Private schools reduce socially mobility and do a good job of keeping the poor, poor

Watch
This discussion is closed.
4RealBlud
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
Here in the UK, we have one of the lowest social mobility out of all developed countries. This poses a problem whereby the rich are kept rich and the poor are kept poor, regradless of the full potential of the children and means that children do not have an equal opportunity in life. Private schools pick out the best of teachers and put them all in one pot for the rich, meaning that those you have money not only gain an unfair advantage to their poorer counterparts, they also deprive them of better teachers by milking the best ones for themselves. In turn what this means is that there is a massive gap in the quality of teaching between poor and wealthier families, with poor families often receiving significantly lower quality education and are placed at an automatic disadvantage and this is proven by the fact that privately educated children are on average much more likely to go to university and the fact that most Prime Ministers have come from the same school (eaton*ahem*eaton).

Poor social mobility means that the country is not run as well as it could be, because the people who go into higher positions are often taken from a smaller pool of people; people from the same wealthy families, breeding an elitist society in the higher positions and a larger class divide.

This larger class divide also breeds a higher crime rate. Statistics have shown that countries with smaller class divides often have lower crime rates and Australia is a prime example of this.

Banning private schools and giving everyone a more equal education will put everyone on a more even playing field. Children will no longer have their opportunities in life determined by the income of their parents, but more by their abilities and their hard work. It will shorten the gap between the rich and poor and the class divide, which in turn will reduce crime and prevent an elitist society forming at the higher positions. Of course welathier families can still give their children better education via private tutoring, but i think abolishing private tutoring is a step too far and inpractable. But i think the greatest thing of all it will do for society is given all children more equal opportunity in life, something i feel a lot of people have been in short of.
10
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
I'm unsure of what you're trying to get at. We live in a society whereby I'd you have the right attitude and capabilities you can go far.

There's room for improvement, but I don't see how destroying an education system that works would solve anything.
1
4RealBlud
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#3
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I'm unsure of what you're trying to get at. We live in a society whereby I'd you have the right attitude and capabilities you can go far.

There's room for improvement, but I don't see how destroying an education system that works would solve anything.
You won't go anywhere near as far as our other more developed counter-parts
0
Ripper-Roo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
I'm not really sure how forcing parents who would have sent their children to private schools, to send their children to state schools, affect wider society? Your issue seems deep rooted in the inequalities between parents, than specifically private schools. To explain this in more depth, wealthier parents can still provide better opportunities through private tutoring, supplying books, living in safer areas etc. Children in private schools won't affect the quality of education in state schools.

I know what you're getting at - children born into wealthier families have a better chance at securing professional jobs. However, there is only so much a good education can do, there can be really thick students who were privately educated. You can polish a turd but it's still a turd

I don't have a problem with private education, I just don't understand why parents would spend money on it, when a state education can be just as good. If I ever become a parent and even if I would be able to afford it, I wouldn't see the value in paying for my child's education because they can receive the basics publicly and I'd encourage them to find their natural talent/ability.

In essence, to an extent, I'd agree that to achieve a meritocratic society, success should not be influenced by parental income (and average intelligence children from wealthier families shouldn't be propped up by their parents), but I don't see a realistic solution as it's illiberal to remove the option of private schooling.
3
DaveSmith99
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
The combination of private schools and the declining quality of state education reduces social mobility. Rather than banning private schools I'd rather see us throw as much money as possible at the state education system, we literally can't spend enough money on education.
2
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by 4RealBlud)
You won't go anywhere near as far as our other more developed counter-parts
In my life time I've had a prime monster who left school with three o levels and another who was a grocers daughter. I see successful business people lake alan sugar and Richard Branson who have made it to the top who have t come for particularly affluent backgrounds.

I don't know how much of the criticism about lack if social mobility is actually being made by people who know that they have nothing special to offer and won't be bothered putting any effort in using it as an excuse to come up with reasons why they'll not be successful.

I went to the local school, come from a single parent working class family and am not exactly gifted academically, but I've worked hard and improved my lot in life.
1
Fizzel
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
(Original post by DaveSmith99)
The combination of private schools and the declining quality of state education reduces social mobility.
Basically this. Private schools don't reduce social mobility or keep the poor, poor. What they do is highlight the increasingly **** job the state is doing of educating kids. The argument isn't about improving standard its about forcing everyone to be part of the same ****ty system. The idea also falls apart when you realise we don't live in a self contained bubble, we are educating our workforce to compete in a global market place.

As said, if I became a parent and could afford it, there is no way I'd be putting my kid through the schools I went through. I'd want them to be in the best environment possible, and the state does not provide that.
2
Le Nombre
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
I'm unsure of what you're trying to get at. We live in a society whereby I'd you have the right attitude and capabilities you can go far.

