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

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imaginative name)
    Well, for starters, I myself have only ever been educated in private schools - the one I am in is struggling for money and the teachers are mostly sub par. But, by your logic the teachers must be better.

    anyway, about 4 too many ! in the title for me to take seriousy. my 2 cents.
    What a waste of money.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    im sorry but if everyone is in a mixed ability school, nobody would be able to thrive because teachers have to focus their efforts on slower pupils, thus making the intelligent ones suffer.
    or vice versa
    in theory its a fair statement, but in practice it would be detrimental to our society
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yoitsro)
    im sorry but if everyone is in a mixed ability school, nobody would be able to thrive because teachers have to focus their efforts on slower pupils, thus making the intelligent ones suffer.
    I see no reason why 'mixed ability schools' shouldn't stream by academic capability. And many do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cambio wechsel)
    I see no reason why 'mixed ability schools' shouldn't stream by academic capability. And many do.
    many do, but many don't because the teachers arent always up to the standard of teaching
    if your an aspiring medic at some academy which is pushing people for c's, the teachers wont really look out for you, or put you in a class with strong biologists, theyll merely push you to one side
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yoitsro)
    many do, but many don't because the teachers arent always up to the standard of teaching
    if your an aspiring medic at some academy which is pushing people for c's, the teachers wont really look out for you, or put you in a class with strong biologists, theyll merely push you to one side
    What evidence do you have for this?This comment strikes me as a semi-believable claim which has nonetheless come straight from the top of your head.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    What evidence do you have for this?This comment strikes me as a semi-believable claim which has nonetheless come straight from the top of your head.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    to an extent maybe, but i have been told this is what its like by some friends who are high achievers, but feel almost restricted at times by their schools :P
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    What evidence do you have for this?This comment strikes me as a semi-believable claim which has nonetheless come straight from the top of your head.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I do have experience of this myself from my old secondary school. They think that because you get straight A's in everything they don't need to worry about you and just focus on everyone else (at risk of not passing) put on special classes for them, all the energy goes towards them and we just get left to push ourselves as hard as we can.

    In fact, the teachers wouldn't even blink an eye lid if I was late for any of my lessons and just walked in because they knew I'd do well. Not fair, but true.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.

    The ratio of intelligent:unintelligent people on studentroom is approximately 8:20
    I think that this is a VERY narrow outlook on life. Your post presupposes that state education is poor and that private education is not. It is not as black and white as this. There are many selective grammar non fee paying schools that excel and many comprehensives are of a good standard (where they are not they are often being improved). You also assume that private school is for the elite. Yes, to some extent it is, but scholarships and bursaries are available to those most able who may be unable to afford them. If you rid society of private schools then wealthy parents will educate their children themselves or pay for private tuition. The divide will always exist. Arguably, it may be in another form, but it will exist.

    The bottom line is that we live in a capitalist state. People will pay for services (and absolutely should be able to do so) if they have the means. The problem is not with private schools per se but with what you deem to be a failing public sector. If this gap is as apparent as you claim then we should focus on improving state schools to your perceived standard of private schools so that wealthy parents do not see the need to educate their children privately.

    Also, segregation will always exist along lines of wealth in a capitalist society. If we insist that all schools are state schools then they will be divided according to wealth in terms of their location. Ie) a state school in Surrey may prosper more than a state school in Slough. Where effectively one aspect of society no longer pays for their school but in effect receives a better education due to the wealth of parents, child's socialisation- social factors.

