being able to pay their way out, does this mean that any poor are going to be able to pay their way out? No. All it would do is bring the rich down to the same unfortunate situation as the poor.
    Private schools help many children get a good education, but there are many it doesn't help. Why take away those children's good education due to jealousy? It helps nobody, and it hurts many to ban private schools.

    It's not fair, sure. It's not fair that some people are disabled and others are not, but you don't go round crippling the legs of those who can walk for the sake of equality.
    As I have said to someone else- I think the problem in this thread is the word 'ban'. I wouldn't demolish private schools or anything- but have them made available to all. It would be crippling their legs... just... offering all of society the same trainers (?!!)

    It's not jealousy, it's just equality.

    ...and I plan on eating a sandwich later for lunch. (Had to get it in there.)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mjeezy)
    Yes, I know this is a thread on education and not societal ideals, but really? Serious question: Are you a socialist or communist?

    Back to the OP's question, and my opinion. You cannot ban private schools, fundamental rights are taken away if it happens. Come on people, can't you seethat? I see where people are coming from when they say "well it's not fair that someone was born with more money, etc...", it's very maddening to many, many people, including myself. However, the sooner people realize that's how life is, the sooner they can get out there, work for a better life, and provide their children with better opportunities (gasp, a private education?!) and higher standard of living.
    Well, as education is about creating a new society, so I think it is pretty pertinent to mention social views. Yeah, I would say I have a socialist viewpoint. I think this is why everyone on here is finding my views hard to accept. I just don't agree with you, really. : ) Because the fact of the matter is that if society remains stratified, many people CAN'T 'get out there' and 'work harder' and find themselves suffering for generations. It's very easy for you (and me) to say that everyone can work for a better life, but I wonder what someone in an inner city council estate would respond?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098)
    sperg
    098 You are making the classic TSR debating fallacy of attacking a generalisation because there are exceptions.

    Congratulations, you have pro-active parents. Nevertheless, statistically, its completely fair to say that children at private schools are VASTLY more likely to have such parents than kids at comprehensives.

    You say "make private school education available to everyone", but in reality what makes private schools such better learning environments is the fact that they can be selective, and therefore limit their intake to pupils who are not disruptive to the education of others.

    You are also attacking individualism but, bizarrely, looking at the concepts of fairness and equality from a strictly individualistic point of view. This is a pretty gaping hole in your rhetoric I'm afraid.

    And yes, the arguements on banning private education or penalising it heavily are similar to those relating to banking. They are also equally true. Its a fact that the wealthier echelons of society are less tied to the UK - there are plenty of good boarding schools abroad just as there are plenty of english-speaking business hubs, and moving between them becomes progressively more easy as you increase in wealth. The idea that we can just act more and more punitively towards wealth creators and that they will just suck it all up without comment or reaction is, frankly, absurd.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm at uni doing a medical degree so I hang around quite few privately educated students. Most people on my degree were state educated albeit at some of the top state schools in the UK while I was educated at one of the worst so it shows that high grades can be achieved regardless of where you were educated.

    Despite this since being at uni I've kind of decided that I would never send my child to a private school as most of the students who I know have been to private school are either socially awkward, cold and look down on others as if they have some intrinsic right to do so.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Having gone to a really bad school, I say no.

    The rich can pay for their kids to go to school and pay taxes. This means the school I went to, and my kids will go to will have more money - for the students that really need it.

    Its not "fair", but that's life. If they exist, then everyone gets better education - it just also introduces a big "gap" between rich and poor. Making everyone worse off isn't better.

    The rich would still be able to get into the best schools anyway, they could move to the right places and afford to be in the right catchment areas - this would just force out normal people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    You are also attacking individualism but, bizarrely, looking at the concepts of fairness and equality from a strictly individualistic point of view. This is a pretty gaping hole in your rhetoric I'm afraid.
    .
    Could you explain this further?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098)
    Could you explain this further?
    To elaborate:
    Is it fair that a family that has, through its own hard work, acquired the means to facilitate the excellent further education of its members, be prevented by law from doing so?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    To elaborate:
    Is it fair that a family that has, through its own hard work, acquired the means to facilitate the excellent further education of its members, be prevented by law from doing so?
    Before I rebut that, how is that any individualistic argument??
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098)
    Before I rebut that, how is that any individualistic argument??
    It isn't. Respond and I'll explain what I mean.

