Fee-Paying Education

[Harry Smith]

Should we allow fee-paying to continue to operate outside of government control and in turn charge pupils high amounts of money (in some cases £9,000) per term in order to attend the school or should we remove these schools and allow everyone in the country to experience an equal level of education?

[britishboy]

Yeah removing this is not going to raise the standards of your education, raise the education cost so does nothing apart from satisfy jealousy.

[Harry Smith]

Yeah removing this is not going to raise the standards of your education, raise the education cost so does nothing apart from satisfy jealousy.

Removing it would allow more standardization within school, currently at fee-paying schools you have teachers teaching without any teaching qualification, this removes teaching as profession when in fact it requires a high degree of skill. If you had one unified education system teaching standards would be higher and it would help increase social mobility.

It's not about jealousy, why does everyone at Eton think they're the best thing since slice bread- I'm only talking for my self but I've enjoyed going to a state school- the teaching is of a high standard and it's helped me have the opportunity to go to university in the next couple of years, the last thing I would want to do is attend a fee-paying school.

The issue of education apartheid is something that needs to be addressed

[Stronk Serb]

It should be standardized and the classrooms should be filled by students who got there by their capability, not wealth.

[Sugaree]

Should we allow fee-paying to continue to operate outside of government control and in turn charge pupils high amounts of money (in some cases £9,000) per term in order to attend the school or should we remove these schools and allow everyone in the country to experience an equal level of education?

I do not see how removing these private schools solves the problem. I see the issue where school has become so expensive that people are becoming poor just for an education, which is not how it should be; however, a free market should not allow this. A free market should, instead, encourage each private school to compete in price with each other so that the consumer has cheaper options.

However, the cheaper option usually coincides with poorer standards, and I believe this is where the true problem is. If laws were to be set in place where there is ONE quality standard that must be met, both by government and private schools, then it would be a different story. It is a shame when people are going broke just for an education, and I do firmly believe in making all levels of education, from pre-school on up, as accessible as possible for all families. College especially, as this can be the most expensive if you don't go for financial aid or scholarships and are paying completely out of our own pocket.

The other thing we have to do away with is the stigmata of attending state run schools. Here in America, at least, government run schools are an absolute joke. Year after year, the children are coming out dumber and dumber at all grade levels; high school graduation rates fall even lower; and expectation are both too high and grandiose to ever be met. While, yes, there are many smart kids in the system, we push too many kids out of the system just to say that they got through. They may have graduated, but did they actually retain anything they were taught? Will they be able to take anything they learned in class and apply it in the real world when they get a job? This is all very conservative thinking, mind you, but it very much makes sense to a lot of people, including a lot of my liberally minded friends. I fully believe in increasing the funds these schools get, but unless the results show that the money we invest is worth it, I will continue voting against any tax increase that schools propose.

[Harry Smith]

I do not see how removing these private schools solves the problem. I see the issue where school has become so expensive that people are becoming poor just for an education, which is not how it should be; however, a free market should not allow this. A free market should, instead, encourage each private school to compete in price with each other so that the consumer has cheaper options.

However, the cheaper option usually coincides with poorer standards, and I believe this is where the true problem is. If laws were to be set in place where there is ONE quality standard that must be met, both by government and private schools, then it would be a different story. It is a shame when people are going broke just for an education, and I do firmly believe in making all levels of education, from pre-school on up, as accessible as possible for all families. College especially, as this can be the most expensive if you don't go for financial aid or scholarships and are paying completely out of our own pocket.

The other thing we have to do away with is the stigmata of attending state run schools. Here in America, at least, government run schools are an absolute joke. Year after year, the children are coming out dumber and dumber at all grade levels; high school graduation rates fall even lower; and expectation are both too high and grandiose to ever be met. While, yes, there are many smart kids in the system, we push too many kids out of the system just to say that they got through. They may have graduated, but did they actually retain anything they were taught? Will they be able to take anything they learned in class and apply it in the real world when they get a job? This is all very conservative thinking, mind you, but it very much makes sense to a lot of people, including a lot of my liberally minded friends. I fully believe in increasing the funds these schools get, but unless the results show that the money we invest is worth it, I will continue voting against any tax increase that schools propose.

That's definitively an issue that schools have- both state ran and fee paying, they're too reliant on what percentage of results they get or they either manipulate the exam system by entering kids into easier more worthless exams, schooling shouldn't be about PR.

I also agree that schooling should be more about not only life skills but also about other employment skills rather than exam technique.

The problem with fee-paying schools in England at least is that they encourage this idea that just because you have money you're intellectually and morally superior to everyone else, and it just furthers the class divide as kids who attend poor city schools are treated as if they're not worth the funding

[Vlerchan]

I don't live in a country where our state-run schools - primary and secondary - are questioned so I can't relate to the situation in America - and hence my answer is certainly going to be more relevant to an Irish system. In Ireland we've a strong state-run system supplemented by a minuscule private-run system. I myself go to a state-run school and the standard of education is quite high. In my state-run school only four students - of one hundred and fifty - didn't go on to third-level education last year. We also differ hugely from the American (and British, I believe) systems because our end-of-year scores in Senior Year are the key determinant in what universities and courses we may partake in. Our state-subsidised third-level education system means tuition fees are non-existent and colleges accept students based entirely on merit and intellectual capabilities.

