Labour has voted to get rid of private schools Watch

Palmyra
Badges: 20
#61
Report 4 weeks ago
#61
Imagine if the wealthy and powerful had to send their kids to state schools, how quickly standards would be raised among state schools...
7
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#62
Report 4 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by Palmyra)
Imagine if the wealthy and powerful had to send their kids to state schools, how quickly standards would be raised among state schools...
It's nice that you think that.



Back in the real world, however...
2
reply
__itertools__
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#63
Report 4 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by Drewski)
Because if you can't be arsed to be engaged in the thread properly, why do you think you'll have anything useful to add?
Please, stop being a bully and presumptuous. When did I say I have something useful (to you anyway, you can't be expected to know what could be useful to everyone) to add? Everyone puts forth what they consider to be constructive. You, on the other hand tell people foolish and give other attributes from their single, kind question.
0
reply
Guru Jason
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#64
Report 4 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by nutz99)
Is this a joke or something. Must be total BS as most politicians including Labour send their kids to private schools. Corbyn went to a private school too.
The Corbyn didn't have a choice as a child what school he went to and iirc his own marriage fell apart over the belief he shouldn't send his child to a private school.
0
reply
Fruli
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by VegetableMarvell)
Am I the only one who thinks that this is, in principle, a good idea?

Just because you're not naturally clever, doesn't mean you shouldn't be entitled to the same education as those who are rich or able to get scholarships. Plus, some kids don't have supportive families who are willing to help them with scholarships etc.

Private schools are a form of segregation, whether on class, wealth or even (in cases of scholarship) intelligence. Being around differing people from you helps forge a more well rounded perspective and creates a more open, accepting generation (both for those in private schools, and those in state schools.)
It’s actually a race to the bottom that will lower overall standards and will actually make first class education a reserve of the wealthy.

Parents should be able to choose where they want to send their kids. So if private schools are abolished, will the Labour Party dictate to parents how to spend the money they would have otherwise used to pay for private school? I’ll tell you, these parents will use that money to pay for private tutoring for their lessons, pay for piano lessons, pay for Latin lessons, pay for elocution lessons, and the list goes on. How will you stop them?

Currently the private schools are setting a the bar high and as a result well managed state schools are actually able to compete at that level, as seen recent trends showing how in inner city state schools in London are getting kids into oxbridge at record numbers.
2
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#66
Report 4 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by __itertools__)
Please, stop being a bully and presumptuous. When did I say I have something useful (to you anyway, you can't be expected to know what could be useful to everyone) to add? Everyone puts forth what they consider to be constructive. You, on the other hand tell people foolish and give other attributes from their single, kind question.
You also got your answer, in case you failed to notice...
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#67
Report 4 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by harrysbar)
She would never be able to work out the sums involved :confused:
:teehee:
0
reply
Eboracum7
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#68
Report 4 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by James23121)
Maybe mummy and daddy worked hard for their money?
I imagine in some instances that may be true, but not the majority. There is a lot of research which links wealthy parents to a child's future success.

Rich parents' children are not special and better than any other child. Why should they get better teaching and facilities just because of where and to whom they happened to be born. It has nothing to do with the child's innate abilities, intelligence or willingness to work hard.

Nepotism is rife enough in the glitzy rafters of society, cut it early.
1
reply
__itertools__
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#69
Report 4 weeks ago
#69
Sorry, it is not related to the topic at hand but it it normal for people to be uncourteous or maybe even deliberately hurtful in this website like Drewski above?
0
reply
VegetableMarvell
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#70
Report 4 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by mathspaperfree)
y


yes it will, the average state school kid doesn't care about school, gets mostly Ds and Cs at GCSE.
The opposite is true for kids who go to private schools.

Clearly you can't face the fact that private school children are on average smarter than state school children, (and it isn't about the quality of teaching or sizes of classes).

It starts from birth, even before that

I could go on for ages, but i haven't got all day to waste
You think wealthy people are smarter than those who are poorer? From birth?
I really hope you don't genuinely believe this. State schools are underfunded, teachers have to deal with large class sizes, and many children in state schools have more difficult family lives than those lucky enough to go to Private Schools; they could be in care, or have parents who simply can't afford the fees, which is made worse by lack of funding in social services and in councilling in schools. This means that children taught in Private schools do have an advantage: I'm sorry, but they do, or else people wouldn't pay for it!



(Original post by __itertools__)
Yes, you are.
What would you say to the private hospitals, for instance? Should they be banned too?

Private schools are a form of segregation does not hold water, at least now with my understanding of the term. You might go to a government funded school (say it is called Pineapple School) in your town. Doesn't that mean you do not socialise with the students going to some other school. Isn't there an isolation? The segregation you mention named wealth, class or intelligence is completely arbitrary. You, by going to the Pineapple school are promoting a segregation between Pineapplarian and non-pineapplarian.

Not to mention, what about the democratic values? Consumers should be allowed to choose the goods they think is best for them. This applies to food, clothing, gadgets and also to education.
It is more difficult for state school children to get the top grades because of various factors, one of those is the underfunding of state schools compared to the wealth of private schools. Even in sixth forms and University prep, for example, my sixth form could not afford to spare time and money on assisting with Oxbridge prep, as many of my friends who'd moved to private school for sixth form received. This meant only 2 people got interviews for Oxbridge after over 10 who applied.

