To think private schools should be banned?

[BethanyBoobs]

Why should someone have a better education just because their parents have money? Why should someone have a better chance of getting into university because their parents paid for their education? It makes me feel uncomfortable that people can buy their kids an upper hand when it comes to education.

I feel the same way about private health care too.

IMO private schools should be banned. Everyone should have the same chances when it comes to their education.

Stockport is strange though. We lived in Wilmslow but my children attended a large independent school in a leafy part of Stockport and went to school with a large number of children from Bram and CH. I taught for a little while in two schools in reddish and Brinnington and you wouldn't believe this was the same county. The difference in income bracket was huge and the level of expectation was a real shame. Stockport LA prided themselves on all their outstanding high achieving schools in the south of the county when really those schools were simply a reflection of the parents the parents who could afford to live there.
I should say we haven't lived in Wilmslow or taught in Stockport for a few years so things may have changed significantly.

trebizon I think many of us who use private eductaion, fully accept that it aint fair.

Of course it's not.

In much the same way that it's not fair that many DC in the UK have inadequate food and shelter.

But what mnay of us are questioning is to what purpose we would ban private schools? In much the same way that we don't ban nice homes or good nutritious food, because there are those that cannot afford it.

Why don't we do that? Because it would serve no reasonable purpose, would it?

If we want to have the very best state system in the UK, then let's concentrate on that and do those things that might make a meaningful, as opposed to political, difference to many DC's lives. Private schools in this regard are a complete red herring.

Am also aghast that one poster went on a lengthy rant arguing that the only really effective strategy for improving educational attainment would be...eugenics. And really nobody commented on this, other than a one or two posters who said it was a great post!

I empathize with parents whose children are in bad schools, brought down by apathetic parenting, who can't afford whatever measures required to get into another school. I think it's a kind of Guardian-reader censorship that prevents people from admitting that bad parenting is a big part of the problem (I'm a Guardian reader).

Am also aghast that one poster went on a lengthy rant arguing that the only really effective strategy for improving educational attainment would be...eugenics.

Actually i think you may be misquoting me just a tiny, tiny smidge there.

Let me refresh your memory.

'The reasons why poor children are (on the whole) statistically less likely to achieve in education are very, very complex, and it's probably impossible to ever significantly reverse or eradicate that. Unless you want to start eradicating the real causes of it, ie. practising eugenics, or forced sterilisation of.....'

I don't think that is the same as saying that 'the only really effective strategy for improving educational attainment for the poor' do you?

What I absolutely am saying, however, is that banning private education is certainly NOT an effective solution, and it will have virtually no impact on those already at the bottom of the educational heap.

Yes, wordfactory, those posters/private school users do fully accept that it isn't fair. They happily accept that it isn't fair and many seem to embrace and adore that unfairness.

But the suggestion that the private school sector might be reformed or challenged in anyway is met with howls of outrage because it would be....unfair.

That's the bizarre disconnect here.

I think generally private school users are generally too busy working long hours, worrying about bills and being with their children to spend much time 'adoring the unfairness'.

But if anyone suggests a means of making something, anything, a bit - well - fairer, the very same posters are up in arms against it because.....it wouldn't be fair!

Is anyone saying it's not fair? More to the point, it's a breach of my parental rights to educate my child as I wish.

Private schools are also businesses operating outside the state and therefore general opinion of those who believe them to be wrong and use state education. Any hanger much anyway.

Doesn't count for much anyway.

Dd2's fault..

Well, yodiggity, you could have argued that it's possible to alleviate many of the injurious effects of poverty by taking serious measures to tackle poverty itself.

But in your post you decided to mention eugenics instead.

Not my choice of words.

Comments about banning spare-time activities that not everyone takes part in are not at all relevant. Do what you like in your spare time if it affects no-one else. But an excellent education should be accessible to all children, not just those who can pay. As for being "forced" to use private education, well if it's really essential then why are 97 per cent of children denied it?

Typo - that's 93 per cent.

I love it when advocates of a private education bang on about all the 'sacrifices' they have to make. Try telling that to an averagely incomed family. How on earth would any sacrifices be enough to find £650 spare cash a month to send one child private?

I'm so relieved that there are some who believe private education is more important than the annual skiing holiday/BMW/second reception room/satellite tv/weekend at center parcs, but when you imply that if only everyone else were to 'make sacrifices' then they too could affordit, it really gets on my tits when, after careful budgeting, reliance on one car, NO holidays abroad etc etc, every single penny earned is already earmarked towards keeping a roof over or heads and food on the table.