    In any case, I fear the rootof your mistakes is an odd insistence that equality is an absolute moral good, which it isn't (should jobs be unable to discriminate on ability, or universities on potential, or sports on the talents of the competitors?)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 098)
    Okay, here we go again. I feel there is a danger of this going round in circles as we just don't agree on a lot of fundamental concepts. However, I think it important to debate, as both sides learn something new. So:

    Quite.
    My parents sent me to a comprehensive school AND did all of the above and more. It is patronising to suggest that if a parent sends their child to a state school, they care less about their child's education. They simply can't afford to pay for it. Doesn't mean that they don't/can't encourage their child to learn.
    As Historyrepeating has said, you are using an analogy [yourself] to disprove an entire argument. A private schooled pupil is statistically more likely to have these advantages over state schoolers. It is an empirical fact, and I will dreg up statistics if you like?

    (Original post by 098)
    It's a shame that your inclusive views don't extend beyond a theoretical realm.
    I think sport is like life in many ways. This isn't one of them. I do believe you struggle for your achievements but I don't believe in individualism. In a race, you have to beat all the other participants to win. In society, you have to work with them. I fear this may be a key difference in ideology that we will never resolve.
    I think the problem here is the 'play with me' mentality. Its like forcing a child to play with another child he doesn't like. I don't like alot of people, they can be ********s, so why should I even try to make their lives better through my own hard work? Strong individualism works because givng people the right to make their own decisions and giving them their own power not only gives them freedom but responsibility. If you take the idea of communitarianism [Your ideology] to its logical conclusion, you absolve every individual in society from responsibility and freedom simultaneously. Socialists are very keen to blame external factors for a childs problems, ignoring the hypothesis that they were potentially given a choice [Ok so not very many in comparison to others], but still given a choice which they rejected. A kid can ignore social pressures and spend their weekends in the library if needs be, just through choice.
    You also absolve them of the freedom to do well for themselves. If I spend 4 hours today revising for my AS levels, I expect my effort to translate into results. I have chosen to work, over somebody who hasn't, and my effort [and results] should therefore be rewarded more than the person who blags it and fails.

    (Original post by 098)
    Is it coercion to enforce the law that stealing is morally wrong? To steal benefits one individual at the detriment of others...
    This gets into a tetchy area now, but, morality by its very definition is subjective. The majority of people in this country morally believe that stealing is wrong, but not just on a purely moral level either. Practically, if we were allowed to steal from each other without reprisal, society would disintegrate. However, your moral belief is not the consensus viewpoint like stealing is, the UK is broadly conservative with a small 'c' [Hence the drifting of all major parties towards the centre-right].

    (Original post by 098)
    Remarkably similar to the arguments surrounding banking... but anyway; yes, powerful individuals may have to be tackled. So what? I can't see the children of the UK all mass emigrating- this is unrealistic.
    In banking the situation would be of a far greater cost to the UK. Being the UKs biggest revenue stream means that if we lose talent to massive international banks who have limitless bonuses and salaries, our own financial sector will go down in flames or become significantly less effective, depriving us of our biggest income for our economy.
    Relating back to education, it is the RICH ONES [Probably including myself] who will emigrate, taking a considerable amount of cash out of your system and another individual who would add to the cohesive environment you so desire.

    (Original post by 098)
    Okay; I guess this is an argument impossible to resolve as it depends on many different people...
    And it is therefore unacceptable to blanket stereotype all private schoolers as being tied only to their Private school chums.

    (Original post by 098)
    Well maybe, but it is morally wrong.
    Morality is subjective and the rest of the UK does not share your viewpoint. [Well alot of it doesn't].

    (Original post by 098)
    I believe i addressed this above.
    And need to readdress it because it was flawed on one analogy.

    (Original post by 098)
    Exactly!!! So why should somebody from a poorer background not get the chance to see what this is like?!! (Before you cite bursaries again... these are limited, and not widely available)
    Actually, I haven't cited bursaries once yet.
    They could probably see it [through the cross platforming i suggested], but they c ould nto be fully integrated into the system simply because A : There aren't enough facilities to go round [This includes motivated pupils to create the cohesive atmosphere and B : Because you risk compromising the education of those who are motivated, unless you have a very high ratio of motivated pupils who go to the grammar/private school and a very small number of State schoolers. Which is unfeasible.

    (Original post by 098)
    Okay, fair play to you and all, but I wouldn't use the word adversity lightly whilst we're on the subject of difficulties in education. You (and I) have no idea.
    Hardship is a subjective premise, people can say that they have endured their own levels of hardship respectively, and there I triumphed in the face of adversity.

