Private schools should be banned!!!!!!!! Watch

Pikachu123
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
I believe education should be a sector that should be completely government controlled; that is not to say I advocate following strict government curriculum, rather I believe that a child's basic education should not be influenced by factors such as wealth.

If we are to improve the social mobility of the UK we must expose all children to the same quality of education; this is fundamental to our future generations' progress. Already there is a huge disparity between independent and state funded schools - it is evident by looking at the level of the Common Entrance exam.

Some may argue that the wealthy will always find some means to improve their child's education even if independent schools were to be abolished, that is true; there is no denying that they have the option to send their child to a boarding school in a foreign country, however what happens outside the UK is not the jurisdiction of the UK, therefore should not affect a decision about ENGLISH education. Hiring private tutors is also an option, however hours outside of school is limited; therefore there is less of a difference between the level in which all children are educated at.

Education is a fundamental human right, it is akin to being able to receive medical treatment. Should we not aspire to a better quality of these services for all? Not being able to even make an intelligent, informed decision in elections is an extremely sad state of affairs (which is 38.7% of us), every human being (in the UK) should receive the opportunity to enrich their mind to such a degree.

Banning education would not worsen the experience for all; on the contrary there would be incentive for all (which will include the wealthy - those with the most power) to improve the educational sector and pressurize the government to invest in schools.

Continuing to support independent schools is also a way of segregating those who are wealthy and those who are not; as a general rule. It makes the division between them stark and the wealthy will not be able to identify with those less fortunate, and vice versa. Both will be engulfed within their own 'culture' (evidently this is where the 'chav' culture arose). Being able to expose children to all different types of socioeconomic classes may eventually end the unfounded (and wholly ignorant,) hateful view of the upper echelons of society.

That is why private schools should be banned, they really should be. Rant over.
I know this topic has been covered over many times but I wanted to express my opinion and hope to provide a fresh perspective on this topic (and hopefully influence people into supporting the idea of banning private schools). What I don't understand is the fact that some people are unsupportive of this idea, I mean; their arguments are entirely founded on the basis of the child's right to a better education resting solely on the competence of their parents? Am I right? This doesn't make sense, people don't chose their parents...


P.S. Sorry for any grammatical (or spelling) mistakes in this post.

The ratio of intelligent:unintelligent people on studentroom is approximately 8:20
187
reply
TheBritishArmy
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
If people wish to provide a service and others wish to buy it, the state has no right to tell the parties involved that they cannot make this transaction.
74
reply
'Ello Dave!
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by TheBritishArmy)
If people wish to provide a service and others wish to buy it, the state has no right to tell the parties involved that they cannot make this transaction.
What about selling drugs or soliciting a prostitute?
37
reply
roh
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by TheBritishArmy)
If people wish to provide a service and others wish to buy it, the state has no right to tell the parties involved that they cannot make this transaction.
Tell that to Britain's drug dealers, prostitutes and unregistered versions of a vast array of professions. The state stops lots of people from providing certain services, either absolutely or in a qualified way.
4
reply
-strawberry-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
I go to a private school. I am not rich. I only pay 50% fees. It really bugs me when people say you have to be rich to go to a private school, there are plenty of cheaper ones around than the likes of Eton etc.
45
reply
TheBritishArmy
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by roh)
Tell that to Britain's drug dealers, prostitutes and unregistered versions of a vast array of professions. The state stops lots of people from providing certain services, either absolutely or in a qualified way.
Nothing wrong with selling drugs or sexual services. What goes on between consenting adults is not the business of the state.
12
reply
roh
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by -strawberry-)
I go to a private school. I am not rich. I only pay 50% fees. It really bugs me when people say you have to be rich to go to a private school, there are plenty of cheaper ones around than the likes of Eton etc.
No, but as a cohort the parents of private school educated children are probably on average significantly wealthier than those of state educated ones.

Obviously there are exceptions in both systems (there was the son of a multi-millionaire in my year), but on the whole those at independent schools are more likely to come from a wealthy background than their peers in the state sector.
5
reply
username941859
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
As someone who has attended a private school and a state school, I'm inclined to disagree with you on a number of levels.

Academically, private schools are superior (lets not get all butthurt and call me elitist, because I'm not). They have better resources and small class sizes that allow more teacher-student contact. For many people, who need extra help this can be hugely advantageous, and promote learning in a way the state sector cannot. This isn't the schools fault, and in no way am I suggesting that, but private schools help people who need extra support academically. Furthermore, they have the facilities to expose the child to a wider range of academic disciplines, that in a state school would just not be possible.

Secondly, pastoral care is much better at private schools. I was bullied a lot at my old state school because frankly the teachers didn't care as they just wanted to get paid. In private schools, there is very often a zero tolerance policy on bullying and people may be suspended on their first offence, which greatly discourages bullying amongst children and makes the learning environment safer and friendlier and thus more enjoyable.

Finally, private schools offer a holistic outlook to learning which makes it's pupils more rounded individuals. There is greater access to clubs such as MUN, debating, charity work, a greater range of sports and skills you would never find in the state sector, such as specialist instruments. Private schools are more likely to promote that pupils engage with their professional interests, through law and medicine societies, for example.

I'm not saying it's fair some people have a better education that others, I'm just saying you can't slam all private schools just because some people can afford them and take advantage of the oppertunity.
26
reply
Millie228
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by TheBritishArmy)
If people wish to provide a service and others wish to buy it, the state has no right to tell the parties involved that they cannot make this transaction.
This.
It is how the world operates. There will always be a difference between people influenced by where they come from. Well off parents can pay for extra tutorial classes with specialist teachers even if they go to state school. They can pay for first class tutoring in extra curricular activities - sign them up to learn French, tennis or the violin from a young age - all things which will be appreciated later in life. If they have connections, it will help them get into Ivy League or be recommended for a good job. Children of wealthy parents always have an advantage.
I know many socialists are forever striving for an ideal where your family background have absolutely no influence, but that's just not how the world works.
Not to mention the fact that I genuinely believe you should be able to work for something, earn the cash and then provide a good life for your children. My mother came from a poor background, was the only one who pursued an education in her family, she managed her salary extremely well and is now wealthy. She wanted her children to grow up in a safe neighborhood where most people were educated. Parents will always do what they think is best for their children - and they should. If someone provides what you believe to be a better alternative than the standard and it is achievable to you - you take it.
5
reply
-strawberry-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by roh)
No, but as a cohort the parents of private school educated children are probably on average significantly wealthier than those of state educated ones.

Obviously there are exceptions in both systems (there was the son of a multi-millionaire in my year), but on the whole those at independent schools are more likely to come from a wealthy background than their peers in the state sector.
Yes, but I just hate generalisations like that. My mum earns only £30,000 a year and that's from 3 jobs.
0
reply
roh
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by TheBritishArmy)
Nothing wrong with selling drugs or sexual services. What goes on between consenting adults is not the business of the state.
That's a broader argument about libertarianism then and the question of what we can and can't consent and contract to do, as it stands the state prohibits certain activities even if we consent to them, as do all governments to one degree or another.
0
reply
roh
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by -strawberry-)
Yes, but I just hate generalisations like that. My mum earns only £30,000 a year and that's from 3 jobs.
Yes, but when it comes to dealing with such large groups as 'the independently educated' and 'the state educated' it's surely a necessary evil to have some generalisation? Obviously there will be significant exceptions on both sides, but if you keep discussing the endless exceptions to a wider truth you'll never have a debate about the actual issue, in this case whether private schooling should be banned or not.
5
reply
Pikachu123
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#13
(Original post by -strawberry-)
I go to a private school. I am not rich. I only pay 50% fees. It really bugs me when people say you have to be rich to go to a private school, there are plenty of cheaper ones around than the likes of Eton etc.
There is variation within the private sector fees, but generally; schools requiring fees require payment, yes? Which means those incapable of paying (those on benefits, those without disposable income) are disqualified from attending (unless they get a scholarship, but only a very minimal amount are qualified). So we can conclude that to be able to attend a private school, there must be adequate disposable income. Therefore, private schools are limited to those -

Ignore all of that, let's just say that in the eyes of those less financially well-of, a middle class income is a fortune. It's all relative. I never specified an income bracket. Those on benefits cannot go to a private school (excluding scholarships) so it excludes people on the basis of financial factors.
0
reply
SpiggyTopes
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
A lot of people seem to be jealous of people with rich parents who can afford to send them to private school. I'm not, it means that that I get a better education since the resources don't have to stretch as far. Everybody gets a better education. Everybody wins.
2
reply
-strawberry-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by roh)
Yes, but when it comes to dealing with such large groups as 'the independently educated' and 'the state educated' it's surely a necessary evil to have some generalisation? Obviously there will be significant exceptions on both sides, but if you keep discussing the endless exceptions to a wider truth you'll never have a debate about the actual issue, in this case whether private schooling should be banned or not.
Yes of course there is. I just hate the assumption that if you're in a somewhat average family you can't possibly go to a private school. And as for the issue, no they shouldn't be banned. They're technically businesses.
0
reply
Pikachu123
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by TheBritishArmy)
Nothing wrong with selling drugs or sexual services. What goes on between consenting adults is not the business of the state.
Prostitution is illegal in the UK. It was legal before; but made illegal (please correct me if I'm wrong).
The same should be done with private schools. By your logic, the current law is static and unchanging; which it is not.
0
reply
-strawberry-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by Pikachu123)
There is variation within the private sector fees, but generally; schools requiring fees require payment, yes? Which means those incapable of paying (those on benefits, those without disposable income) are disqualified from attending (unless they get a scholarship, but only a very minimal amount are qualified). So we can conclude that to be able to attend a private school, there must be adequate disposable income. Therefore, private schools are limited to those -

Ignore all of that, let's just say that in the eyes of those less financially well-of, a middle class income is a fortune. It's all relative. I never specified an income bracket. Those on benefits cannot go to a private school (excluding scholarships) so it excludes people on the basis of financial factors.
I'd hardly say I have adequate disposable income. Find my post about what my mum earns a year and you'll see.
0
reply
roh
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by -strawberry-)
Yes of course there is. I just hate the assumption that if you're in a somewhat average family you can't possibly go to a private school. And as for the issue, no they shouldn't be banned. They're technically businesses.
They're technically charities, if they're going to start calling themselves businesses they've got a ****load more tax to pay.

