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

Leave Private Schools Alone! - Thread To End The Private School Debate. Watch

    • PS Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blue n white army)
    But if more children go to a private school then more children are going to be Achieving an A* grade.


    An A* is going to be worth a lot more if only 10 people had ever achieved one than if 10,000,000 people have one.

    That's the same with degrees, i appreciate what you say about the institution having an effect on the value of a degree but back in our parents day someone with a degree was seen as the bee knees and they stood out from the crowd now everybody has one.
    Yes, but degrees are meant to be more exclusive, merely having one was prestigious and institutions had the right to award them, whereas GCSEs are supposed to be held by everyone, private school merely offers the chance to, possibly, do better in them. The complaint with degrees is not that many people need to be educated up to that level of speciality and for that length of time, whereas improving the standard of basic education (up to 18 now) would be acknowledged as of more universal benefit.

    If there is a problem with educational standards, either state or private, outstripping the exams simply make the exams harder, don't offer fewer people the high quality education.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I think you're misinterpreting my analogy a bit. I'm not saying that we all need top quality education in order to survive, and that state education isn't sufficient for this, or anything like that.

    The analogy is:
    Sandwich <=> Education
    Survival <=> Having enough education in order to create a significant leap in advancement for society.

    The average level of education in our country compared to other countries is indeed admirable. But I don't think I'm doing it an injustice to say that most of the people who have enabled us to reach various academic breakthroughs were only able to do so because they received an education of a well-above average level, and would not have been able to do so if teachers, resources etc. were all equally distributed from school to school, person to person.

    So I don't think it's more fitting to say that everyone has a "sandwich" (i.e. sufficient education in order to do this).I'm just pointing out that the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts. It's better to give one person an iPad than to give two people half an iPad each. The more evenly you spread each "unit" of education amongst a large population of people, the less useful each unit will be. On an overall scale, the education we provide would achieve less for society than it does at the moment. If I were to sketch a graph of "total utility gained from education by a single person" against "quality of education received by a single person", it wouldn't just be a straight, upward sloping line. There would be a point at which, above a certain level of quality of education, the graph would suddenly get a lot steeper.

    (Also, I think the thing I just said about iPads answers your objection that 'education is a luxury, not something we need in order to survive').
    I think he was misunderstanding your analogy (as I did, and nearly posted an almost identical counter-analogy before seeing his) because you seem to have an unusual view of the purpose of education:

    No, I'm not saying that these exceptional people will be created purely as a result of top quality education. I'm not saying that if we took the fair option, we'd never have a scientific breakthrough ever again. I just think it would be a step in that direction. We'd have fewer breakthroughs. As I said, when spread thinly across the whole population, each "unit" of education would be worth less than it is now. (Though not entirely worthless, of course).
    This is where I massively disagree with you. The issue isn't a question of maximum number of scientific breakthroughs, or similar, for me. The education system exists to educate and train young people to a standard where they can work in order to benefit themselves and the economy of the state. In this respect equality is crucial - essentially by supporting private education you support people going through life with better opportunities than others, purely on the basis of their parents' wealth.

    To address your concerns about scientific breakthroughs, look at our current university entry system. It's as close as we get in our society to something truly meritocratic, and rations the higher level of education and facilities needed to nurture the people who will be your "exceptional people". If everyone went through the lower levels of our education system with roughly the same quality of education then a lot of people would be prepared as well as they needed to be, to an equal level, to work, earn and benefit to society, while those with the most talent would be able to go on to further education, purely on merit. These people would have the best further education and facilities to then do all the things you seem to think private school equips people for.

    As it stands those with rich parents buy their children top grades that children at state schools won't get, earning them places in top universities, blocking out the talent that could use the education and facilities to best effect for society.

    For the record, I don't think outright banning private schools is feasible in our society, and won't be for a while yet, but I think the principle of equality of opportunity and advantage being given on the basis of merit rather than parental wealth is very important and can't be dismissed just like that.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    Parents are welcome to hire private tutors, because it's not a stable career option. Which means nobody doing it would spend the rest of their live teaching in it, and it would only attract sub-par people looking for experience rather than a private school which attracts capable teachers and absorbs facilities from kids who haven't done anything to deserve segregation.
    Tutoring may be a more viable job if a group of rich parents get together to pay a tutor to teach all their kids at the same time, making it closer to a full time job. The teaching, sorry tutoring, could all take place at one of the parents houses. The parent group could even pay for multiple tutors, they're rich after all. For these to be full time jobs they might invite more rich parents to join the scheme. This might require more room, so they could build a classroom block in their field.

