Do you think we should abolish private schools? Watch

This discussion is closed.
Boromir
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#281
Report 5 years ago
#281
(Original post by SciFiRory)
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?
1) It's not a silly question. You do not have the right to tell people what to do with their children, hence you couldn't answer.

2) How about state schools try and emulate what the successful private schools do? You don't shoot the winner of a race so 2nd, 3rd and 4th feel better. 2nd, 3rd and 4th should ask 1st why he is doing so well and copy it. You would rather have equal mediocrity than unequal excellence. That is, to put it bluntly, stupid. Typical socialist logic.

3) You felt hard done by, and now exact your anger on other people, socialist style.

4) No I didn't. I'm not intimidating anyone, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous they are.
0
SciFiRory
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#282
Report 5 years ago
#282
(Original post by Boromir)
1) It's not a silly question. You do not have the right to tell people what to do with their children, hence you couldn't answer.

2) How about state schools try and emulate what the successful private schools do? You don't shoot the winner of a race so 2nd, 3rd and 4th feel better. 2nd, 3rd and 4th should ask 1st why he is doing so well and copy it. You would rather have equal mediocrity than unequal excellence. That is, to put it bluntly, stupid. Typical socialist logic.

3) You felt hard done by, and now exact your anger on other people, socialist style.

4) No I didn't. I'm not intimidating anyone, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous they are.
1) I'm not...all it does is mean they can't pay their way out of the same education everyone else gets.

2) well that's sort of what I am arguing, that where they do good things we should invest in state schools so they can do the same, rather than your hillbilly idea that I want to make everyone worse off I am actually suggesting making everyone better off, though I doubt someone as small minded as yourself can grasp such a concept without your head exploding in the process.

3) lol, what are you even on about? just making things up?

4) no, you aren't, that's my point, you think you are but you really aren't, people like you really are pathetic, you would make a great politician with your pig headed attitudes.
1
TheLoveDoctor
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#283
Report 5 years ago
#283
(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.
if your aim is to create an equal system you'll have to do a lot more than ban the voluntary enterprise of education services outside of the government - what about the rich people that can afford more books and after school tuition? are you going to ban rich people from letting their kids get taught after hours? are you going to force all students to only be allowed a certain number of books? or will you increase taxes to fund a "free books for all kids" policy? I'm scared to think how much *that* will cost. and I suppose these days web-libraries are the modern day equivalent, but surely that will cost *even more* money and again who will pay for it and why? do tax payers really have an interest to do all of this? are private schools really that offensive to state education? is that to imply private schools are better run? if that's the case, the free market is best suited for teaching people, whether there's inequality or not

(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.
who is to pay for all of that? santa clause? there's probably not enough money in the country to fund a project like that, unless you taxed everybody (not just the rich) impossibly high taxes or created a deficit bigger than any deficit before (and during these times, people don't tend to like debt); and surely if you make a state monopoly for education then, without competition, these schools will have no incentive to improve quality when they'll have no scrutiny from the market like the situation today

(Original post by SciFiRory)
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.
...or they could just stick to the private schools and *not* waste money like any intelligent person would. why would they push for wasting their money? that's being hopeful. if they're getting the same education as everybody else in the country, why would you think they'd want to have these schools to have better services when it actually doesn't even matter seeing as all the kids will get it and thus it won't make their kids any more successful than the rest, which is the idea of private schools? and again, if they needed extra help they'd get after school tuition anyway seeing as if you have better services e.g. more teachers and more/smaller classes, and perhaps even more hours, then the cost for that in terms of taxes won't be proportionate for them if literally everybody else is getting it too. oh silly me, I'm assuming you care about their interests to not have their money forcibly wasted like that [/QUOTE]
0
MindTheGaps
Badges: 17
#284
Report 5 years ago
#284
(Original post by JamesTheCool)
That wasn't fully true. That was intended as a dark joke. I'll admit it was inappropriate, inside humour (one of many side effects and diseases I picked up on at my free school), but for you it was a great opportunity to call me a prick. 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.
I understand that urge, or course. I'm not convinced it is appropriate of fair however to direct your ire towards the system that educated them. Most of the privately educated people I have met have been perfectly nice people. Yea there are a few knobs, but God knows there are plenty of horrible *******s who come out of the state sector, they're just less likely to go to university.