There is a segregation, no matter how slight.


In terms of 'democratic values', I think these amount to more than what you can buy. I also think that some people can't choose what they think is best, and instead have to suffer as a result, sometimes ending up in debt in order to attempt to afford certain things. This is not fair. More people than you think in the UK live on the breadline. They do not have a choice.
Last edited by VegetableMarvell; 4 weeks ago
1
reply
Rock Fan
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#71
Report 4 weeks ago
#71
Corbyn is a ****ing loony god help if he got into number 10 with his racist buddy Diane Abbott
1
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#72
Report 4 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by Drewski)
It's nice that you think that.


Back in the real world, however...
Yes, the real world of food poverty, a total lack of social mobility and huge wealth inequality.

No wonder so many morons with vested interests are rushing to defend these symbols of inequality.


It's good to see that Labour are still a party for the common man.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#73
Report 4 weeks ago
#73
(Original post by __itertools__)
Sorry, it is not related to the topic at hand but it it normal for people to be uncourteous or maybe even deliberately hurtful in this website like Drewski above?
Get over yourself. That was nothing. You need a thicker skin
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#74
Report 4 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by Palmyra)
Imagine if the wealthy and powerful had to send their kids to state schools, how quickly standards would be raised among state schools...
Oh no, they wouldn't.
Do you know how many of the privately educated 'students' from the most affluent families have been expelled from state schools for criminal conduct?
I'm using the word students to describe the entitled trust fund juvenile delinquents whose viciousness, drug dealing and hooligan antic brought years of chaos to multiple schools where I was studying.
1
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#75
Report 4 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by Palmyra)
Yes, the real world of food poverty, a total lack of social mobility and huge wealth inequality.

No wonder so many morons with vested interests are rushing to defend these symbols of inequality.


It's good to see that Labour are still a party for the common man.
As if you're deluded enough to think that this would stop that... The kids that were previously private schooled wouldn't be suddenly enrolled in state school, they'd be home schooled with those same private school teachers being private tutors. It wouldn't change a damn thing.
0
reply
Anon_S_90
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#76
Report 4 weeks ago
#76
private schools save the state £3.5 billion every year. If anything this will put more strain on already underfunded and over strained state schools, making them worse not better
3
reply
Guru Jason
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#77
Report 4 weeks ago
#77
I'd be all for getting rid of them. They serve no wider purpose than to line the pockets of the already rich. I'd rather the best teachers that get attracted by money, teach in state schools where everybody gets a chance to be taught by the best rather than just a small percent of a privileged few.
2
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#78
Report 4 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by AngryRedhead)
Can’t say I’m that bothered by this; although in my own opinion I think it would be a better policy to increase funding to state schools and make more grammar schools rather than removing people’s choices to send their children to independent schools
Much of the Labour Party despise grammar schools even more than independent schools.
Still smarting about their own grammar school experiences decades later or bitter that they couldn't pass the entry exams when they were 10/13 years old.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#79
Report 4 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by Guru Jason)
I'd rather the best teachers that get attracted by money, teach in state schools
They're attracted by the money... What makes you think they'll happily go to state school and get paid peanuts in comparison?

They'll leave. It'll be a massive brain drain.
0
reply
__itertools__
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#80
Report 4 weeks ago
#80
(Original post by VegetableMarvell)
You think wealthy people are smarter than those who are poorer? From birth?
I really hope you don't genuinely believe this. State schools are underfunded, teachers have to deal with large class sizes, and many children in state schools have more difficult family lives than those lucky enough to go to Private Schools; they could be in care, or have parents who simply can't afford the fees, which is made worse by lack of funding in social services and in councilling in schools. This means that children taught in Private schools do have an advantage: I'm sorry, but they do, or else people wouldn't pay for it!





It is more difficult for state school children to get the top grades because of various factors, one of those is the underfunding of state schools compared to the wealth of private schools. Even in sixth forms and University prep, for example, my sixth form could not afford to spare time and money on assisting with Oxbridge prep, as many of my friends who'd moved to private school for sixth form received. This meant only 2 people got interviews for Oxbridge after over 10 who applied.

There is a segregation, no matter how slight.


In terms of 'democratic values', I think these amount to more than what you can buy. I also think that some people who can't choose what they think is best, and instead have to suffer as a result, sometimes ending up in debt in order to attempt to afford certain things. This is not fair. More people than you think in the UK live on the breadline. They do not have a choice.
I can see your point. I am not very literate in this matter but I hope the reason state schools are underfunded is not due to most of the government money for education going towards the public schools (not sure why private school are called misleadingly public schools). How would getting rid of private schools improve standards of public school?

To the oxbridge question; same thing can be said about the students who have private tutors, they have an advantage. What about the students whose elder sibling studies the same subject as they are applying to at a university? It is clear that more funding and a better policy regarding teaching in state school is necessary but I do not see that banning public schools being in the right spirit.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (65)
23.21%
No (215)
76.79%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed