Do you think we should abolish private schools? Watch

This discussion is closed.
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
#261
Report 5 years ago
#261
Ah, I was beginning to think you'd blocked me after your notable refusal to reply to my last few rebuttals of your arguments.

(Original post by JamesTheCool)
The emphasis shouldn't be placed on the parents though. The children should also have a say on whether or not they want to go to such schools, because believe it or not, they're people too and they might have a completely different mindset.
Do you honestly believe children should not have responsible adults making the big decisions for them?

Can parents not be trusted? Should it be the government instead?

I went to a Roman Catholic primary school, not because my parents and I are religious, but because it was situated in close proximity to our house. It had this vile, bossy sisterhood atmosphere to it, and some of the teachers had very warped, Daily-Mail outlooks on life. I'd say half of my classmates who went there became rebels and drop-outs later on (funnily enough, they tended to have pushier parents). I'm not a cold-blooded atheist but I think religious schools are a bad idea because they are out of date and don't prepare you for the real horrors of the 21st century. Instead they instill a child's head with unnecessary fears and superstitious rubbish.
The argument is not about the merits of faith schools or otherwise, but whether you feel justified pushing your opinions upon others.

Judging by your horror that teachers may read a different paper to you, I suspect I can guess your answer to that.
0
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
#262
Report 5 years ago
#262
(Original post by TheLoveDoctor)
government is the only thing that *does* decide what kids are taught in state schools, or it delegates the authority to do so. who else decides the national curriculum? and who said I advocated promoting certain beliefs? do I need to explain what secularism is? it's an absence of teaching one thing or the other - it leaves that to the parents because surely the parents are the one's who are best suited for teaching kids about such controversial things like this? if you suggest that the government should teach *about* religion, then in my opinion there should be very specific circumstances for this e.g. a class about not only religion but also philosophy and politics where they'd learn *about* them, not that they're true or that they should regard some ideologies (e.g. the 6 "big" religions) over others (especially seeing as there are really only a couple of fundamental political ideologies, e.g. liberalism, conservatism, socialism, anarchism, etc where there aren't a billion variations on them like in religious traditions). that's different to banning ideas though - again, if we didn't teach kids about astronomy would that be banning astronomy? if we didn't teach kids about shintoism or daoism is that banning shinotism and daoism? so basically if you're logic follows our government is banning those ideas in schools?
Free schools and academies, an increasingly large percentage of schools, are not bound by the national curriculum, precisely to free them from the controlling hand of central government, and give parents more power. The national curriculum was a bad idea to begin with.

I didn't say you advocated promoting certain beliefs, I said you find it abhorrent.

The idea that not teaching something is 'banning' it is ludicrous. You surely can see the difference between not wanting to teach something, and therefore not, and wanting to but not being allowed to? Shinto, for example, cannot be said to be banned because if someone wanted to start up a Shinto based school then they could, in the same way Christian and Muslim free schools have been set up. It's just that there is no demand for it. Under what you propose it would be banned, because they could not even in theory.
0
TheLoveDoctor
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#263
Report 5 years ago
#263
(Original post by Rinsed)
The idea that not teaching something is 'banning' it is ludicrous. You surely can see the difference between not wanting to teach something, and therefore not, and wanting to but not being allowed to? Shinto, for example, cannot be said to be banned because if someone wanted to start up a Shinto based school then they could, in the same way Christian and Muslim free schools have been set up. It's just that there is no demand for it. Under what you propose it would be banned, because they could not even in theory.
who said I wanted to ban private religious schools? that's different from a free school which is publicly funded and thus a potential violation to the idea of separation of church and state if they are literally teaching it as fact
0
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
#264
Report 5 years ago
#264
(Original post by TheLoveDoctor)
who said I wanted to ban private religious schools? that's different from a free school which is publicly funded and thus a potential violation to the idea of separation of church and state if they are literally teaching it as fact
Well I hadn't thought I had, I was talking about state schools the entire time. I had thought that clear.
0
JamesTheCool
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#265
Report 5 years ago
#265
(Original post by Rinsed)
Ah, I was beginning to think you'd blocked me after your notable refusal to reply to my last few rebuttals of your arguments.
I think we left off at a point where we were commenting in between each others quotes. Having to copy and paste those parentheses several times is too much effort for my liking - but that was before I discovered the helpful button at the top.

Do you honestly believe children should not have responsible adults making the big decisions for them?
To be really honest, I don't even care.

Can parents not be trusted? Should it be the government instead?
Not all parents are good people. But again, I don't really care because who wants kids anyway?