I agree, whilst private schools still perform better than state schools there is an argument for them, I would be more inclined to ban them if (hopefully when) state education can match them, as then they simply serve as a method of social segregation, though I assume at this point they would be significantly less popular.

Saying that I personally wouldn't send my child to one, if they're bright they'll do well wherever.
0
reply
Lakesx
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by Pikachu123)
I believe education should be a sector that should be completely government controlled; that is not to say I advocate following strict government curriculum, rather I believe that a child's basic education should not be influenced by factors such as wealth.

If we are to improve the social mobility of the UK we must expose all children to the same quality of education; this is fundamental to our future generations' progress. Already there is a huge disparity between independent and state funded schools - it is evident by looking at the level of the Common Entrance exam.

Some may argue that the wealthy will always find some means to improve their child's education even if independent schools were to be abolished, that is true; there is no denying that they have the option to send their child to a boarding school in a foreign country, however what happens outside the UK is not the jurisdiction of the UK, therefore should not affect a decision about ENGLISH education. Hiring private tutors is also an option, however hours outside of school is limited; therefore there is less of a difference between the level in which all children are educated at.

Education is a fundamental human right, it is akin to being able to receive medical treatment. Should we not aspire to a better quality of these services for all? Not being able to even make an intelligent, informed decision in elections is an extremely sad state of affairs (which is 38.7% of us), every human being (in the UK) should receive the opportunity to enrich their mind to such a degree.

Banning education would not worsen the experience for all; on the contrary there would be incentive for all (which will include the wealthy - those with the most power) to improve the educational sector and pressurize the government to invest in schools.

Continuing to support independent schools is also a way of segregating those who are wealthy and those who are not; as a general rule. It makes the division between them stark and the wealthy will not be able to identify with those less fortunate, and vice versa. Both will be engulfed within their own 'culture' (evidently this is where the 'chav' culture arose). Being able to expose children to all different types of socioeconomic classes may eventually end the unfounded (and wholly ignorant,) hateful view of the upper echelons of society.

That is why private schools should be banned, they really should be. Rant over.
I know this topic has been covered over many times but I wanted to express my opinion and hope to provide a fresh perspective on this topic (and hopefully influence people into supporting the idea of banning private schools). What I don't understand is the fact that some people are unsupportive of this idea, I mean; their arguments are entirely founded on the basis of the child's right to a better education resting solely on the competence of their parents? Am I right? This doesn't make sense, people don't chose their parents...


P.S. Sorry for any grammatical (or spelling) mistakes in this post.
Firstly, from a psychological approach it is obvious that you have not had access to private schooling, as you would not be having this rant. An person that has had private education, would be for it, as they would see the true benefit of it, It appears that you are simply putting forward an argument because your parents could not or would not allow you to go to private school, therefore you already have a bitter state of mind for being at a disadvantage.

Secondly, I have been privileged to go to a private school with a scholarship, and also to a state school before hand... The disparity in education techniques is ridiculously different for example at private school, they teach you to aim high, that an A* is not the best but 100% is(if you see what I mean) they want you to be confident, independent, and succeed in life. Where as at state schools even though you many be a bright student, they want you to pass not strive, just simply scrape bare basics.... If this mind set was applied to all schools, the large majority would remain average or below par.

Thirdly, it you applied the argument that people born with money should not be at an advantage... that is a communist way of thinking, that everyone should be equal regardless of the fact that even though two families' first generation have the same amount of wealth but one family succeed though pure hard-work and dedication that their child should not have the right to get a better education. Surely we should be making all schooling at a private level standard, rather then bring them down to par standard? Surely money that is spent of second homes for MP and benefits for unemployed migrant with 5 children should be spent on bring the education standard up?

Fourthly, have you been to a private school, do you actually know what it is like to be taught by these "elite" teacher? If you do not, I suggest you get experience of it first hand to see the true value of private education before you argue against it...
12
reply
sevchenko
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
Everybody has the right to basic education, which the government provides but if I want my child to receive a better standard of education what's wrong with that. Its just like healthcare, what if I don't want to use the NHS I want a better standard of treatment. Private schools are fine and to ban the is stupid.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

All the exam results help you need

4,157

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (188)
12.71%
Excited (121)
8.18%
Worried (279)
18.86%
Terrified (343)
23.19%
Meh (121)
8.18%
Confused (34)
2.3%
Putting on a brave face (200)
13.52%
Impatient (193)
13.05%

Watched Threads

View All