There's room for improvement, but I don't see how destroying an education system that works would solve anything.
I think the issue is more that with the wrong attitude and limited capabilities you can still go far via the old boy network and intensive exam prep at top public schools.
2
Clip
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
The usual TSR-commie solution to everything. Ban something.
1
Ripper-Roo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
In my life time I've had a prime monster who left school with three o levels and another who was a grocers daughter. I see successful business people lake alan sugar and Richard Branson who have made it to the top who have t come for particularly affluent backgrounds.

I don't know how much of the criticism about lack if social mobility is actually being made by people who know that they have nothing special to offer and won't be bothered putting any effort in using it as an excuse to come up with reasons why they'll not be successful.

I went to the local school, come from a single parent working class family and am not exactly gifted academically, but I've worked hard and improved my lot in life.
That's only two businessmen. Admittedly there are more throughout the country, but the ones I've met, support more investment into education and youth projects.

What if people criticising the lack of social mobility know that children from more disadvantaged background were never encouraged to aspire high? I've heard people say they just want to stay on their council estate for life, it's all they've ever known from their family and upbringing. You don't know how much potential that child has, or be able to write them off as "not valuable or special", because they were never given the chance.
0
twisted
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
Exactly why most power players in this country went oxford *and are freemasons*
0
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
(Original post by Le Nombre)
I think the issue is more that with the wrong attitude and limited capabilities you can still go far via the old boy network and intensive exam prep at top public schools.
That's a possibility, but I doubt that the old boy network is anywhere near what it used to be. Human capital needs a return on investment just like any other business exchange. I don't want to come across as belittling your post, but by playing devils advocate I could say that its just sour grapes on your behalf.
0
4RealBlud
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#13
(Original post by Ripper-Roo)
I'm not really sure how forcing parents who would have sent their children to private schools, to send their children to state schools, affect wider society? Your issue seems deep rooted in the inequalities between parents, than specifically private schools. To explain this in more depth, wealthier parents can still provide better opportunities through private tutoring, supplying books, living in safer areas etc. Children in private schools won't affect the quality of education in state schools.

I know what you're getting at - children born into wealthier families have a better chance at securing professional jobs. However, there is only so much a good education can do, there can be really thick students who were privately educated. You can polish a turd but it's still a turd

I don't have a problem with private education, I just don't understand why parents would spend money on it, when a state education can be just as good. If I ever become a parent and even if I would be able to afford it, I wouldn't see the value in paying for my child's education because they can receive the basics publicly and I'd encourage them to find their natural talent/ability.

In essence, to an extent, I'd agree that to achieve a meritocratic society, success should not be influenced by parental income (and average intelligence children from wealthier families shouldn't be propped up by their parents), but I don't see a realistic solution as it's illiberal to remove the option of private schooling.
No i'm really sorry, but you cannot compare state education to private. Looking back at my secondary education it was pretty shoddy. We had 6 French teachers in 2 years for GCSEs and the whole class run amock, we had to completely self-teach ourselves physics even up to AS the teacher was so bad, the GCSE ICT class in our year had more fails than passes because apparently the teacher was clueless, who EVENTAULLY got sacked, our GCSE english class had to get dispersed since our teacher stopped attending classes and our entire biology class's coursework got marked down 2 whole grades, because the teacher was marking it way too leniently. Most of the time in our classes we were too busy dodging rulers and arm wrestling each other than actually doing any work.

On the other hand, we had a school trip to a private school in London and it was so organised and disciplined. The teachers were all competent and had complete order.

I, personally, do not feel like i was given a fair chance given this. It's true that with hard work you can acheive great things, but most people don't realise that til their older. You need a decent education at a young age and a push to steer you in that direction. There are some terrible schools out there that hardly provide what i call an education and it's largely because the teachers are just so bad at what they do. It's not fair that the poor get such a contrast in education to the poor.
0
Ripper-Roo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by 4RealBlud)
No i'm really sorry, but you cannot compare state education to private. Looking back at my secondary education it was pretty shoddy. We had 6 French teachers in 2 years for GCSEs and the whole class run amock, we had to completely self-teach ourselves physics even up to AS the teacher was so bad, the GCSE ICT class in our year had more fails than passes because apparently the teacher was clueless, who EVENTAULLY got sacked, our GCSE english class had to get dispersed since our teacher stopped attending classes and our entire biology class's coursework got marked down 2 whole grades, because the teacher was marking it way too leniently. Most of the time in our classes we were too busy dodging rulers and arm wrestling each other than actually doing any work.

On the other hand, we had a school trip to a private school in London and it was so organised and disciplined. The teachers were all competent and had complete order.