The argument is not about the merits of faith schools or otherwise, but whether you feel justified pushing your opinions upon others.
Not religious opinions, because religion can really mess with your head and make you feel limited and imprisoned in a world that can otherwise be a lot of fun.

Judging by your horror that teachers may read a different paper to you, I suspect I can guess your answer to that.
But this is the Daily Mail I'm talking about!

I'm feeling numb and fatigued atm so sorry for the ungh-ish responses.
0
PhysicsKid
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#266
Report 5 years ago
#266
Yeah, if we can have a grammar school in every town/village etc based purely on academic merit (without the 11+ of course).
0
Boromir
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#267
Report 5 years ago
#267
You don't disqualify the winner of a race in order to be fair to those lagging behind.

A rational person would ask the winner how he did so well and take it on board.

We live in a free world. If I can afford to get my children the best education, I'm not going to let some screeching Marxist deter me. You can stick your 'society' up your arse; it isn't at all my concern if other people can't afford it and it certainly isn't my duty to hold myself back for the sake of people I've never even met.

I went to a bad comprehensive. It's pretty sadistic to force everyone to go through that.
0
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
#268
Report 5 years ago
#268
(Original post by JamesTheCool)
But this is the Daily Mail I'm talking about!
I would do you the charity of assuming this was a joke, but having read some of your other posts I just don't think it is.

You'd bar people from public sector jobs because of the publications they read and opinions they hold? What is this, China? Or Mussolini's Italy?

Your views are hideous. But unlike you, I don't think disagreeing with me (or even really, really disagreeing with me) should be a thoughtcrime.
0
JamesTheCool
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#269
Report 5 years ago
#269
(Original post by Rinsed)
I would do you the charity of assuming this was a joke, but having read some of your other posts I just don't think it is.
If we can put your patronising tone to the side, it was not a joke. The Daily Mail is an absolutely vile newspaper. Seriously, wtf?! I thought this was common knowledge! :eek:

(Original post by Rinsed)
Your views are hideous. But unlike you, I don't think disagreeing with me (or even really, really disagreeing with me) should be a thoughtcrime.
So many bootlickers on this thread. How you've managed to adopt such a conservative mentality, given that you probably come from an even poorer background than me, is one of the mysteries of the universe. No wait, I think I have a possible answer to this. Perhaps growing up, you were bullied by the scum around you, and now you feel at home with your own, true kind at Oxford, nice and tucked away from all the riff raff.

Striving for equality and fairness is hideous? Okay. How is wanting to make education less biased towards a child's unchosen financial situation hideous? I've looked at your previous comments and the fact that you enthusiastically prioritise so-called 'productivity' over equality says it all. Yes, privately educated people are more desirable in a practical sense, but that shouldn't override us from acknowledging the criminality of the starkly unfair advantages they had. You seem to have an extremely cold view and absolutely no regard for the psychological impact of the little people who continue to be hurt and downtrodden as a result. You're just a typical Tory. To make things worse, you're a working class Tory (the worst kind of Tory).

Believe it or not, I used to be just like you.
0
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
#270
Report 5 years ago
#270
(Original post by JamesTheCool)
If we can put your patronising tone to the side, it was not a joke. The Daily Mail is an absolutely vile newspaper. Seriously, wtf?! I thought this was common knowledge! :eek:

So many bootlickers on this thread. How you've managed to adopt such a conservative mentality, given that you probably come from an even poorer background than me, is one of the mysteries of the universe. No wait, I think I have a possible answer to this. Perhaps growing up, you were bullied by the scum around you, and now you feel at home with your own, true kind at Oxford, nice and tucked away from all the riff raff.

Striving for equality and fairness is hideous? Okay. How is wanting to make education less biased towards a child's unchosen financial situation is hideous?

What I can't stand is that it's always that same 7% of people who are at the top of every sphere of influence. That fact that you favour productivity over equality says it all. You have an extremely cold view and absolutely no regard for the psychological impact of the little people who continue to be downtrodden. You're a typical Tory.

Believe it or not, I used to be just like you.
We're back to the same rational I called you out for using before. You are infallible, if someone disagrees with you there must be something wrong with them.

The opinion that I specifically called hideous is an excellent example of this. I don't actually believe opposing private schools is hideous, because I do not believe everyone who disagrees with me is a bad person. It was your views on Daily Mail readership as a thoughtcrime that specifically exercised me. Yes, you feel the Daily Mail is vile. Many people agree with you, but so what? A lot of people do not agree. It is a fundamental principle of a free country that you are free to hold whatever opinions you wish. You cannot simply come out and say 'my opinion is the right one, dissenting opinions are vile and can therefore be fairly penalised', because it assumes an infallibility I really do not think you can claim. Incidentally this is the logic of every despot ever.

