I mean that people can achieve what they have the potential to, something that no one, no matter how talented, will do if sent to certain schools. We must loose so much talent, and so many potential great artists and scientists and politicians, through this route.(Original post by Janos_D)
What do you mean by meritocracy? Best person for the best job? Or if you mean children with most potential get jobs they "deserve" later on, then yes, meritocray will be skewed by private schools. But I just don't think that that is a reason for the government to close down schools preventing parents from sending their children to schools outside the state controlled system.
You will also deny the country, and the world, the benefits of a well educated class of people. Yet again the (far)-left want to bring everyone down with them. It is quite undeniable that private schools provide world class education - indeed, that's your problem with it!
That is not to say a tiered education system could not exist fairly - just it would be based on merit rather than mummy and daddy. Great schools could still churn out great people.
However, i see that we fundamentally disagree. You believe there should be a superior 'educated class' of people. You believe some should have better lives simply due to luck of birth, that people are inferior just because you label them so. I don't think that is right, but if you do, there is little point in arguing and we'll have to agree to disagree.
What motivates a political lefty? Watch
- Community Assistant
- 23-07-2009 21:45
- 24-07-2009 16:51
I think a lot of the problem with private education (and private healthcare) is that it is the taxpayer who pays for the teachers to be trained, then loses the benefit of it when the best teachers jump ship to the private sector. Private schools should have to reimburse the state for the cost of training to hire teachers I think.