Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe private schools get the better results cause students here tend to be more attentive to their studies, after all they are paying a higher price. I come from a place outside UK and I can tell you its the same thing here. But almost 90% of those who go to private schools also get help by a private tutor too. Anyway in my country, when you talk of schools, specially private ones, you talk of not education but rather interaction. I go to a private school here and I see no one takes education here seriously even if the teachers are super-awesome. Its the clubs and other activities like MUN that keeps us going to school. (Otherwise we could just home tutor or something) Anyway banning private schools is not a good thing at all. Implications are so massive and fatal that I think its not worth to even think of such a thing. The rich remain rich becomes the poor remains poor. No poor no rich. No rich no poor. We need to provide services for both rich and poor for a sustainable society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Everyone pays for education through taxes etc, so if those with more money want to pay twice (state and private) then that at the end of the day frees up more money for the state system as they have fewer people to educate so can spend it on better education for those in the system.

    I live in an area of good state, grammar and private schools, but was privately educated due to the small class sizes and better opportunities available at the private schools which are not offered in state schools. Even years after leaving school I am seeing the advantages this have given me, particularly CCF which is something I could never have done at the local school. As a result private schools do turn out more than just well educated people they give them skills in life. Private schools can expand teaching and we had to learn to cook for 3 years (very useful at uni!), and learnt 4 languages and latin in 1st year, all of which at the time seemed pointless but now the benefits are appearing.

    With private schools, state schools have a bench mark to aim for which without there would be less drive to improve and compete against, and more money available, through fewer students attending state schools, to put towards better education in the state system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Basically you want to ban something because some people can't afford it? I went to state schools, and I aspire to one day be able to earn enough money to send my children to private school, so that they can achieve a level of education I feel I missed out on.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with banning private schools is that rather than at least having some people who have access to a world-class education, everyone ends up with a poor education. That's bad for the economy, in turn bad for the living standards of everyone.

    There are more options than ever now for social mobility for people from state schools. You can do well in a state school, just as well, if not better than someone from a private school, you just have to be willing to work for it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by will2348)
    The problem with banning private schools is that rather than at least having some people who have access to a world-class education, everyone ends up with a poor education.
    So, because my parents can't afford private school I should accept my poor standard of education because at least a minority of the population has access to private schooling? That is not a very strong argument for private schools at all . . . just because 'some' can have it.

    Surely, it would be better for everyone to be part of a state system and not be able to just 'opt-out' if they have the money? This would actually show who is the brightest as every student is in the same position. It's very hard with private schools all achieving students with aaa to distinguish who is bright between who is simply an exam technique king.

    Whereas those who receive aaa at state schools are the minority and prove that they are the brightest of their age group.

    There are more options than ever now for social mobility for people from state schools. You can do well in a state school, just as well, if not better than someone from a private school, you just have to be willing to work for it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Have you been to a state school, because I would say mine provides little opportunity of social mobility. For example, my politics teacher has a degree in something completely irrelevant and used to be a receptionist. The other day we were studying the economy and she had to google the difference between a deficit and a debt.

    Secondly, if you can do just as good or even better at a state school because you just have to 'work for it', then what is the use for private schools?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What a load of socialist tripe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hmm... Would boarding schools still exist? Some parents have legitimate reasons for sending their children to boarding schools (military etc.)

    Would the standard of education be better in wealthy areas than it would be in poorer areas? For example, in USA the taxes in some areas are ridiculously high compared to neighbouring districts because the area is linked to a good state school.

    What do we do about kids who simply aren't interested in school? I know that particularly in poorer areas, a lot of parents don't really expect their kids to do well in school. How would we tackle this problem?

    Interesting topic. Great opportunity to debate and consider.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Those with access to enough money to make the choice should be permitted to pay for schooling if they see long term benefit for their children. The important issue that this bluntly put motion gives rise to is 'Why, in a place of accessible free education, are people choosing to pay?' It's no fault of the private schools that is for certain. The problem is with the number of state schools which simply do an inadequate job of educating the children unfortunate enough to find themselves at them. Solve that problem and I would hazard a guess that the number of applications to private schools would drop quite significantly. People will only pay for advantage, if there is no real terms advantage to be gained why would the run of the mill middle class parent keep paying?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Education is not illegal, illegal drugs and prostitution are.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by millie-rose)
    So, because my parents can't afford private school I should accept my poor standard of education because at least a minority of the population has access to private schooling? That is not a very strong argument for private schools at all . . . just because 'some' can have it.
    So, because my parents can't afford to live within the catchment area of a decent comp I should accept my poor standard of education...? A full comprehensive system becomes a complete postcode lottery, at least private schools provide a way out of that lottery.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I hate how levelling the playing field is always about dragging the rich kids down to the poor kids' level rather than trying to boost the poor kids up. We should be striving to make free education better rather than shackling the privileged.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by millie-rose)
    It's no surprise that private schools achieve extensively larger percentages of pupils who receive A grades at A level. It is not by chance that somehow all the smartest people were conveniently put in to private school.