Then you think that because of my political views something must have gone awry in my upbringing. Can you not conceive that someone may honestly disagree with you, without there being some defect in their being?

I don't actually think I'm cold and heartless. I also don't think you can make these judgements based on someone's political stripes, but if I did it would be easy to turn your logic on its head. It was Thatcher who said of socialists' fetishism of equality that 'they would rather the poor be poorer, so long as the rich were less rich'. That doesn't sound like a particularly warm and fluffy view to me, but then this is where that entire thing about people naturally taking a range of different opinions comes in.
0
JamesTheCool
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#271
Report 5 years ago
#271
(Original post by Rinsed)
We're back to the same rational I called you out for using before. You are infallible, if someone disagrees with you there must be something wrong with them.
Look, I stick to my opinions. Otherwise, what's the point in having one? I'm a painfully shy person in real life, but the whole point of having an opinion is that it's your own. Why on earth would I try to agree with another point of view if I fundamentally disagree with it? Also, I don't think there's something wrong with people who don't agree with me. I never said that, so don't twist my words. I just happen to genuinely, fundamentally disagree with you, and I'm also a little shocked by how many conservative-minded people there in my generation, especially in this day and age. Did the whole 70s punk revolution show us nothing? Are we going back to the way things were in the 50s?

I don't think all Tories are bad, but there's definitely a prevalence of conservative people who are selfish. After all, that's more or less what the philosophy of right-wing politics is founded on. The 'it's my money and I can do what I want with it' mentality is utterly childish. Social mobility in Britain is terrible and many parents who've 'earned' their huge sums of money usually did so through their own unfair advantages in the first place.

I'd define myself as a lefty, yet there are aspects of conservatism I agree with too. But I'd rather speed up actual political progression and ignite some kind of second renaissance, rather than waste time pampering to the needs of conservative, counter-progressive thinkers, who are terrified that a little bit change for the greater good might put their already-comfortable little lives at risk.

(Original post by Rinsed)
The opinion that I specifically called hideous is an excellent example of this. I don't actually believe opposing private schools is hideous, because I do not believe everyone who disagrees with me is a bad person. It was your views on Daily Mail readership as a thoughtcrime that specifically exercised me. Yes, you feel the Daily Mail is vile. Many people agree with you, but so what? A lot of people do not agree. It is a fundamental principle of a free country that you are free to hold whatever opinions you wish. You cannot simply come out and say 'my opinion is the right one, dissenting opinions are vile and can therefore be fairly penalised', because it assumes an infallibility I really do not think you can claim. Incidentally this is the logic of every despot ever.
At the risk of being subjected to further patronising remarks, I get the gist of what you're saying but remember, not all of us are Oxford-educated or philosophy-literate. Beneath the pretentious unreadability of what you seem to be saying, it seems like another crybaby excuse to make me look like a terrible person. You attempt to decimate me with your self-righteousness by saying that although you disagree, you tolerate my point of view - because if you didn't, that would make you seem equally as bad as me. It's clever stuff but I can see through it...

(Original post by Rinsed)
Then you think that because of my political views something must have gone awry in my upbringing. Can you not conceive that someone may honestly disagree with you, without there being some defect in their being?
It was just a guess, based on what you've said previously about your background. I never said 'this is what you are, hence...'; I said 'I reckon this is what happened, hence...'. But if what I theorised about you isn't the case then how come you're not denying it? If it is the case though, I'll admit this: it takes one to know one, and I used to be just like you. That's why I thought I'd make a guess and diagnose you.

No. I can conceive that someone may honestly disagree with me without there being some defect in their being. When did I say that just because I disagree with someone means that I think there's a defect in their being? I think it's more the case that you're distraught that you're having an argument with somebody on TSR who isn't pro-establishment, who may actually have a point.