A free market should, instead, encourage each private school to compete in price with each other so that the consumer has cheaper options.
How exactly must one compete in the private education sector? I'd assume grades or results but I question how a fair method of analysis will be decided upon. Might schools simply drop - or bar entry to - the less intellectually-inclined children in order to up standards and increase their average - and thus, hopefully, increase reputations and hence potential revenues? I'd hope not but I can honestly see it happening. The problem with privatising necessities is that Capitalists - believe it or not - don't actually have a soft spot for good and fair market practices. They're in it to make a profit regardless of the cost on the general public - our recent banking crisis should be proof enough of that. Whilst I do believe that sturdy regulation might aid in this issue I still do feel that as a people we need to safeguard what is our most valuable commodity: education.

A private education system would be run in a imperfect system of competitive. Schools would undoubtedly offer different standards of education - thus ensuring a price divide between 'good' and 'bad' schools - and I'm sure would go to great lengths to ensure these standards are up-kept. I fear that poor students - regardless of their commitment to education - would be shepherded into poor schools. A standardised and 'fair' system of schooling can only be ensured through a system of state-schooling. (On that: I've no idea how to actually solve the problem of sub-par American state education but then I never put a huge amount of thought into the issue until ten or so minutes ago.)

However, the cheaper option usually coincides with poorer standards, and I believe this is where the true problem is. If laws were to be set in place where there is ONE quality standard that must be met, both by government and private schools, then it would be a different story.
Again: how do you measure poor standards? Should my school be punished because it kept four failed students on to complete their second-level education - which will look a lot better on their CVs than a blank? I can assure you their failings were at no fault of the teachers.

The other thing we have to do away with is the stigmata of attending state run schools.
It's actually the opposite here. There tends to be a huge stigma attached with attending a privately-run school.

[sqishy]

Should we allow fee-paying to continue to operate outside of government control and in turn charge pupils high amounts of money (in some cases £9,000) per term in order to attend the school or should we remove these schools and allow everyone in the country to experience an equal level of education?

I don't believe in people having to pay to learn things and get knowledge. The schools/universities can very well be government-funded.

[saea97]

Most (not all) private schools consistently achieve better results than state schools. To abolish them would be to diminish the overall standards of the country at large, all for the sake of standardisation. Abolishing them would also be phenomenally costly and if we're talking about Europe/the UK, would come dangerously close to contravening the European Court of Human Rights.

But hey, I'm biased.

[Sugaree]

How exactly must one compete in the private education sector? I'd assume grades or results but I question how a fair method of analysis will be decided upon. Might schools simply drop - or bar entry to - the less intellectually-inclined children in order to up standards and increase their average - and thus, hopefully, increase reputations and hence potential revenues? I'd hope not but I can honestly see it happening. The problem with privatising necessities is that Capitalists - believe it or not - don't actually have a soft spot for good and fair market practices. They're in it to make a profit regardless of the cost on the general public - our recent banking crisis should be proof enough of that. Whilst I do believe that sturdy regulation might aid in this issue I still do feel that as a people we need to safeguard what is our most valuable commodity: education.

A private education system would be run in a imperfect system of competitive. Schools would undoubtedly offer different standards of education - thus ensuring a price divide between 'good' and 'bad' schools - and I'm sure would go to great lengths to ensure these standards are up-kept. I fear that poor students - regardless of their commitment to education - would be shepherded into poor schools. A standardised and 'fair' system of schooling can only be ensured through a system of state-schooling. (On that: I've no idea how to actually solve the problem of sub-par American state education but then I never put a huge amount of thought into the issue until ten or so minutes ago.)

I don't know how one would compete in the private education sector. That is not my area of expertise. I know how one would compete in the private business sector, but the education sector is definitely a strange thing to me. I would, by no means, consider dropping a less intellectually-inclined child from the school, nor would I bar them entry simply on the matter of them not being intelligent enough. As long as a child shows eagerness and the will to learn, they should be allowed entry into an establishment of education. And I agree, I do see exactly that (the less intellectually-inclined being barred and/or dropped from schools) happening, and that is definitely an unfortunate thing.

You also must remember that the divide between "good" and "bad" is highly subjective. I think you might be thinking in pretty broad black-or-white terms here, but when I'm talking about making a private competitive school system, "good" and "bad" are left up to the parents. If the parents feel that School A is not to the standard they want their child to be educated at, they can go to Schools B, C, D, etc. and see what THEIR standards are. "Good" and "bad" are only in the eyes of the parents, no one else. Now, if you had laws that strictly limited these private schools to hold to one standard, then you could say that standard was good or bad.


Again: how do you measure poor standards? Should my school be punished because it kept four failed students on to complete their second-level education - which will look a lot better on their CVs than a blank? I can assure you their failings were at no fault of the teachers.

I measure poor standards thus:

1. When students are not pushed to their full potential

2. When students are being pushed through the system so the government can say "Look! We got them through, what more do you want!?"

3. The graduation rate may be X%, but how many dropped out or are actually using their degrees to seek higher education?

4. Students are not being given the encouragement they need to strive for the grades they need to not only graduate, but just to pass classes

This is how I measure the standards of a school. When I see students being pushed to their full potential, I see a school worthy of my investment. When I see students that are going through the system at a steady pace and are not being forced through on government dimes, I see a school worthy of my investment. When I see a high graduation rate, low drop out rate, and high rate of students that are going on to college/graduate school, I see a school worthy of investment. And finally, if students are being encouraged to strive and give it their all, I see a school worthy of investment.

And don't take the word "investment" to mean interest in terms of financial gain; I mean "investment" in terms of wanting to know my child is going somewhere where I feel safe in knowing they are receiving a quality and worthwhile education.


I don't believe in people having to pay to learn things and get knowledge. The schools/universities can very well be government-funded.