BTW £650 is based on the cost of our local tinpot private primary school and that's before the hideous uniform requirements have been met and all the extras are added.

Perhaps we should ban education altogether because in some countries, children don't receive an education.

While we're at it, let's ban Waitrose, because some people can't afford to shop there, and it's not fair that some people get nicer food.

Let's also ban BMW's, because it's not fair that some people get to travel in more luxurious cars, simply because they have more money.

signorastronza - I doubt anyone who has ever said to you that sacrifices have been made for private education meant to imply that you should have made them too. I think that might be your obvious complex about private education talking (tinpot, hideous etc).

Doodle - Easiest way to argue against something, use ridiculous exagerated examples to compare it to. It is a well worn rhetoric advice.

For example, if we have gay marriage, soon people will be able to marry their sister or their dog.

Just going back to what I said earlier (after reason a few pp do not agree - shock, horror!) :
Grammer schools reward brains, an inherent gift, regardless of wealth. Just like football teams are there for the very sporty- another attribute.

Wealth is sheer luck and nothing else. I speak as someone who could probably afford to send dd to a private school. I never would. It is enabling and endorsing a system that is sustematically abhorrent - to my personal morals.

Banning them would mean we can use the money to throw into state schoolig and make them better. If state schools were good, all would get am equally good eduction and then all would be in a fair position to excel where need be (or not, as the case may be) but atleast it would be on account of a child's abilities - as opposed to how much paper daddy has in his current account. Its obscene.

How would banning private schools end up with money going to state schools?

Lol Grennie, I see that Rheroric ALOT on here!

But the suggestion that the private school sector might be reformed or challenged in anyway is met with howls of outrage because it would be....unfair.But the suggestion that the private school sector might be reformed or challenged in anyway is met with howls of outrage because it would be....unfair.

Why should private schools be reformed or challenged? By and large they're doing a good job and filling the gaps that some state funded schools are leaving. Wouldn't it be 'fairer' to reform and challenge those failing state schools before turning your attention to a system which is actually working.

I'm going to sound like an old gimmer now but I think mass media, internet and instant gratification through things like ease in obtaining credit and credit having lost it's stigma have a lot to answer for.

We now have a young generation, rich and poor, who feel entitled. Who think they should have whatever they want 'just because'. Who have little awareness of the value if money, hard work and patience.

Nobody knows their place anymore! And before I get flamed, I absolutely do not mean that the poor should stay poor and accept their lot, tipping their cap at their betters. I mean that people aren't willing to accept their responsibility to themselves their kids and society as a whole.

Earn a low wage work hard and pay minimal tax and you are absolutely entitled to a fair share from society as a whole. But think the world owes you and it's acceptable to be an able bodied 18yr old who didn't bother making any effort at school and now thinks it's unfair that others have more than you and why should you take that low paid job etc and you're behaviour is unacceptable and I bet your GPs would be appalled.

As I said earlier, proper structured branching in schools at 14 would allow society to 'save' many kids from becoming disaffected. Let them come out at 16/17 with a qualification in plumbing or hairdressing if the academic side of school doesn't suit them. Give them the chance to be a valuable member of society.

Stockport LA prided themselves on all their outstanding high achieving schools in the south of the county when really those schools were simply a reflection of the parents the parents who could afford to live there.

But doesn't that go someway to confirming the theory that parental income and background has a lot more to do with the children's school attainment than how much funding the schools get and how well they spend that funding? Based on that, doesn't it add weight to the argument that private schools are not responsible in any way for the poor performance of some schools. Putting children from different backgrounds into a school might produce better results overall, but it wouldn't improve the results of the individual children because they still have the same parents and the same home life and same family income, the school would simply look better on paper because the 7% of pupils that have arrived from the prohibited private school have effectively created a false positive effect on the statistics.

odaat How would state schools get more funding if all the privately educated kids suddenly appeared in the state system? So far as I can see it would actually decrease funding. More kids, same amount of cash. Or is my maths completely shot?

How would banning private schools end up with money going to state schools?

Yes, I keep wondering that too. We are currently considering sending DS1 to a private school. If we decide not to, how does that help his current school? We already pay taxes, help with fundraising and help out in school. Should we pay an additional fee because we can?

Banning them would mean we can use the money to throw into state schoolig and make them better. If state schools were good, all would get am equally good eduction and then all would be in a fair position to excel where need be (or not, as the case may be) but atleast it would be on account of a child's abilities - as opposed to how much paper daddy has in his current account. Its obscene.

In this case you should also ban parental involvement, which is a great predictor of a child's academic success. It's very unfair that there are giant swathes of children who have apathetic parents.