I, personally, do not feel like i was given a fair chance given this. It's true that with hard work you can acheive great things, but most people don't realise that til their older. You need a decent education at a young age and a push to steer you in that direction. There are some terrible schools out there that hardly provide what i call an education and it's largely because the teachers are just so bad at what they do. It's not fair that the poor get such a contrast in education to the poor.
But I don't think there will ever be a level playing field between children. The only feasible solution is to improve the standards of state schools. It is the culture mainly that sets these schools apart.

It's not to say that I agree with private education, I think every child should succeed independently of their parents, but how can this be achieved without communally raising children? There will always be something one family can provide that the others can't: better house, holidays, clothing, books etc.

Just raise the quality at the bottom for the time being.
1
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by Ripper-Roo)
That's only two businessmen. Admittedly there are more throughout the country, but the ones I've met, support more investment into education and youth projects.

What if people criticising the lack of social mobility know that children from more disadvantaged background were never encouraged to aspire high? I've heard people say they just want to stay on their council estate for life, it's all they've ever known from their family and upbringing. You don't know how much potential that child has, or be able to write them off as "not valuable or special", because they were never given the chance.
Business leaders have been banging on about improving education for a long time. If you get a chance read Lord Digby Jones' book 'fixing broken Britain.' He covers a whole chapter on how labours mantra of 'education, education, education' promoting social mobility has actually created a less effective workforce capable if competing on the international scene.

The PM raised the issue of poorer kids not being inspired and got shot down for his comments. Its almost like the default setting in the UK now is criticise success and find excuses for failure. That's what I think is the biggest reason for a perceived lack of social mobility.
0
4RealBlud
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#16
(Original post by Fizzel)
Basically this. Private schools don't reduce social mobility or keep the poor, poor. What they do is highlight the increasingly **** job the state is doing of educating kids. The argument isn't about improving standard its about forcing everyone to be part of the same ****ty system. The idea also falls apart when you realise we don't live in a self contained bubble, we are educating our workforce to compete in a global market place.

As said, if I became a parent and could afford it, there is no way I'd be putting my kid through the schools I went through. I'd want them to be in the best environment possible, and the state does not provide that.
I think you're forgetting how much these institutes milk the country of the best teachers. They pick out the best teachers and give them on a plate to the rich. It may come as a surprise to you, but our education system is among the best in the world, ranked 6th.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20498356

We have a good education system, it's just that it all goes to the few.
0
akash11
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
IQ is more important then socio-economic circumstances not just in the UK but across the western world, several studies have showed this. A rich kid getting a better education does not mean the education you get is any worse, if anything it slightly improves the quality.
0
Hal.E.Lujah
  • Study Helper
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 7 years ago
#18
(Original post by Ripper-Roo)
I'm not really sure how forcing parents who would have sent their children to private schools, to send their children to state schools, affect wider society? Your issue seems deep rooted in the inequalities between parents, than specifically private schools.

I don't think his post says that at all. I really can't find anything of that in it, I think you've projected that on to it.

I love my parents, and I'm grateful to all the opportunities they've given me. I'll pass on the same opportunities to my children and ideally send them all to private schools. But I know that isn't fair. There shouldn't be an advantage purely based on the actions of parents, and whilst banning private education wouldn't completely end this, it would go a long way towards it.

With your polish a turd point, I'd say that a thick kid from a private school is abundantly more likely to get a job than an intelligent kid from a worse school. The mannerism they're encouraged to adopt, compared to those less affluent children are inculcated with, are far more important than raw skills.
2
thesabbath
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#19
Report 7 years ago
#19
the Left banned academic selection and closed down all the grammar schools, you'll have to vote UKIP if you want them back.
0
4RealBlud
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#20
(Original post by Ripper-Roo)
But I don't think there will ever be a level playing field between children. The only feasible solution is to improve the standards of state schools. It is the culture mainly that sets these schools apart.

It's not to say that I agree with private education, I think every child should succeed independently of their parents, but how can this be achieved without communally raising children? There will always be something one family can provide that the others can't: better house, holidays, clothing, books etc.

Just raise the quality at the bottom for the time being.
Of Course we will never be on a completely equal playing field with each other, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't put any effort into minimising it.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
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

What factors affect your mental health the most right now?

Anxiousness about lockdown easing (128)
4.9%
Uncertainty around my education (388)
14.85%
Uncertainty around my future career prospects (290)
11.1%
Lack of purpose or motivation (368)
14.09%
Lack of support system (eg. teachers, counsellors, delays in care) (120)
4.59%
Impact of lockdown on physical health (159)
6.09%
Loneliness (222)
8.5%
Financial worries (96)
3.68%
Concern about myself or my loves ones getting/having been ill (108)
4.13%
Exposure to negative news/social media (120)
4.59%
Lack of real life entertainment (138)
5.28%
Lack of confidence in making big life decisions (228)
8.73%
Worry about missed opportunities during the pandemic (247)
9.46%

Watched Threads

View All