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 were anything like my privately educated acquaintances. Meeting privately educated people for the first time was such a mind-f**k and to be honest, I'm still not over it. 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 is incredibly soul-destroying. They also create a 'rich worship' mentality, particularly among girls. In fact they breed snobbery and make others feel worthless. They also brainwash people into thinking that being born rich is more desirable than being born smart or talented, which is completely stupid because money does not alter you as a being. It's no wonder so many working class people are bitter and angry. Frankly, they have a right to be.
This was not my experience of going to university and meeting privately educated people. Maybe because I live in a relatively middle-class area the culture shock was less. They did tend to be a bit socially exclusive, but that was the worst of it. Your generalisations are hysterical and, even so, 'I don't like rich people' is not a particularly grown-up way to forge political opinions.

The class divide is more deeply ingrained than private education anyway. State-educated middle-class children do significantly better than working class children. Abolishing private schools would not change this in the slightest.

What are the other points you disagree with? What's wrong, are they not square enough for you?
Mostly the callous disregard for what I would describe as civil liberties. But whatever, if that's what you need to do to be a rebel these days. I'm not as pro-establishment as you assume, anyway, but neither am I averse to defending the parts of it I have no problem with.

How do you expect me to feel?! As I've explained countless times, the education system in Britain is a class-based joke.
Ok, I know, I just think it would help you to argue your point better if you came across as a little less emotional and a little more rational.

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 me the right to say what I like, no matter how disgusting you think it is, why are you complaining if you support it?

Right, so by that logic you tolerate the existence of the BNP then?
Yes, is it that hard for you to understand?

I disagree with their views, but then I strongly disagree with yours as well. I would not like to see them censored however any more than I would like to see you censored. That does not mean, if you espouse an opinion contrary to freedom of speech, I will not actively disagree.

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 injustices that are 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.
I mean, Thatcher won three elections, then Major another, so they can't have been *that* unpopular before you were born. Do you live in the north, or Scotland? I know people from some parts of the country who had never met a conservative before they went to university. But in most of the south east, including where I live, they could put a dog up for election and win.

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.
On the other hand, the top 1% of earners pay a third of all income tax, and with their wealth they facilitate trade and business that supports the employment of a significant portion of the country. A more equal society would be a poorer one. You say money isn't everything, but a poorer society would be one where people would get worse healthcare, live less long, be less able to afford a generous welfare state or universal education, and so on. It is not a coincidence that the countries in which the poorest in society are richest, healthiest and most secure are generally the least equal.
2
JamesTheCool
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#285
Report 5 years ago
#285
(Original post by Rinsed)
I understand that urge, or course. I'm not convinced it is appropriate of fair however to direct your ire towards the system that educated them. Most of the privately educated people I have met have been perfectly nice people. Yea there are a few knobs, but God knows there are plenty of horrible *******s who come out of the state sector, they're just less likely to go to university.
But we've got to stop people who are pricks from being well-educated. Being a prick and being privately educated is the worst possible combination of human.

This was not my experience of going to university and meeting privately educated people. Maybe because I live in a relatively middle-class area the culture shock was less. They did tend to be a bit socially exclusive, but that was the worst of it. Your generalisations are hysterical and, even so, 'I don't like rich people' is not a particularly grown-up way to forge political opinions.
I live in a relatively middle-class area too (for some reason I thought you said you came from a deprived background). My parents aren't terribly middle-class though and we're not the most functional/orderly/neatest of households, but my grandparents are pretty well-off, so they'd nicely fit into the middle-class category. I'd say personality-wise my parents are middle-class in that they're into 'culture', went to grammar schools and are univeristy-educated, but they're also quite frugal since they don't make typical middle-class earnings (although they were smart enough to have only one kid so we manage absolutely fine). I live near a small town where there's a pretty noticeable polarity of snobs and chavs, but I fit into neither group. I'd like to think of myself as 'classless', but at the same time I'd consider myself a rah in an aspiration sense (but not so much anymore now that I'm at a university with real rahs). I often find myself mingling with people who come from $hitholes though, or those who act like they do so they can get into the drug scene.