    At what point would you put a stop to this?

    Parents are still welcome to teach their kids extra things on the side. That's a basic element of family dynamic. Why is it 'fair' that instead, parents can throw money at the problem and provide a better chance than a parent who might spend countless evenings tutori... screwed this bit up when trying to cut the quote on a phone ,sorry.
    What would you allow parents to outsource? I guess swimming lessons are out: parents would have to teach their children themselves. This would be necessary to ensure that parents cannot provide their children with a better chance to be a competent swimmer just by throwing money at swimming lessons, which some people may not be able to afford. It ties into the reason why private health care should be banned: nobody should receive lesser treatment and be more likely to die of an illness than anybody else based on wealth, and nobody should be more likely to drown than anybody else based on wealth either.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    Thing is though, that means that only the people who's mummy and daddy could afford to send them to private school have a chance at any sort of "advancement of humanity" type career. Which isn't fair. Opportunity should be there for everyone, not just those who can pay more.
    I sense jealousy and lots of it in this post.
    You do realise private schools being the charities that they are do do more than just let rich kiddie winks in right? Shall we start with the scholarships and bursarys to those who dont have enough to afford them, the community work they engage in and would you like me to carry on are you going to continue to froth that private schools are mean and nasty and not fair? Because i feel we should remember a very important lesson for life here; life isnt fair never has it been and never shall it be... best to accept that now to avoid future disappointment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe in the 'every-kid-should-have-the-same-life-chances' argument; but even for those who do, it is a stupid idea to ban private schools.

    1) You are just reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator. What does giving everyone an average education achieve?

    2) People who pay for private schools also pay for public schools through general taxation. So they are already paying for public school, but simply not using that facility. If they also choose to pay a private school, that creates more jobs.

    3) You can never really ban private education. It would just happen illegally or people would find loopholes, such as getting full-time tutors. This work would be untaxed so the government loses out. Ironically, this would mean less money is available to public schools.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rob da Mop)
    This is where I massively disagree with you. The issue isn't a question of maximum number of scientific breakthroughs, or similar, for me. The education system exists to educate and train young people to a standard where they can work in order to benefit themselves and the economy of the state. In this respect equality is crucial - essentially by supporting private education you support people going through life with better opportunities than others, purely on the basis of their parents' wealth.
    I do support people going through life with better educational opportunities than others. Not necessarily on the basis of wealth. But as I explained earlier, even though it is unfair, I think it provides a greater contribution to the progression of society to have some people receive high quality education and some people receive lower quality education, rather than all people receiving education of equal quality (even though this is fairer).

    This isn't just in the context of scientific breakthroughs. That was just a simple example of a more general concept - that spreading resources evenly but too thinly over a large population of people may reduce the overall benefit which arises from those resources.

    To address your concerns about scientific breakthroughs, look at our current university entry system. It's as close as we get in our society to something truly meritocratic, and rations the higher level of education and facilities needed to nurture the people who will be your "exceptional people". If everyone went through the lower levels of our education system with roughly the same quality of education then a lot of people would be prepared as well as they needed to be, to an equal level, to work, earn and benefit to society, while those with the most talent would be able to go on to further education, purely on merit. These people would have the best further education and facilities to then do all the things you seem to think private school equips people for.

    As it stands those with rich parents buy their children top grades that children at state schools won't get, earning them places in top universities, blocking out the talent that could use the education and facilities to best effect for society.
    I don't really agree that rich parents "buy their children top grades and block out the talent of poor people". This makes it sound as though the poorer student is actually more suited for a university education in reality, but that the rich student is only more suited for a university education on paper, because they've literally bought their A grades, rather than being sufficiently educated to achieve them.
    Whereas I think that in actual fact, the rich student is more suitable for the university education at that stage, because they have been educated to a greater standard, so that they are now able to sit an A-Level exam and get a top grade. Their parents have spent money on making them suited to university, not on making the university accept them despite being less suited. And naturally, the admissions tutors will simply take whoever is more suited at the time.

    Suitability for university isn't just about how naturally gifted or talented you are. It's also about the standard to which you have been previously educated in the relevant subject. And if everyone receives an equal quality of education (i.e. opportunities are spread evenly across the whole population), there's no way that at the time of applying to university, the very best/most suitable candidates would be as good as they are now.