    Idealistically, your theory is nice. Realistically, it's the most unworkable and ill informed post I have read in a long time.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Pikachu, it is way too late to read all of this thread. I don't like private schools though, in fact I pretty much abhor them. I don't know if I agree with banning them though - this seems dangerously authoritarian. I just wish people would stop going to them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    While there are a lot of parents who, even if they cut down, saved and stretched every last penny would still not be able to afford private school fees, there are a heck of a lot of middle class parents whose priorities lie elsewhere. For many it's either: foreign holidays, new cars, slightly larger/nicer house or private school fees for their kids. My parents, for example, felt that private education was worth sacrificing those things for and I am eternally grateful for that.
    Also, there are two 'types' of private schools: the ones that can provide unmatched facilities and cater for the super rich (Eton, Harrow, Gordonstoun) and the cheaper ones that tend to focus on academics which is what draws the middle class parents in.
    To claim that everyone who attends a private school must be incredibly well off or have parents in high places is just untrue.
    Your post seems to be more driven more by jealousy than wanting to debate this issue.
    Btw: There are more than enough threads on this, and no, what you said was neither new, nor intelligent.

    DISCLAIMER: I know parents are in no way obliged to pay for private education. I do believe that it's their hard earned money and they can choose how to spend it, whether it be on themselves or their offspring. I merely wanted to clarify the fact that not all private schools are attended by the super wealthy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It is a good thought but it would be never going to happen,
    due to the Market Economy of UK.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is a retarded idea and its a good thing that most people disagree
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imaginative name)
    Well, for starters, I myself have only ever been educated in private schools - the one I am in is struggling for money and the teachers are mostly sub par. But, by your logic the teachers must be better.

    anyway, about 4 too many ! in the title for me to take seriousy. my 2 cents.
    Obvious question: Why do you still go there then? Why would you want to pay for sub-par education if better education is available for free? Just out of interest...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Obvious question: Why do you still go there then? Why would you want to pay for sub-par education if better education is available for free? Just out of interest...
    well the payer and the reciever are different people. According to a report (co authored by steve machin) I was reading, parents will pay higher fees for teachers with higher qualifications, e.g. Phd. Teachers with higher qualifications aren't imo necessarily better at teaching but it's usually what people in gment, the press etc are talking about when they say 'quality teachers'
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    well the payer and the reciever are different people. According to a report (co authored by steve machin) I was reading, parents will pay higher fees for teachers with higher qualifications, e.g. Phd. Teachers with higher qualifications aren't imo necessarily better at teaching but it's usually what people in gment, the press etc are talking about when they say 'quality teachers'
    Imagine doing a phd and then becoming a school teacher. What a waste of time.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's the other way around, state schools should be brought up to the level of private schools. Ironically, this 'everyone is born equal' crap is exactly the kind of philosophy that keeps state schools in a complacent stupor.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    In an ideal world education should be free and equal. Elitism will not allow that to happen and I don't know enough about this area to provide a strong argument on how this problem could be solved. However, I do feel that providing an individual school with more power over how their lessons are delivered is a very good step forward - every society is different and no governmental organisation should hold veto power - the teachers of that school know the best way to make education the highest it can be FOR that specific school. However, that is just my humble, not very knowledgeable, opinion and even I can tell that there is obvious issues with that suggestion .

    I go to a state school with a very good ethos that is as academically successful as the private school in my city so I am probably not a person that could speak from the same point of a person from a poorly performing school.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infairverona)
    Some people choose to spend their money on alcohol and become alcoholics. Others use their money on buying expensive cars. If people want to spend their hard earned money on giving their children a better education, I don't see anything wrong with that.
    The problem with this argument, is that it assumes everyone has a certain amount of money, and that those who go to state schools chose to spend it on things other than education, which is obviously not often the case (it's cos you can't afford to pay for education).

    Personally, my viewpoint is simple. In theory, the fact that your quality of education is determined by your parents' wealth seems undoubtedly unfair. However, in practice; private schools DO exist, and you just want what's best for yourself. Whether that renders someone immoral or not, it's easy to see why someone attends a private school, generally a lot better than a state school, despite the potential immoralities of the choice

    Perhaps if we were rebuilding society during the early centuries, private schools shouldn't be created, but banning them now would just realistically not happen, regardless of whether it should or not
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pikachu123)
    ...

    F U HATER!

    Private schools/ Grammar Schools FTW
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Comprehensive education is a failure, if it actually worked there wouldn't be any demand for private schools. We should go German with our education
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?
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.