(Original post by Rinsed)
I don't actually think I'm cold and heartless. I also don't think you can make these judgements based on someone's political stripes, but if I did it would be easy to turn your logic on its head. It was Thatcher who said of socialists' fetishism of equality that 'they would rather the poor be poorer, so long as the rich were less rich'. That doesn't sound like a particularly warm and fluffy view to me, but then this is where that entire thing about people naturally taking a range of different opinions comes in.
Saying 'actually' like that suggests that you can see why other people would. The conservatives have a horrible reputation. I'm sorry but many people who vote conservative really do only care about themselves, so don't let your 'range of different opinions' argument try to disguise that. 'Hey let's decrease taxes for the rich that could otherwise benefit the needy. Let's increase privatisation and cuts so we can piss even more people off and destroy their incentives (and their souls). As always, let's inflict the worst case scenario on everybody else for the supposed benefit of the country - obviously that should come first; not the people.'

Personally I wish it wasn't as black and white as this, but quite often it is. The bottom line is that people like you are greedy and selfish.

EDIT: For the record, I don't have a problem with people solely for being rich. It's the general attitude and mentality that I can't stand.
0
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
#272
Report 5 years ago
#272
(Original post by JamesTheCool)
Look, I stick to my opinions. Otherwise, what's the point in having one? I'm a painfully shy person in real life, but the whole point of having an opinion is that it's your own. Why on earth would I try to agree with another point of view if I fundamentally disagree with it? Also, I don't think there's something wrong with people who don't agree with me. I never said that, so don't twist my words. I just genuinely, fundamentally disagree with you, and I'm a little astounded by how many conservative-minded people there still are in this day and age. I don't think all Tories are bad, but there's definitely a prevalence of conservative people who are selfish. After all, that's essentially what the whole philosophy is founded on. The 'it's my money and I can do what I want with it' mentality is utterly childish. Social mobility in Britain is terrible and many parents who've 'earned' their huge sums of money usually did so through their own unfair advantages in the first place.

I'd define myself as a lefty, yet there are aspects of conservatism I agree with too. But I'd rather speed up actual political progression and ignite some kind of second renaissance, rather than waste time pampering to the needs of conservative, counter-progressive thinkers, who are terrified that a little bit change for the greater good might put their already-comfortable little lives at risk.

At the risk of being subjected to further patronising remarks, I get the gist of what you're saying but remember, not all of us are Oxford-educated or philosophy-literate. Beneath the pretentious unreadability of what you're saying, it seems like another crybaby excuse to make me look like a terrible person. You attempt to decimate me with your self-righteousness by saying that although you disagree, you tolerate my point of view - because if you didn't, that would make you seem equally as bad as me. It's clever stuff but I can see through it...

It was just a guess, based on what you've said previously about your background. I never said 'this is what you are, hence...'; I said 'I reckon this is what happened, hence...'. But if what I theorised about you isn't the case then how come you're not denying it? If it is the case though, I'll admit this, it takes one to know one, and I used to be just like you. That's why I thought I'd make a guess and diagnose you.

No. I can conceive that someone may honestly disagree with me without there being some defect in their being. When did I say that just because I disagree with someone means that I think there's a defect in their being? I think it's more the case that you're distraught that you're having an argument with somebody on TSR who isn't pro-establishment, who may actually have a point.

Saying 'actually' like that suggests that you can see why other people would. The conservatives have a horrible reputation. I'm sorry but many people who vote conservative really do only care about themselves, don't let your 'range of different opinions' argument try to disguise that. 'Hey let's decrease taxes for the rich that could otherwise benefit the needy. Let's increase privatisation and cuts so we can piss even more people off and destroy their incentives (and their souls). As always, let's inflict the worst case scenario on everybody else for the supposed benefit of the country - obviously that should come first; not the people.'

Personally I wish it wasn't as black and white as this, but quite often it is...

EDIT: For the record, I don't have a problem with people solely for being rich. It's the general attitude and mentality that I can't stand.
Look, for me our debate about private schools finished long ago. You have no points worth further discussion. By your own admission the main reason you despise private schools so much is because some private school pupils were mean to you at university. The reason this discussion has carried on is because I was a bit shocked by some of your other views.

I don't want to patronise you, but given you feel me basing my opinions in logic and reason rather than uncontrolled emotion is trying to trick you it's been difficult not to.

It goes without saying that we all believe our opinions to be correct, and our opponents to be wrong. It is something else to refuse to even consider the possibility that you might be mistaken. When you judge people's character based on the opinions they hold that is what you are doing, and unfortunately this is something you have done repeatedly*. No one, not even the state (especially not the state), can say definitely which opinions are right and wrong, which is why liberal countries value freedom of speech so highly. To put it mildly this is not a principle you have shown much regard for.