    For the record, I don't think outright banning private schools is feasible in our society, and won't be for a while yet, but I think the principle of equality of opportunity and advantage being given on the basis of merit rather than parental wealth is very important and can't be dismissed just like that.
    I agree, it's definitely important to have equality of opportunity. But I think that banning private schools in order to get this is not merely unfeasible in practice - but even if it were feasible, it would achieve fairness by sacrificing an even greater priority.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sevchenko)
    True State schools should be improved but where do you get the funding ? surely if there is an increase in the satnderd of education there has to be a rise in taxes to fund books, teachers etc. Its too short sited to say "Oh no more foreign aid to save money" but Gove is/was trying to improve the standard of attainment within state schools with his reforms.
    I agree - it's more difficult than it sounds to just "improve state schools". I just think that, if we must try to make education fair, then we should do it that way, rather than by banning schools. If we can't improve state schools due to lack of funding etc. then it's better to just leave things as they are than to ban private schools. I don't think fairness is the No. 1 priority.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I agree - it's more difficult than it sounds to just "improve state schools". I just think that, if we must try to make education fair, then we should do it that way, rather than by banning schools. If we can't improve state schools due to lack of funding etc. then it's better to just leave things as they are than to ban private schools. I don't think fairness is the No. 1 priority.
    I really don't see how private schools aren't fair. The Government provides a basic and competent education for children. A child that goes to a private school has to work way much harder than state school kids. Some kids in state schools just cant be asked to work that's down to their parent fault.

    The Government provides a basic and competent healthcare service. Would the government ban private healthcare companies like Bupa ? what if I don't like the NHS, what if I want a better standard of treatment.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sevchenko)
    I really don't see how private schools aren't fair. The Government provides a basic and competent education for children. A child that goes to a private school has to work way much harder than state school kids. Some kids in state schools just cant be asked to work that's down to their parent fault.
    I'm not arguing that private schools aren't fair. I'm just saying, to all those who do consider private schools to be unfair, that this is not a good enough reason to ban private schools, because fairness shouldn't even be our top priority anyway. There are more important things than fairness.

    (In this case, I assume that by "fairness", they're just referring, in a basic sense, to an even distribution of educational resources and opportunities across the whole population).

    The Government provides a basic and competent healthcare service. Would the government ban private healthcare companies like Bupa ? what if I don't like the NHS, what if I want a better standard of treatment.
    I completely agree with you. That's why I'm saying private schools shouldn't be banned.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Something tells me that this thread won't "end the private school debate". :rolleyes:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
    Thing is though, that means that only the people who's mummy and daddy could afford to send them to private school have a chance at any sort of "advancement of humanity" type career. Which isn't fair. Opportunity should be there for everyone, not just those who can pay more.
    do you not agree that it is the government who should be improving state education rather than directing all the hate at people who are privately educated and trying to bring them down into the dumps with us?

    apologises if this has already been addressed, couldn't be bothered reading the whole thread
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)

    Suitability for university isn't just about how naturally gifted or talented you are. It's also about the standard to which you have been previously educated in the relevant subject. And if everyone receives an equal quality of education (i.e. opportunities are spread evenly across the whole population), there's no way that at the time of applying to university, the very best/most suitable candidates would be as good as they are now.

    See now you're just stating your own beliefs. If this was the case, we wouldn't even be having this debate and I would be on benefits. Suitability to attend university can be leveraged with financial backing (thanks to private institutions) but it isn't the sole factor, otherwise there would be nobody at university who didn't go to a private school.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I'm not arguing that private schools aren't fair. I'm just saying, to all those who do consider private schools to be unfair, that this is not a good enough reason to ban private schools, because fairness shouldn't even be our top priority anyway. There are more important things than fairness.

    I agree that it's not just a low level priority, but that attempting to change this would be catastrophic. I genuinely don't believe private schools should or would ever be banned, simply because we don't live in an ideal world and nobody really wants to. But I will happily point out that they have a negative impact on society and will be looked at by historians in the centuries to come in happy little essays about oligarchy.

    (Original post by Tpx)
    Tutoring may be a more viable job if a group of rich parents get together to pay a tutor to teach all their kids at the same time, making it closer to a full time job. The teaching, sorry tutoring, could all take place at one of the parents houses. The parent group could even pay for multiple tutors, they're rich after all. For these to be full time jobs they might invite more rich parents to join the scheme. This might require more room, so they could build a classroom block in their field.
    This goes to what I was saying above: It wouldn't be feasible in practice. However, tutoring actually has strict guidelines and laws with licensing and places of work, so even in our current system it would be illegal to set up what you're suggesting. Food for thought.