This is an argument that I just don't get. Yes, they can be government-funded, but do you know where that money comes from? And don't say the government, because the government can't just print money out of nowhere, even though many governments do this.

[sqishy]

This is an argument that I just don't get. Yes, they can be government-funded, but do you know where that money comes from? And don't say the government, because the government can't just print money out of nowhere, even though many governments do this.

Most of the money comes from taxes. And with quite a few politicians getting overpaid in governments with extra pensions and allowances (at least in my country), that money can be diverted to running education.
But why does it all have to run on money? How do non-profit organisations work? Not everything has to run on money, credit for this and debt for that, on and on, as if money and wealth is a law that cannot be broken, where everyone automatically thinks that most things have to get a value put on them.

[Sugaree]

Most of the money comes from taxes. And with quite a few politicians getting overpaid in governments with extra pensions and allowances (at least in my country), that money can be diverted to running education.
But why does it all have to run on money? How do non-profit organisations work? Not everything has to run on money, credit for this and debt for that, on and on, as if money and wealth is a law that cannot be broken, where everyone automatically thinks that most things have to get a value put on them.

Unfortunately, this is yet another argument I can't understand. You live in a world where almost everything is worth its weight in some form of currency. You can't just run a business on accrued credit and debt; that would run you out of business. If a university were to do it, they would probably collapse within years.

[sqishy]

Unfortunately, this is yet another argument I can't understand. You live in a world where almost everything is worth its weight in some form of currency. You can't just run a business on accrued credit and debt; that would run you out of business. If a university were to do it, they would probably collapse within years.

Again, non-profit organisations are not collapsing, are they? Fine, go with the money option, but have it so that it's in the form of taxes that has a small effect on everyone, instead of the ones getting education having to pay more than others. You can run a world where things can be more 'justified' than having crude harsh charges for this, that and everything else.


And money is something that humanity came up with, it is not the only way to run a society. The world is not something you can apply numbers onto everything in it. That is what people think, that the world should have it's weight in currency. Many things cannot be expressed in the value of something else, because their values are entirely unrelated. Currency fails at that, because it tries to get everything to equal everything else.

It should be more about quality than quantifying everything, because a lot of things in life should not have prices and mathematical values assigned to them. In some ways money is the short-cut that ends up screwing certain things up in the long-term.

Free education means no having to pay money to learn, for knowledge. The world can find a way around that. When there's a will, there's a way. How do you not know if it has not been tried by a country? We can theorise all we like about a lot of things, but if we have not had experience or practice with it, the theories are just that: theories. Every theory should have its chance to be allowed to work, and allowed to be ridiculed.

The same approach on things brings no change. Experimentation got science running.

If you don't understand this arguement, then I'm drawing the line. My opinion is staying the same.

[thatcountrykid]

Some schos require large fee paying like technical schools. In America we have the perkins act whick is a federal grant for schools to provide students with career and technical education in things like welding, law enforcement, and mechanics. Other schools you pay for the "free and comforting" area and teachers.

[Vlerchan]

You also must remember that the divide between "good" and "bad" is highly subjective. I think you might be thinking in pretty broad black-or-white terms here [...] If the parents feel that School A is not to the standard they want their child to be educated at, they can go to Schools B, C, D, etc. and see what THEIR standards are.
No. Not exactly. It's true that the terms 'good' and 'bad' are highly subjective but there's still going to be schools generally considered better and schools generally considered worse (- this happens regardless of whether schools are privatised or not, I know). Eventually schools will have shown themselves to be the better school - whether that is calculated in consistently high results or graduation rates or whatever, I don't know - and as such will be able to justify higher charges. Where I live the CBS - my own school - is considered the best for boys in town because of it's tradition of producing high average grades and numbers moving on to third level education. We've a much higher waiting list that the other school in town but were we privatised this would translate to a much higher tuition fee. In a privatised education system this would lead to (impoverished, let's say; but I'd bet it would affect a lot more) parents being forced into sending their child to the 'lesser' school regardless of whether it's the standard is to their liking or not.

That's long-winded so to break it down: Eventually a common perception will be reached by the consumer that X product is better than Y product and this will lead to a system of unequal prices. That's imperfect competition (- apply what I'm saying to restaurants if it's not making sense.)


I measure poor standards thus:

[...]

This is how I measure the standards of a school. When I see students being pushed to their full potential, I see a school worthy of my investment. When I see students that are going through the system at a steady pace and are not being forced through on government dimes, I see a school worthy of my investment. When I see a high graduation rate, low drop out rate, and high rate of students that are going on to college/graduate school, I see a school worthy of investment. And finally, if students are being encouraged to strive and give it their all, I see a school worthy of investment.
I don't know enough about the current state of the American education system to offer anything more than mildly intelligent-sounding bullshit here. Regulation needs to be enforced but I don't honestly know how to go about doing it - punishing schools with cuts will only make the standard of education worse, I believe, and forcing schools closures will lower supply and heighten demand hence drastically increasing price (in a privatised setting, anyway). I'm of the opinion now though that a lot of the problems in the public education system stems from the actual social backdrops - read: poverty - that those who (appear to) attend state-run schools and fail out come from.

[tovaris]

Paing for schooling is useles and contraprodictie. All education should be free.

[britishboy]

Paing for schooling is useles and contraprodictie. All education should be free.

If it is useless why do people do it?

[tovaris]

If it is useless why do people do it?

Cant see the point. In Euroschool here in ljubljana the case is usualy that they are too lazy or not good enouth for normal schools

[britishboy]

Cant see the point. In Euroschool here in ljubljana the case is usualy that they are too lazy or not good enouth for normal schools

Why can't they go to a state school? they're free?