Actually, my mum's side of the family is mainly aristocratic (well, before they lost a heck of a lot of money due to bureaucracy), so I have some upper-class roots in my family tree. Thing is, I don't hate rich people, I just don't like the snobbery that comes with it, which I don't think is uncommon (I think this is more common in people who are born rich and less common in people who become rich). One of my best friends went to a prep school and became a communist. Like most genuinely decent people who would've been in his situation, I'm guessing he was shocked by the unfair difference between private and state education.

The class divide is more deeply ingrained than private education anyway. State-educated middle-class children do significantly better than working class children. Abolishing private schools would not change this in the slightest.
That's because life for working-class children is pretty depressing, and for that reason it's much harder to motivate yourself. You also have to side with pricks and act stupid in order to be accepted sometimes. Pretty much all the 'clever' children in my year group from school lived in big houses. Although I remember there was one rich kid in my year who 'struggled', so his parents later sent him to a private school.

I mean, Thatcher won three elections, then Major another, so they can't have been *that* unpopular before you were born. Do you live in the north, or Scotland? I know people from some parts of the country who had never met a conservative before they went to university. But in most of the south east, including where I live, they could put a dog up for election and win.
Yes but a lot of people were very square in the 70s too. I don't think this was the case so much with young people though. My grandparents (who were square, apparently) supported Thatcher and both my parents (who weren't square) hated her. They were badly affected by her, as was their entire generation at the time (similar to the current young generation suffering under the tuition fees increase.)

Funnily enough, I live in Oxfordshire. I grew up in suburbs on the outskirts of Oxford which were mainly inhabited by ordinary, lower-middle class people (near Barton, if you know that? Don't go there - it's the anus of Oxford). So in other words, I'm a poor person from a posh area, relatively speaking. I'm posh-voiced though, and people mistake me for being posh, and sometimes even take the piss out of me for it. So I understand what it's like to have inverse snobbery inflicted on you, but I also understand why people do it.
0
username207685
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#286
Report 5 years ago
#286
(Original post by Boromir)
2) How about state schools try and emulate what the successful private schools do?
Have massive budgets and be extremely selective about who they let in? Neither is possible in a system that has to educate everyone with public money. Those are the main reasons private schools ever get better results than state schools - evidenced by the fact that state school students outperform private school students with the same A-Level grades when they get to university.

You would rather have equal mediocrity than unequal excellence. That is, to put it bluntly, stupid. Typical socialist logic
What percentage of the country is privately educated? 6%? I think we'd be alright.

The only way to get politicians to care about public services is to force legislators, the rich, and their associated lobbyists to use them. The speed and force with which money and support would flow into the NHS and education if the rich and powerful couldn't pay their way into the private sector would make your head spin.
1
InArduisFouette
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#287
Report 5 years ago
#287
(Original post by ChemistryChic)
I think we should.
We're in a country where education is supposed to be free. Why do people pay for private education? Are people are paying because they don't believe the level of free education is of a good enough standard?
If so then we need to make public education of a higher standard, otherwise it will create a greater class divide in this country (which is already split pretty clearly into "rich" and "poor" by the recession).


Posted from TSR Mobile
supposed to be free ?

state education is 'free at the point of delivery' ...

The academy system and free schools have challenged the monopoloy of council schools , as GM did before Bliar , despite his 'educashun, educashun, educashun' promises promptly removed GM status and closed the APS and put schools back under the control of dead hand of local councils. Academies is just a re-hash of GM .

Arguably the fairest system would be a voucher system to stop the aspect of 'paying twice' and would provide greater choice as more people would be able to choose if the cost to change was just the marginal cost instead of the whole cost of the not on the state -funded list ( this was in part the way the APS worked and how CEA Works for service Families ) .
0
JamesTheCool
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#288
Report 5 years ago
#288
(Original post by Sheldor)
Sure, but surely just the state schools in the affluent areas they live in?
Not necessarily. Some rich people would still be 'hurt' because not all rich people live in affluent areas, just like not all poor people live in dumps. Isn't that why people send their kids to private schools in the first place - because their local state comps are terrible and they can afford it? Or is it so their kids will 'mingle with the right crowd'?
0
Zenomorph
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#289
Report 5 years ago
#289
Abolish ? hah private schools should be allowed to part buy into state schools and help improve them
0
allezhop
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#290
Report 5 years ago
#290
I fervently believe they should be abolished because...