    (Original post by deedee123)
    do you not agree that it is the government who should be improving state education rather than directing all the hate at people who are privately educated and trying to bring them down into the dumps with us?

    apologises if this has already been addressed, couldn't be bothered reading the whole thread

    The problem with that is, private institutions will keep a 'ceiling' on state education by the very nature of their success. It's less about dragging anyone down, more about opening up private schools to people not based on financial backing.

    Let's get some solutions going, and break away from the beating of our heads against eachothers brick walls.

    What if 50% of places at a private school were required to be scholarships based on ability? The rich parents with stupid kids could still get educated, both the poor and rich kids that were deserving could get a better education. It's not ideal but it's better than the current system.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    What if 50% of places at a private school were required to be scholarships based on ability? The rich parents with stupid kids could still get educated, both the poor and rich kids that were deserving could get a better education. It's not ideal but it's better than the current system.
    who would fund the scholarships? would there be a set income boundary for who is eligible for a scholarship? I don't think that would go down well with rich people-it seems like a system that punishes the rich for being rich. I don't know how fair it is to make half pay for nothing and the other half pay thousands for the same education.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Godsake. I can end this debate:

    Get rid of the kind of private school that requires money, not intellect.
    Keep the 'selective' private school that takes in very bright pupils, including some in bad areas with reduced fees and readily available bursaries.

    Simples!
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee123)
    who would fund the scholarships? would there be a set income boundary for who is eligible for a scholarship? I don't think that would go down well with rich people-it seems like a system that punishes the rich for being rich. I don't know how fair it is to make half pay for nothing and the other half pay thousands for the same education.

    But that's the beauty, they have to pay because their kid is less capable. So this way, if you do well in life you can protect your children if they turn out stupid, and if you don't do well in life but have clever kids they're not held back by your finances.

    Both rich and poor kids can apply for the scholarship, and the schools have no access to financial background.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    One thing to be aware of is that all over the country, fee-paying schools are not only under pressure because of the recession, but also from spiralling costs (particularly in things like anti-litigation insurance, the cost of energy, upkeep of buildings and prices of educational supplies) and partly because of the government's expansion of the academy and free schools, which are also incidentally threatening many state schools as well. The coalition are funding these schools by depriving state schools of resources.

    The cost of private education has risen by 75% over the last decade. More places are being filled by students from overseas than in the past - numbers from the UK are declining. Prices are rising and fewer British families can afford it. Day fees rose from an average of £11,208 to £11,709 a year in the last 12 months and average annual boarding fees increased from £25,152 to £26,340.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...fees-hike.html
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hal.E.Lujah)
    But that's the beauty, they have to pay because their kid is less capable. So this way, if you do well in life you can protect your children if they turn out stupid, and if you don't do well in life but have clever kids they're not held back by your finances.

    Read what I said again carefully: Both rich and poor kids can apply for the scholarship, and the schools have no access to financial background.
    So a rich student and a poor student are going for a scholarship place. The rich student has access to study guides, private tuition and support from people who probably have some sort of academic background, paid by their parents. Then you have the poor student with poor resources and possibly not a lot of emotional support at home. Who do you think is more likely to get in? the end result will see the same rich children there, only you've given them it for free-with a few particularly gifted poor children.
    • PS Helper
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee123)
    So a rich student and a poor student are going for a scholarship place. The rich student has access to study guides, private tuition and support from people who probably have some sort of academic background, paid by their parents. Then you have the poor student with poor resources and possibly not a lot of emotional support at home. Who do you think is more likely to get in? the end result will see the same rich children there, only you've given them it for free-with a few particularly gifted poor children.

    You've just described the Oxbridge admissions system beautifully by the way


    But here's the thing, if any of the kids happen to just be plain old smarter than the other kids, and willing to work harder, then they can get in. I'll grant the cultural/emotional support issue is there, but as I said it's definitely better than the current alternative.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Independent schools currently get a tax break, Rather than smashing them I think it'd be better to attempt to make them earn that tax break by providing a benefit to the whole of society by some more creative means... Possibly some sort of return to assisted places.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by deedee123)
    So a rich student and a poor student are going for a scholarship place. The rich student has access to study guides, private tuition and support from people who probably have some sort of academic background, paid by their parents. Then you have the poor student with poor resources and possibly not a lot of emotional support at home. Who do you think is more likely to get in? the end result will see the same rich children there, only you've given them it for free-with a few particularly gifted poor children.
    Our Government has things like gifted and talented schemes in place to help the best of our students. So what if a poor kid cant hire additional help. tough that's life. In Britain's society so many kids take basic education for granted. The Kids that work hard through the educational system usually gets what coming to them.
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?

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.