    (Original post by 098)
    ...well, based on this concept, you advocate minimal state intervention why, exactly?
    Because the state is the antithesis of freedom. We need basic laws to keep society cohesive and to prohibit unlawful behaviour which might disrupt that, but my concept of freedom is that freedom from interference is the purest form of freedom. The freedom of choice is usurped by the state.

    (Original post by 098)
    As for the majority being middle class... I think the definition of 'middle class' is very loose- but it certainly doesn't include being able to afford private education. The minority of 'working class' may be a minority but one that needs to be served.
    Actually, the majority of people in the UK on an average salary could afford Private school if they made lifestyle sacrifices elsewhere, but i digress.
    .
    (Original post by 098)
    I think we just have a different idea of what morality is. I recognise how lucky I am to have been given a fantastic education, and I feel slightly guilty about that, and thus want others to have access to it.
    You seem like an intelligent individual, and sure, it is okay to feel guilty. I feel guilty about other things, having wandered through the slums in India gives such a strong and lasting impression that you cannot help it. However, Laissez faire, there will always be suffering in the world, and you just have got to get on with life and make the best of it. You are lucky, but you have also worked dam hard, harder than most, and therefore are karmatically deserving of it. Some of the other people you feel guilty for would waste it and fritter it away.

    (Original post by 098)
    I think we've gotten into the details about what private/state education is/not a little too much. I suppose my viewpoint is probably much simpler: I don't dispute that private education is, in some ways, more advantageous than state education. In fact, that's what I find is wrong; that there are two such different types of education, but that only those who can afford private education can benefit from this.
    Which is why in an ideal education system, the Private system would not exist. Because nobody in their right mind would pay for something they can get for free, this is why more grammar schools are a good idea and a completely different approach is needed by the government on the current education system, in order to bring comprehensives up to Private school level, thereby eliminating most of them. [Bar the few traditional institutions such as Eton, which can't even compete with my school, and probably not yours either, academically so...]

    (Original post by 098)
    Unsurprisingly, it obviously just boils down to a left-wing versus right-wing viewpoint. I believe those fortunate in society have a duty to help others; you don't.
    I believe there is an unspoken duty of the strong to help the weak. I certainly want to help the people who are physically unable to help themselves, the disabled and the old. However, I would resent being forced to do this by somebody else, this is from my own heart out of my own kindness, not from somebody else telling me I should.

    (Original post by 098)
    I find this interesting. I accept that our views as two different individuals are in no way representative of others, and that these opinions will have developed due to other many environmental factors, and that my friends from private schools (including yours) do not share your views.
    I'll explain below.

    (Original post by 098)
    However, I think it is more than coincidence that these differing views stem from differing experiences of education. One might conclude that private education encourages high achievement, yes; but evidently engenders a spirit of individualism. Comprehensive education may have its faults in its current mode, as it sometimes does not accommodate for the needs of a bright individual quite as well, but teaches one humility.
    None of my views, nor my strong individualism has stemmed directly from my Private education. As I said before, I went through state primary at a [very good] state primary. <--- Weird sentence.
    By individualism has stemmed from my own philosophical musings and reading, the things I have seen in the world, the nature of the things I do [Swimming by its nature is very much a standalone sport when you get up on that block] and the fact that it is an undeniable consequence of life that some people are born nice, and some people are born ********s.

    (Original post by 098)
    I find it interesting that these differing education systems thus become microcosms for the types of society favored by the ideologies from which they stem.
    Like i said, they do not stem from my Private education. I have experience in all three systems, Grammar, state and, Private. [And even International, which is an interesting experience I must say]. Sure, it might be easy to poke a finger at the fact that I have not experienced economic hardship in my life, but I could probably counter-weigh that with the pressure of greater expectations, more rigorous social dogma and, the fact that I could easily lose it all if I make a wrong choice.

    I am a libertarian, Social and economic freedom, are the keys to which a good society is based. [IMHO ]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adman32)
    A friend of mine comes from a relatively wealthy family and went to the same school as me up to last year. In September he left and enrolled in a private school. But I, and most people I know, would never be able to afford this.

    I know many on this forum are indeed from private schools, so please try and be neutral.

    Perhaps I'm too far on the left, but in my opinion noone should better opportunities simply because of parental wealth. All people should be born equal, and should find success with hard work and ability, not money.


    Yes, bring us down to your level. Why don't we ban state schools? And bring everyone up to public/privet school level? And the gov should just subsidise it (like uni) for poor people. Then it will be better equal than worse equal (my logic anyway)
 
 
 
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.