    If there was only state school, those who were truly bright (whether they were originally at state or private) would shine through as they excelled with the same opportunities provided.

    Sadly, I think that now if you get three A's in a private school, it is very hard for others to distinguish whether you achieved this because you are academically bright or because of the school you went to. Whereas those who achieve A's in state schools where the average grades are B/C's have clearly shown intellect beyond those provided with the same opportunity.
    Would we raise taxes to give teachers incentive to, you know, go into teaching?

    Let's say hypothetically we closed down all private schools today. Would the teachers working at those private schools be happy about taking a state school teacher's salary?

    How would we make teaching appealing to future graduates without giving them decent salaries?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jussterr)
    Would we raise taxes to give teachers incentive to, you know, go into teaching?

    Let's say hypothetically we closed down all private schools today. Would the teachers working at those private schools be happy about taking a state school teacher's salary?

    How would we make teaching appealing to future graduates without giving them decent salaries?
    That's just ridiculous because that only proves the inequality between state and private, in that the best grads teach in private because of the salaries.

    If there was no private, there would be no choice. . .
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Butane)
    So, because my parents can't afford to live within the catchment area of a decent comp I should accept my poor standard of education...? A full comprehensive system becomes a complete postcode lottery, at least private schools provide a way out of that lottery.
    Not at all, I think that the whole postcode lottery element of state schooling is ridiculous and it's no surprise that the best schools are often in the richest areas.

    If the banning of private schools is to be effective then there needs to be a better application procedure in place for state schools.

    Yes, private schools have benefitted you.. But you have to remember that unless your on a scholarship etc. then you only got out of that problem because your parents could afford it. Many could be in the same position as you but have no solution as they can't afford private schools. It is evidently fairer and more just that all children start on an even playing field.

    Of course the solution is to make state schools better and therefore there would be no need to go private, but at least starting of equally makes for a just society. The only reason you escaped your problem is because of money - a solution that for many children isn't an option.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SnoochToTheBooch)
    I hate how levelling the playing field is always about dragging the rich kids down to the poor kids' level rather than trying to boost the poor kids up. We should be striving to make free education better rather than shackling the privileged.
    That's very true, but we cannot bring 'poor kids' up to the 'rich kids' level without having only one schooling system. Even if state schooling were to improve dramatically it still cannot compete with the small classes and salaries of private etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'd be a lot more confident on contributing to this debate-if education was valued as much as most people believe. Many people don't give a **** about their kid's education. If they did, all schools would be private-people would think twice about having kids if their education wasn't there on a plate and obligatory.
    On the other hand , because of the divide in between people who care about their kid's education and people who don't, and the moral people in between who deserve the education system to be free or low of cost, we have private schools.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People tend to forget that sending your children to private school is about far more then getting 3 As at A-Level. Makes you far more cultured and wordily. I can speak three different languages and play two instruments, and have a good amount of extra curricular. Lots of my friends at state schools can only speak their native language, struggle to play any instrument and their only extra curricular is playing Fifa after school. All this hinders state scholars in the job markets, especially in the financial and legal sector.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    In an ideal world every body would get the same education and so the more intelligent and/or hardworking people would get the best exam results.

    But as long as money is around, there is no point in banning private schools. If they were banned, parents would choose to pay for private tuition or something like that instead.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scott.M)
    In an ideal world every body would get the same education and so the more intelligent and/or hardworking people would get the best exam results.
    Thats what happens anyway...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    There is, in my opinion a decent argument for getting rid of private schools.

    This debate will never be resolved - especially not on TSR - but there are strong arguments for it.

    Since education at the moment seems to be geared towards university entry, and since university entry is crucial for the rest of your life, one must ask is it fair that one's parental income can determine your life chances and put you ahead of others?

    If it were possible, I'd ban private education and force everyone to go state, but I can see why people would avoid state education. It's very patchy. Great in places, terrible in some. A good school can easily go down the pan if a new estate is built in its catchment area or if the local council decide to rehouse a substantial amount of 'trouble-families' in the area. Similarly, state schools are pretty underfunded, understaffed and nowhere near as good as private, on the whole.

    In my view, private education is fundamentally unfair and shouldn't exist. Neither should private healthcare, but there are plenty of arguments for both of those things and there's bound to be disagreement.
 
 
 
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.