[tovaris]

Why can't they go to a state school? they're free?

For state high schools there are limitations, only a certan number of spots and only those with the best grades get into the bast schooles. Of you didnt studye before you have to go to a infeier school or go to work.

[britishboy]

For state high schools there are limitations, only a certan number of spots and only those with the best grades get into the bast schooles. Of you didnt studye before you have to go to a infeier school or go to work.

Oh it's different here, state schools can be accessed by everyone.

[Kasp]

I think you should get the choice, if you are able to pay for the teaching and facilities which only private schools can offer you should be able to if you want

[Vlerchan]

I missed this earlier:
Most (not all) private schools consistently achieve better results than state schools.
I'm of the opinion that the higher standard of results consistently achieved by private schools has more to do with the standard of students - again I'll reference socio-economic class here as a major factor in academic potential - entering the school as opposed to he actual teachings within. I've seen reports that conclude that once family and financial circumstances are taken into account a student in the private school achieves no more academically than a student in a public school. (Source) (http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=121)

My opinion is that - here at least; and I'd extend this to Britain, maybe - private schools aren't actually needed. I don't support their abolition based on that however - as long as we maintain a high level of public schooling I'm fine.

[tovaris]

Oh it's different here, state schools can be accessed by everyone.

afcors anyone, but diferent schools have diferent requierments, you cant take someone with bad grades and put them into a demanding school

[britishboy]

There is so much envy here. If you have enough money (it's not alot) buy your children a batter education same with toys and food

[Harry Smith]

There is so much envy here. If you have enough money (it's not alot) buy your children a batter education same with toys and food

Yeah we're all so jealous of private education, I want to pay 9,000 a term to attend a school when I get a free education which has suited me just as well- I don't need private education.

You can try and label it as Envy to make yourself better but the bottom line is that within Britain the Public School system highlights everything that is wrong with our society and only further bridges the gap between rich and poor.

And yes Fee-paying education is a lot considering the average income in Britain is about 33,000 ...

[britishboy]

Yeah we're all so jealous of private education, I want to pay 9,000 a term to attend a school when I get a free education which has suited me just as well- I don't need private education.

You can try and label it as Envy to make yourself better but the bottom line is that within Britain the Public School system highlights everything that is wrong with our society and only further bridges the gap between rich and poor.

And yes Fee-paying education is a lot considering the average income in Britain is about 33,000 ...

God you commies are irritating (Apart from matric) you fail to understand there will always be rich and poor.

If you don't like private education and prefer public, why are you trying to abolish private academies and institutions? It will put more stress on an already stressed public system.

[Harry Smith]

God you commies are irritating (Apart from matric) you fail to understand there will always be rich and poor.

If you don't like private education and prefer public, why are you trying to abolish private academies and institutions? It will put more stress on an already stressed public system.

Yeah because I'm a communist... I'm a socialist- very big difference, if you can't understand that then well there is no point debating. But sure call me a commie because it really adds to your argument

Why will there be a rich and poor? Why do we need that in society? You've used this rather well generalized argument to support poverty in the past so maybe you should use some evidence rather than just shouting out random phrases hoping they'll stick

If you don't like private education , why are you trying to abolish private academies and institutions

You answered your own question there, I think we should abolish it so that everyone has a high standard of education no matter what your wealth is, we shouldn't encourage a society where you only advance through the name of your school- it should be about how smart you are not how much money you can throw at the problem. Only 7% of the population attend Public Schools yet they control key positions in society- just look at the Cabinet

[Vlerchan]

There is so much envy here[1]. If you have enough money (it's not alot)[2] buy your children a batter education same with toys and food[3]

[1]: I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not. I'm perfectly happy in my public school, though.

[2]: Harry gave the figures: it seems like alot for the average family, I'd say.

[3]: You've made similar statements to this before in another thread and I refuted it there, too. ("Repeating your point doesn't make it anymore correct. I'm specifically focusing on the opening - "if I want a bigger pool, I pay, if you want better education, you pay!" - which verges on ludicrously. Trying to paint Education as some needless, wasteful commodity, a statues symbol of sorts, is just simply incorrect on so many levels." - Oct 5th.) There's no reason to divide rich and poor on what is such a life-altering issue; all children should be able to attain the same standard of education and reach their own academic potentials. It's wrong to add to the already huge headstart held by children of the rich.

Though, I'm still supportive of the idea that privatised education doesn't actually give you a better education.

God you commies are irritating (Apart from matric) you fail to understand there will always be rich and poor.
I'm a Social Democrat. I'm for abolishing the extremes of poverty and wealth; not abolishing rich and poor. Though, I don't believe that there will always be rich and poor - eventual post-scarcity would eliminate such trivialities.

[Stronk Serb]

God you commies are irritating (Apart from matric) you fail to understand there will always be rich and poor.

If you don't like private education and prefer public, why are you trying to abolish private academies and institutions? It will put more stress on an already stressed public system.

Titoist Yugoslavia- poverty was on a minimal level, and everyone was pretty much equal.

Yeah because I'm a communist... I'm a socialist- very big difference, if you can't understand that then well there is no point debating. But sure call me a commie because it really adds to your argument

Why will there be a rich and poor? Why do we need that in society? You've used this rather well generalized argument to support poverty in the past so maybe you should use some evidence rather than just shouting out random phrases hoping they'll stick



You answered your own question there, I think we should abolish it so that everyone has a high standard of education no matter what your wealth is, we shouldn't encourage a society where you only advance through the name of your school- it should be about how smart you are not how much money you can throw at the problem. Only 7% of the population attend Public Schools yet they control key positions in society- just look at the Cabinet

I agree on abolishing private schools. The ones in Serbia offer the minimum, you don't learn anything in most of them, but when you graduate, a job awaits, even though you don't know how to do it, but thankfully you get fired after a few months when you screw up.