*There are many others, but here is one example from this most recent post: "I'm a little astounded by how many conservative-minded people there still are in this day and age"

To you, that conservatism is wrong is an objective truth. That, as we become more educated and society progresses, people still persist in such backwards beliefs genuinely baffles you. If I told you that I care about people, and that the reason I believe in economic liberalism is because I believe it is best for all mankind, would you believe me?
0
SciFiRory
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#273
Report 5 years ago
#273
yes, two main reasons:

1) they enable an unequal system whereby the rich can pay for better education in terms of teachers these schools attract and also in terms of the funding per pupil and for the schools.

2) we should instead invest in our education system so ALL schools are as good as some of the best private schools, so more per pupil funding, better teachers and better funding for schools in general.

as an additional point removing private schools also gives the parents of more wealthy children more incentive to push for the changes in point 2 as well.
0
JaiiStarh
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#274
Report 5 years ago
#274
(Original post by Mackay)
This.

I live in Bedfordshire where there is quite a big private-school culture, but the state school I attended got better results than all of them for GCSE and A-Levels.
Interestingly I've noticed in Bedfordshire, because there are so many private schools, the state schools are forced to work harder and achieve better results because of the competition of so many private schools.
0
JamesTheCool
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#275
Report 5 years ago
#275
(Original post by Rinsed)
Look, for me our debate about private schools finished long ago. You have no points worth further discussion. By your own admission the main reason you despise private schools so much is because some private school pupils were mean to you at university. The reason this discussion has carried on is because I was a bit shocked by some of your other views.
That wasn't fully true. That was intended as a dark joke. I'll admit that was inappropriate, illogical, inside humour (one of many side effects and diseases that I picked up on at my free school), but for you it was a great opportunity to call me a prick, wasn't it? For the record though, I would like to see the smiles wiped off their smug faces (well, one of them - the one who bullied me) and so what? I think it's a natural reaction after the trauma I went through.

But that's not my main reason for despising private schools so much. The difference between private schools and state comprehensives is so stark that it's absolutely criminal. I went to a 'good' state school and not even the brainiest of my peers can be compared to my privately educated acquaintances. Meeting such people for the first time was an overwhelming mind-f**k, and to be honest I'm still not over it. That is something I can't and won't deny. But the main reason I hate private schools so much is because they've maintained and continue to maintain class divide. They thin social-mobility to a bone and help render unprivileged people powerless, which I find incredibly soul-destroying. The fact that there's a privately educated dominance at the top of every sphere - not just at the best universities, but in every highly regarded profession - leads many people into believing that despite the innate abilities or talents they may or may not have, ultimately the school they went to defines them, and because of this, they have no control over their lives - and horribly, that's very much the case. The poor have almost no control over the fact that their lives will probably amount to nothing, just as the rich have no control over the fact that their lives will probably be successful. Private schools keep that reality fixed, and to me, having no control over your life takes out the purpose of living. That's why I hate them. They also create a 'rich worship' mentality (particularly among girls). In fact they breed snobbery. They brainwash people into thinking that being born rich is more important than actually being smart and/or talented, which is completely stupid because money does not alter you as a being. It's no wonder that so many working class people are bitter and angry. Frankly, they have a right to be. I worked my way up into a Russell Group university despite going to a free school, but I was in the minority. My future looks brighter now but I understand their frustration. I've experienced it myself, I still experience it (moreso now that I'm at a university where I don't fit in) and I am not going to dis-acknowledge it.

What other points of mine do you disagree with? What's wrong, are they not square enough for you?

(Original post by Rinsed)
I don't want to patronise you, but given you feel me basing my opinions in logic and reason rather than uncontrolled emotion is trying to trick you it's been difficult not to.
How do you expect me to feel?! As I've explained countless times, the education system in Britain is a class-based joke. There are times when we need to give logical, systematic thinking a rest and really consider things without labeling them as naked facts for the convenience of you winning an argument. This is TSR, not a newspaper. This thread is supposed to be opinionated and opinions come from emotion.

(Original post by Rinsed)
It goes without saying that we all believe our opinions to be correct, and our opponents to be wrong. It is something else to refuse to even consider the possibility that you might be mistaken. When you judge people's character based on the opinions they hold that is what you are doing, and unfortunately this is something you have done repeatedly*. No one, not even the state (especially not the state), can say definitely which opinions are right and wrong, which is why liberal countries value freedom of speech so highly. To put it mildly this is not a principle you have shown much regard for.
Right now, I'm not going to pretend tolerance for people who I fundamentally disagree with just because I live in a country that values freedom of speech. That is not my responsibility and it isn't relevant on the interent. But if, presumably, freedom of speech gives everyone the right to say what they like, no matter how disagreeable you may think their views are, why then are you complaining about something you support which also gives me the right to freely express myself?