1. They reinforce class divisions, keeping the rich, rich and the poor, poor. Abolishing them would not rid Britain of the divisions entirely but it would be a start.

2. Abolishing them would allow us to focus on improving state education - a good education for ALL. This would mean not only an equal starting platform for all children, but also perhaps more exciting opportunities for current state-school kids (I always wanted to do classics!)

3. Socially, we would be better without them. Mix all the kids up! Don't segregate the boater-wearing, wealthier ones from the rougher, gobbier ones. Children need to socialise with other children. Let them!!

4. Ditto, the same sex aspect of them. It'sthe 21st effing century. Girls don't need protecting from boys, they need to get into arguments with them and beat them in maths tests. That's what school's about. What ar schools if not preparation for the real world?

5. 'tradition' argument = bull****. Things change, things develop. It used to be cool to stone your wife.. It is no longer cool. Same goes for private schools - NO LONGER COOL.

I could go on.

They need to go.

Finland abolished them ages ago and they have the best education system around.
1
JamesTheCool
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#291
Report 5 years ago
#291
Banning private schools won't completely eradicate the social class system, but at least it would bring up the motivation of everyone else; leveling the playing field means more people will believe that they stand a chance of getting reasonably far in life. When you have a dominance of privately educated people in the best universities and the best careers, the majority of state educated people assume that their future has automatic constraints because of the school they go to, which they have barely any choice over. This doesn't have to be the case, but usually this is very much the case and I think it's cruel that people are essentially rid from control. I'm not deliberately trying to hurt the rich but I think academic success should be a reflection of a person's actual intelligence and non-class-influenced merit. Education shouldn't be a struggling battle between the rich and the poor, it should be a way of filtering out the smart and ambitious from the not-so-smart and indifferent. Bringing kids who are rich and dumb and/or lazy down (who don't deserve the success that their rich and smart contemporaries do) and bringing kids who are poor and clever and/or ambitious up (who don't deserve the failure that their poor and dumb contemporaries do) is what we should be striving for. And please don't try to tell me that rich people are more intelligent. I've met enough rich, 'educated' kids at university who are as deep as a paddling pool to prove such elitist pseudo-science wrong.

To eradicate the class system and give poor children a chance, we need to change the way people think. As we grow up, we tend to gravitate towards people in mutual circumstances, and most of us become brainwashed by the people in our environment such as our parents and friends. Unless you go to university and unlearn all the crap, your mindset is pretty much set in stone. We need to get rid of certain intolerable ways of thinking, such as the typical working class 'I may not have your fancy qualifications' self-destructive, self-defeating jealousy, and the typical upper class 'my opinion is more valid than yours' self-righteous pomposity.
0
Kazzyv
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#292
Report 5 years ago
#292
What about abolishing private schools but bringing back grammar schools so the brightest kids from rich and poor are given an elite education. This system did more to encourage working class children to expand their horizons than the current system. A meritocracy ? Then stop university fees and give everyone grants for higher education ?

Welcome to the 1960's !
0
Sheldor
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#293
Report 5 years ago
#293
(Original post by JamesTheCool)
Not necessarily. Some rich people would still be 'hurt' because not all rich people live in affluent areas, just like not all poor people live in dumps. Isn't that why people send their kids to private schools in the first place - because their local state comps are terrible and they can afford it? Or is it so their kids will 'mingle with the right crowd'?
As someone who knows parents who've done this...they will be perfectly willing to move house to be in the catchment area of a good state school is private is not an option.

"mingle with the right crowd" seems a fair enough reason when the state school you've been given is the worst in the area with regular reports of violence. Pretty much any parent wouldn't want their child to go somewhere like that, but some parents just have more opportunities to prevent it.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
gustavus
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#294
Report 5 years ago
#294
(Original post by ricraz)
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.
The numbers are tiny!

THE best reason to abolish them is that the state schools system would dramatically improve.

There is something COMPLETELY MORALLY WRONG that solely by dint of family finances one child has opportunity and the other doesn't.

They are children.... Why should they lose out as their parents have very well paying jobs (am talking private finance, some areas of law), or worse just inherited it...
0
JamesTheCool
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#295
Report 5 years ago
#295
(Original post by Sheldor)
As someone who knows parents who've done this...they will be perfectly willing to move house to be in the catchment area of a good state school is private is not an option.

"mingle with the right crowd" seems a fair enough reason when the state school you've been given is the worst in the area with regular reports of violence. Pretty much any parent wouldn't want their child to go somewhere like that, but some parents just have more opportunities to prevent it.
Yes, most people don't want their children to go to a school where they're likely to suffer, but you have to admit, some parents basically do send their children to unnecessarily expensive schools purely so that they'll bond with the 'right people' and end up at Oxford or Cambridge (or in the worst case scenario for them, Exeter/Durham/Bristol etc.), just to ensure that their socially exclusive little cycle of elitism continues into the next generation. It's blatant snobbery if you ask me. It doesn't help the rest of the world in away way. However, if that's not the case, why would you send your child to a £30,000+ per year public school like Eton when significantly less expensive yet similarly effective private schools exist?
0
Sheldor
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#296
Report 5 years ago
#296
(Original post by JamesTheCool)
Yes, most people don't want their children to go to a school where they're likely to suffer, but you have to admit, some parents basically do send their children to unnecessarily expensive schools purely so that they'll bond with the 'right people' and end up at Oxford or Cambridge (or in the worst case scenario for them, Exeter/Durham/Bristol etc.), just to ensure that their socially exclusive little cycle of elitism continues into the next generation. It's blatant snobbery if you ask me. It doesn't help the rest of the world in away way. However, if that's not the case, why would you send your child to a £30,000+ per year public school like Eton when significantly less expensive yet similarly effective private schools exist?
I don't think "right people" leads to Oxford and Cambridge though-unless you're a medicine candidate who needs work experience or similar, who you know can't get you in. Do you have any modern examples of nepotism and the like changing admissions?

I agree that some people want their kids to mix with certain crowds and that's a big motivation for places like Eton, but it's probably not a purposeful scheme to perpetuate the class system or anything, just that they want their kids to have the same privileged experiences they did.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
JamesTheCool
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#297
Report 5 years ago
#297
(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) 'Who have you the right over other people's children?' - that's just another petty little argument along the lines of 'it's my money and I can do what I like with it'. Not very considerate towards the population as a whole. It's attitudes like this which help hinder progression.

2) Has Finland not shown you anything? If you level the playing field and stop basically giving success to the rich, this improves everyone else's motivation to do well because it makes them believe they stand a chance. Sometimes it's not the money you invest into something which makes a difference.

If you went to my school you'd be bullied. Had lots of angry, jealous working-class types.
0
byakka2013
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#298
Report 4 years ago
#298
I went to a private school on a bursary. My dad had died not long before I started( really good thinking there on the parts of adults). Long story short but I was living in the same house as an alcoholic who I was terrified of. My behaviour got worse and no surprise that my academic attainment went downhill. Now let's think back a minute to what the school report said. ....oh yes 'has a communication problem'. State schools may not be perfect but at least when a child is not right they have a clear duty to address it. Not one teacher thought to ask if things were ok at home. Oh well I guess because they aren't answerable to the usual statutory bodies they can ignore problems that don't suit them and label those who aren't going to enhance their precious image. I found my voice eventually as a social worker-and have been deemed as anything but a problem communicator
0
It's_me
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#299
Report 4 years ago
#299
(Original post by Limebuddhist)
Everyone is saying 'what good would abolishing private schools be for getting better overall education?'
You don't seem to understand that the best teachers will be drawn to private schools because they pay the most. If there were no private schools good teachers would be spread across the board, giving everyone better opportunities
This is incorrect. Private schools actually pay their teachers LESS than state schools
0
UmarAli121
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#300
Report 3 years ago
#300
(Original post by The_Duck)
The issue is more the idea that if a child's future is decided by their parent's income, then we are not equal from birth, which is the equality that we tend to aim for.
We have decided to quote your comment in a national debate show. Hope you don't mind. Please reply ASAP so we can feature you in the credits.

Umar Ali, International Community Of News United
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

How did your AQA A-level Biology Paper 3 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (333)
15.61%
The paper was reasonable (1164)
54.57%
Not feeling great about that exam... (460)
21.57%
It was TERRIBLE (176)
8.25%

Watched Threads

View All