[Harry Smith]

Titoist Yugoslavia- poverty was on a minimal level, and everyone was pretty much equal.



I agree on abolishing private schools. The ones in Serbia offer the minimum, you don't learn anything in most of them, but when you graduate, a job awaits, even though you don't know how to do it, but thankfully you get fired after a few months when you screw up.

That's my major problem about them is that it's not about education- it's about people using daddy's connections through the school in order to get further, whilst hard working people who attend state schools are left at the bottom just because they don't have money

[saea97]

That's my major problem about them is that it's not about education- it's about people using daddy's connections through the school in order to get further, whilst hard working people who attend state schools are left at the bottom just because they don't have money

This is such a generalisation. Most of the parents who put their kids through private schools do so at huge personal cost and barely live comfortably after fees. That's the situation with me and many of my friends. We don't have connections, we just want to work hard, go to a good uni and get a good job, just like everyone else. Not all private schools are Eton.

[Harry Smith]

This is such a generalisation. Most of the parents who put their kids through private schools do so at huge personal cost and barely live comfortably after fees. That's the situation with me and many of my friends. We don't have connections, we just want to work hard, go to a good uni and get a good job, just like everyone else. Not all private schools are Eton.

Parents shouldn't have to bankrupt themselves just to send their children to a 'public' school, state schools are just of high standard, Public schools foster this rather indept belief that you can throw money at any problem and it creates a gulf in our society- only 7% of people pay for education yet they dominate key positions in society.

Why should someone going to Oundle or Harrow be placed above people who attend state education from the moment they leave school

[britishboy]

Parents shouldn't have to bankrupt themselves just to send their children to a 'public' school, state schools are just of high standard, Public schools foster this rather indept belief that you can throw money at any problem and it creates a gulf in our society- only 7% of people pay for education yet they dominate key positions in society.

Why should someone going to Oundle or Harrow be placed above people who attend state education from the moment they leave school

Aren't there grammar schools? Yes private schools give better education and so get better jobs.

[Vlerchan]

I'd almost swear that a lot of what I post here gets skimmed over:

Aren't there grammar schools? Yes private schools give better education and so get better jobs.I'm of the opinion that the higher standard of results consistently achieved by private schools has more to do with the standard of students - again I'll reference socio-economic class here as a major factor in academic potential - entering the school as opposed to he actual teachings within. I've seen reports that conclude that once family and financial circumstances are taken into account a student in the private school achieves no more academically than a student in a public school. (Source) (http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=121)

[Harry Smith]

Aren't there grammar schools? Yes private schools give better education and so get better jobs.

Grammar schools are gone... only Kent have them and they're a joke.

Public Schools don't give a better education

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jun/16/accesstouniversity-private-schools

Private education just fosters a rather outdated view in British society that if you have wealth you can succeed automatically, we shouldn't be encouraging this.

All children should have equal education- it's simple as that. We can't keep buffering up a ruling elite with virtually no life skills, Private education tell children that skill doesn't matter in life- only money does. That's something I don't support

I'd almost swear that a lot of what I post here gets skimmed over:

It's because your source disagreed with him, it's easy to ignore an argument

[saea97]

Parents shouldn't have to bankrupt themselves just to send their children to a 'public' school, state schools are just of high standard, Public schools foster this rather indept belief that you can throw money at any problem and it creates a gulf in our society- only 7% of people pay for education yet they dominate key positions in society.

Why should someone going to Oundle or Harrow be placed above people who attend state education from the moment they leave school

Parents who are dissatisfied with the state school system for whatever reason should have the choice to send their children to private school. If they have the money, that's their prerogative. The state has no business mandating education.

Parents who don't have the money can apply for all sorts of bursaries, assisted places and scholarships. Most private schools offer them; at my school ~25% of our pupils receive financial support.

Private education tell children that skill doesn't matter in life- only money does. That's something I don't support

Another monstrous generalisation. I wouldn't support that either if it were true.

Inequality exists. You may as well advocate distribution of wealth: if state education is made mandatory, do you think problems with "daddy's connections" will stop?

[BlueIsTheColour]

Parents shouldn't have to bankrupt themselves just to send their children to a 'public' school, state schools are just of high standard, Public schools foster this rather indept belief that you can throw money at any problem and it creates a gulf in our society- only 7% of people pay for education yet they dominate key positions in society.l

I think you've perfectly illustrated the problems with state education in that reply.

State schools - for all their merits - don't actually teach you to write in a clear coherent way.

[Harry Smith]

Parents who are dissatisfied with the state school system for whatever reason should have the choice to send their children to private school. If they have the money, that's their prerogative. The state has no business mandating education.

Parents who don't have the money can apply for all sorts of bursaries, assisted places and scholarships. Most private schools offer them; at my school ~25% of our pupils receive financial support.



Another monstrous generalisation. I wouldn't support that either if it were true.

Inequality exists. You may as well advocate distribution of wealth: if state education is made mandatory, do you think problems with "daddy's connections" will stop?

I do believe in redistribution of wealth, and the fact that you claim that parent's can simply send their children to private education is simply wrong- my parents even with assistance such as bursaries still wouldn't be able to afford sending two children to a private education.

The State has every business in education- look at what's happening in these 'free' schools set up by Michael Gove where the State are leaving schools alone- the majority of these schools are failing because they don't employ trained teachers.

It wouldn't end the culture of nepotism but it would make sure that all children have equal access to education -something that doesn't exist in our society

I think you've perfectly illustrated the problems with state education in that reply.

State schools - for all their merits - don't actually teach you to write in a clear coherent way.

Blame the English GCSE, I got an A yet I quite clearly don't proof read my work, but yeah nice point

[saea97]

I do believe in redistribution of wealth, and the fact that you claim that parent's can simply send their children to private education is simply wrong- my parents even with assistance such as bursaries still wouldn't be able to afford sending two children to a private education.

I'm sorry to hear that. I got a bursary because I'm in a one-parent family. I suppose they would be more likely to think that a two-parent family could cope with fees. Note that I didn't particularly "make that claim", and I certainly never said "simply". I'm aware of the sacrifices people make to send their kids to private school, but I'm also aware that schools do try to help. There's only so far they can go, though. If one can't afford it, the state education is, as you've pointed out, perfectly adequate.

The State has every business in education- look at what's happening in these 'free' schools set up by Michael Gove where the State are leaving schools alone- the majority of these schools are failing because they don't employ trained teachers.

Yeah, sorry, correction: the state has business in state education. Private education is not the business of the state just as private healthcare isn't.

It wouldn't end the culture of nepotism but it would make sure that all children have equal access to education -something that doesn't exist in our society

I don't follow. Haven't you been trying to establish that state schools achieve just as well as private schools? Abolishing them would just mean hundreds of thousands of kids suddenly need to be accommodated by the state at huge expense, and for what? Nepotism would still exist, and you'd achieve some perverse equality only by dragging people down to the lowest common denominator.

[BlueIsTheColour]

Blame the English GCSE, I got an A yet I quite clearly don't proof read my work, but yeah nice point

You're probably an intelligent guy so I don't think it's a proof-reading issue. GCSEs aren't worth anything these days because they are so easy. The reason privately educated people do well is because state education is so crap - as you've just proved.

Problem is state education is a job creation scheme for bad teachers rather than a way to educate children. There's no solution to that, at least not quickly.

[tovaris]

You're probably an intelligent guy so I don't think it's a proof-reading issue. GCSEs aren't worth anything these days because they are so easy. The reason privately educated people do well is because state education is so crap - as you've just proved.

Problem is state education is a job creation scheme for bad teachers rather than a way to educate children. There's no solution to that, at least not quickly.

You british fascinate me... How can public education be no good? Strange country...
Here private schools are only for stupid rich kids that dont have the grades to get into a normal school...

[Harry Smith]

I don't follow. Haven't you been trying to establish that state schools achieve just as well as private schools? Abolishing them would just mean hundreds of thousands of kids suddenly need to be accommodated by the state at huge expense, and for what? Nepotism would still exist, and you'd achieve some perverse equality only by dragging people down to the lowest common denominator.

I'm against this rather idiotic view that some people advocate where people who attend Private schools are smarter and that its's simply a case of 'exclusive' schools for better students which isn't simply the case. The only solution is to allow every child regardless of their wealth to have access to a high standard of education

I think we should focus on building more schools anyway, we've got a crisis in our school system.

[Sugaree]

There is so much envy here. If you have enough money (it's not alot) buy your children a batter education same with toys and food

That education must be paying off its dividends for you, considering your grammar.

Seriously, are you really going to go back to the envy and jealousy arguments? Clearly the public education system in Britain has done much better than the private education system, so just own up and say you were wrong.

[britishboy]

I'm against this rather idiotic view that some people advocate where people who attend Private schools are smarter and that its's simply a case of 'exclusive' schools for better students which isn't simply the case. The only solution is to allow every child regardless of their wealth to have access to a high standard of education

I think we should focus on building more schools anyway, we've got a crisis in our school system.
just own up and say you were wrong.
I do agree I had to have extra tutors last year because my grades were slipping and I attend a private school. But the quality of education is better but also the company. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't public schools full of violent people, sluts, idiots, rebels and those on drugs?

I agree the public system needs reform however it certainly dosent need a flood of more pupils in the schools.

[Sugaree]

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't public schools full of violent people, sluts, idiots, rebels and those on drugs?

Grasping at straws now. Just because the student base happens to be what you consider "undesireables" doesn't mean the education they are being given is not of a quality standard.

[britishboy]

Grasping at straws now. Just because the student base happens to be what you consider "undesireables" doesn't mean the education they are being given is not of a quality standard.

But you can understand why parents don't force their children to socialise with them? And I believe the standard of education is better. The buildings are better, the equipment and resources are much more advanced and the schools are more concerned about grades.

[Harry Smith]

I do agree I had to have extra tutors last year because my grades were slipping and I attend a private school. But the quality of education is better but also the company. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't public schools full of violent people, sluts, idiots, rebels and those on drugs?

I agree the public system needs reform however it certainly dosent need a flood of more pupils in the schools.

So as someone who goes to a state ran school am I a violent, a slut, an idiot or a rebel? Really Jack which one am I?

Lets have a quick look

violence- yeah because fights never happen at private schools, my Uncle attented Oundle School which is fee-paying and someone tried to drown him a swimming pool.
Slut- It's pretty well know what happens at some Private school where boys spend a whole term with other boys.
Idiot- My school has people who have got 12 A*'s at GSCE, some people haven't done that well but that's exactly the same with private schools.
Rebel- I seem to remember that various Marxists/Fascists/Fabians and other 'rebels' attended private schools.
Drugs- David Cameron took cannabis at Eton, my Uncle took Cannabis at Oundle, my dad smoked at Oundle.

Despite your argument hinging on these straws I just wanted to point out that they weren't even correct...

As Dakota said your really the best argument that I have-your a product of the Private school system and you look down at anyone who doesn't attend one. You said correct me if I'm wrong- you are wrong

[britishboy]

So as someone who goes to a state ran school am I a violent, a slut, an idiot or a rebel? Really Jack which one am I?

As Dakota said your really the best argument that I have-your a product of the Private school system and you look down at anyone who doesn't attend one. You said correct me if I'm wrong- you are wrong

Not everyone is but I wouldn't want my children to go there because them types of people do attend.

I don't look down at everyone that goes to a state school but somebody that has never attended a private school and yet insults it for no logical reason certainly does not earn my respect.

[Harry Smith]

Not everyone is but I wouldn't want my children to go there because them types of people do attend.

I don't look down at everyone that goes to a state school but somebody that has never attended a private school and yet insults it for no logical reason certainly does not earn my respect.

You need to get a wife first bro, 'them types' also go to private schools so either way your fucked, maybe you should should aim to address some of the core problems with society as a whole first rather than blaming children.

You quite clearly do going from your posts, you've labelled my school as 'dirty' and stereotyped state schools as being full of undesirables.

I haven't been to Afganistan- I still know it's a shit country. I've got plenty of logical reason against private education, that several others have backed up with sources and evidence.

[britishboy]

You need to get a wife first bro, 'them types' also go to private schools so either way your fucked, maybe you should should aim to address some of the core problems with society as a whole first rather than blaming children.

I'm not the type that fights society, society has done no harm to me.


I haven't been to Afganistan- I still know it's a shit country.

And thats exactly how I feel about public schools.

[Harry Smith]

I'm not the type that fights society, society has done no harm to me.



And thats exactly how I feel about public schools.

You've been on the planet for 14 years, you've got about 55 more years to be fucked over by society- something that's already happened to millions of students when the government made you pay 9,000 a year to attend university... look at how the students reacted to that.

They're not shit... they've provided me with the education I needed, I've got the graders I require and as said before your hardly a great advert for private education are you?

[britishboy]

You've been on the planet for 14 years, you've got about 55 more years to be fucked over by society- something that's already happened to millions of students when the government made you pay 9,000 a year to attend university... look at how the students reacted to that.


I don't fight society, I'm happy I have a gf I have friends I feel respected and cared for, I have nothing to fight against, I suspect the same is for you, don't waste your life fighting.



They're not shit... they've provided me with the education I needed, I've got the graders I require and as said before your hardly a great advert for private education are you?

I never was an advert and your hardly the best for public education are you? Oh and they are bad.

[Harry Smith]

I don't fight society, I'm happy I have a gf I have friends I feel respected and cared for, I have nothing to fight against, I suspect the same is for you, don't waste your life fighting.



I never was an advert and your hardly the best for public education are you? Oh and they are bad.

Ah- it's so nice that you think that just because your have a girlfriend you live is complete.

I know, I go to a state school every day- the teaching is high, they've helped me inside and outside of school, I've completed the duke of Edinburgh award and they've helped me get the grades. My school has a 97% pass rate at GCSE and an outstanding award from OFSTED so the government facts and figures clearly disagree with you don't they.

Your now just resorting to bash something you have no ideas about, you've got no facts, no clear argument and well you've just resorted to branding them as all bad when they're quite clearly not

[britishboy]

Ah- it's so nice that you think that just because your have a girlfriend you live is complete.

I know, I go to a state school every day- the teaching is high, they've helped me inside and outside of school, I've completed the duke of Edinburgh award and they've helped me get the grades. My school has a 97% pass rate at GCSE and an outstanding award from OFSTED so the government facts and figures clearly disagree with you don't they.

Your now just resorting to bash something you have no ideas about, you've got no facts, no clear argument and well you've just resorted to branding them as all bad when they're quite clearly not

www.parentdish.co.uk/teen/why-private-schools-are-better-than-state/

Why do you think parents send their children to private schools?

[Emerald Dream]

and your hardly the best for public education are you? .

Cut it out, Jack.

[Harry Smith]

www.parentdish.co.uk/teen/why-private-schools-are-better-than-state/

Why do you think parents send their children to private schools?

I took a quick look threw that article, it's not only biased but it's wrong. It stated that in state schools teachers leave at 4 in the afternoon- something that is not true. Teachers work up until 7 o clock- I've spend whole afternoons working with Teachers when I didn't have lessons. State School teachers are some of the most hard working and committed people out their.

The article also claims that Teachers at state schools don't monitor students- I spend an hour after school today talking to my various teachers about my progress in my subjects

[saea97]

I'm against this rather idiotic view that some people advocate where people who attend Private schools are smarter and that its's simply a case of 'exclusive' schools for better students which isn't simply the case.

Me too. My mum went to a state school and then to Cambridge - I'm not one for generalisations.

The only solution is to allow every child regardless of their wealth to have access to a high standard of education

How would the government do that? Do you have any practical solutions to get around the fact that a private school faced with threats of government abolition would have a legitimate case to take to the European Court of Human Rights?

Again, I thought you've been advocating the idea that state schools do just as well as private schools. Surely, then, every child, regardless of their wealth, DOES have access to a high standard of education? There's no reason to believe that the competition amongst private schools (which leads to higher achievement) would persist once private schools are abolished.