Right, so by that logic you tolerate the existence of the BNP then?

(Original post by Rinsed)
*There are many others, but here is one example from this most recent post: "I'm a little astounded by how many conservative-minded people there still are in this day and age"
To be more precise, I'm shocked by how many people in my age group seem to be conservative. It certainly didn't sound like that in my parent's day. I blame the internet in general for making my generation politically indifferent and unobservant of the political injustices that are still going on. Instead, the majority of young people who are interested in politics today are those from well-educated, affluent backgrounds who are more likely to have a conservative point of view, and of course they're never wrong...

(Original post by Rinsed)
To you, that conservatism is wrong is an objective truth. That, as we become more educated and society progresses, people still persist in such backwards beliefs genuinely baffles you. If I told you that I care about people, and that the reason I believe in economic liberalism is because I believe it is best for all mankind, would you believe me?
No, because money isn't absolutely everything. I realised this long ago. People shouldn't be so materialistic and there should be a limit to how much money a person can have (by this I mean people who have far too much money). How on earth you can argue that 0.1% of the population owning 80% of the wealth is fair is beyond me.
0
TimmonaPortella
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#276
Report 5 years ago
#276
(Original post by ckingalt)
If I could afford to send my kids to private school and private schools were abolished by the state. I would seriously consider sending my child to an elite boarding school abroad. Regardless, I am going to find a way to use my wealth to give my children an advantage. After all, there is nothing more important to spend my money on.

The way to seek equality without becoming a tyrant is to attempt to improve opportunity, not diminish privilege.
This is an excellent post.

IHMO a state that tells people that they can't pay people to educate their children is going way beyond any proper function of government anyway.

(Original post by SciFiRory)
2) we should instead invest in our education system so ALL schools are as good as some of the best private schools, so more per pupil funding, better teachers and better funding for schools in general.
Yes, that's definitely going to happen; we could do it with all the spare money the treasury has just lying around.

I'm sure there's enough in there to pay for the added cost of educating all the extra pupils you've forced into the state system, too.
0
SciFiRory
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#277
Report 5 years ago
#277
(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Yes, that's definitely going to happen; we could do it with all the spare money the treasury has just lying around.

I'm sure there's enough in there to pay for the added cost of educating all the extra pupils you've forced into the state system, too.
we could actually sarky scum****, we could also raise taxes on people and corporations who can afford to pay more and crack down on tax avoidance, this would bring in more than enough to fund tons of things, education included.

there would be yes, and we could actually build new schools where they are needed rather than just letting rich tossers open "free schools" in places that don't need them.
0
Boromir
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#278
Report 5 years ago
#278
(Original post by SciFiRory)
yes, two main reasons:

1) they enable an unequal system whereby the rich can pay for better education in terms of teachers these schools attract and also in terms of the funding per pupil and for the schools.

2) we should instead invest in our education system so ALL schools are as good as some of the best private schools, so more per pupil funding, better teachers and better funding for schools in general.

as an additional point removing private schools also gives the parents of more wealthy children more incentive to push for the changes in point 2 as well.
1) You're quite the little Stalin aren't you? Who gave you the right over other people's children?

2) We already invest a lot in state education and they aren't a scratch on private schools. What makes you think banning the decent schools will suddenly make the average ones better?

Were you bullied as a child?
0
SciFiRory
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#279
Report 5 years ago
#279
(Original post by Boromir)
1) You're quite the little Stalin aren't you? Who gave you the right over other people's children?

2) We already invest a lot in state education and they aren't a scratch on private schools. What makes you think banning the decent schools will suddenly make the average ones better?

Were you bullied as a child?
1) :lol: I don't answer stupid questions.

2) tosh, many are arguably better than private schools, but there's always room for improvement it removes inequality within the system thus incentivising the improvement of all schools rather than people just going to the best ones or the ones they think are best at the expense of all other schools.

3) I don't really see the relevance of your question and frankly it is none of your business.

4) as we are asking stupid questions, why don't I ask you one, did you bully people as a child or are your puny attempts to intimidate people on TSR a new development to your personality?
0
ricraz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#280
Report 5 years ago
#280
Abolishing private schools means that suddenly, the government has to pay for the education of an extra few hundred thousand students, when their budgets are already stretched. That means less money per student, and worse education for everyone.
0
X
new posts
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

Are cats selfish

Yes (70)
57.38%
No (52)
42.62%

Watched Threads

View All