I think we should focus on building more schools anyway, we've got a crisis in our school system.

How many? Costing how much? The practical problems thrown up by the implications of abolishing private schools are monstrous. And again, the culture of nepotism still exists; how about, to use your own words, you

aim to address some of the core problems with society [ie: nepotism] as a whole rather than this so-called solution, which in reality solves no problems and creates many?

[Harry Smith]

Me too. My mum went to a state school and then to Cambridge - I'm not one for generalisations.



How would the government do that? Do you have any practical solutions to get around the fact that a private school faced with threats of government abolition would have a legitimate case to take to the European Court of Human Rights?

Again, I thought you've been advocating the idea that state schools do just as well as private schools. Surely, then, every child, regardless of their wealth, DOES have access to a high standard of education? There's no reason to believe that the competition amongst private schools (which leads to higher achievement) would persist once private schools are abolished.



How many? Costing how much? The practical problems thrown up by the implications of abolishing private schools are monstrous. And again, the culture of nepotism still exists; how about, to use your own words, you

rather than this so-called solution, which in reality solves no problems and creates many?

That's good, I suppose the major personal issue I have about Public education is that it furthers the class divide within Britain and you have people making statements like this

aren't {public} schools full of violent people, sluts, idiots, rebels and those on drugs?

{public} Americanism- referring to British state schools

This isn't my government policy- it's political suicide to try and adopt it in Britain now in the same way that gay marriage would of been 20 years ago, I'm sure that like everything it would be taken to the European courts but I don't see how it breaches article 9, which is the most commonly used.

I've been advocating the idea that the State does a good job with education, and State school teachers work hard and do there job just as well as Private School teachers.

There's extremely high levels among state schools especially with OFSED and other reforms which mean that all schools are committed to meeting their targets.

Tax on the Bankers and Energy companies- that's how you pay for it, along with increasing tax to 50% for over 150,000.

The core of my belief is that every child should have the equal right to equally high standards of education, we shouldn't live in a society where children as young as 5 are pushed to the back of line purely because their parents can't afford the school fees

[saea97]

That's good, I suppose the major personal issue I have about Public education is that it furthers the class divide within Britain and you have people making statements like this



{public} Americanism- referring to British state schools

This isn't my government policy- it's political suicide to try and adopt it in Britain now in the same way that gay marriage would of been 20 years ago, I'm sure that like everything it would be taken to the European courts but I don't see how it breaches article 9, which is the most commonly used.

I've been advocating the idea that the State does a good job with education, and State school teachers work hard and do there job just as well as Private School teachers.

There's extremely high levels among state schools especially with OFSED and other reforms which mean that all schools are committed to meeting their targets.

Tax on the Bankers and Energy companies- that's how you pay for it, along with increasing tax to 50% for over 150,000.

The core of my belief is that every child should have the equal right to equally high standards of education, we shouldn't live in a society where children as young as 5 are pushed to the back of line purely because their parents can't afford the school fees

I agree with you on much of what you're saying, and I think your vocal commitment to equality is commendable, but I don't understand your argument or your proposals. If private schools are better than state schools, then the solution (and you've stated this yourself) shouldn't be to get rid of private schools, it should be to improve state schools. If state schools and private schools are both good, as you have stated, then I don't understand how these 5-year-olds are being pushed to the back of the line.

I'm also not sure that the competition state schools participate in is as healthy as the one private schools do. It's more of a series of box-ticking exercises than the rigorous competition private schools have - and that's the government's fault, not the schools', so my point is that if you think inequality exists in schooling, you should be a) tackling nepotism and b) improving standards in state schools. Private schools don't even factor into it.

I agree with all of your last paragraph. I just don't understand how the private schools themselves are to blame - again, it's nepotism and bias that need to be tackled in terms of employment.

[Vlerchan]

If I thought abolishing private education would work in ending this form of uppity elitism I might actually be for it. Unfortunately, it probably won't.
I do agree I had to have extra tutors last year because my grades were slipping and I attend a private school. But the quality of education is better but also the company [...] And I believe the standard of education is better. The buildings are better, the equipment and resources are much more advanced and the schools are more concerned about grades [...]
I've already provided evidence which dictates contrary to this claim that privately-run schools are better. I actually linked it in a response to you. Stop repeating the same redundant bullshit.

Though I'll explain my situation: I go to a state-run school. It has a good standard of teaching and good facilities and is equipped with teachers who actually do care - like, my maths teacher stayed behind for two entire hours today to give extra classes. I'm currently looking at doing Law in any of Ireland's top universities - which are also state-subsidised. I'd like to think that state-education hasn't treated me so badly. Labelling something you've never experienced 'shit' or 'bad' is simply plain ignorant - and annoying as fuck, I might add.

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't public schools full of violent people, sluts, idiots, rebels and those on drugs? [...] But you can understand why parents don't force their children to socialise with them?
You're wrong. This is also called elitism.

You can't hide your children from the 'undesirables' forever.

[Walter Powers]

Should we allow fee-paying to continue to operate outside of government control and in turn charge pupils high amounts of money (in some cases £9,000) per term in order to attend the school or should we remove these schools and allow everyone in the country to experience an equal level of education?

Just because some people have to suffer through the public educations system doesn't mean everybody has to. No sense in dragging people down if you can't lift anyone up.

If you want equal education, do this: give parents the option of a voucher program for their children where the government will pay tuition to a certified private school: in America, at least, they do a better job and actually spend less then public schools. This increases options, and compeition to provide a good education, so it will be effective. They've tried it in many American states and cities and low income parents are literally begging for more spots.