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.

... And no I am not runnin way or backing down before that all starts , I just give up arguing with close minded folk on such an emotive subject. I have said my bit. Whoooppdee fucking doodle if you don't agree, I am not one to cry of such trivial nonsense so disagree away! Bye cxx

The opportunity to exercise and not drink red bull or be in a buggy 24/7 are choices open to all parents regardless of income. Private education isn't.

Sure. But what about the child? The fact that the parent has free will doesn't make life any better for a child of feckless parents than sensible ones.

Odaat give it a rest. You're as snarky and patronizing as they come. And it doesn't take an "expert" to work out that adding 7.5% more children to a strained school system requires MONEY.

There is nothing wrong with wanting or hoping that one day we will have an ideal education system in this country. There is nothing wrong with hoping that we can move towards a system where every child is educated by the state, if that is your personal idea of the ideal education system.
But there is something wrong with putting forward illogical and unreasoned arguments about how this can be achieved. Surely even somebody with the most basic understanding of how systems work can understand that the ideas you out forward are not achievable under the format that you suggested. The idea that a few more kids going on a school trip will boost a schools finances is something that even my 9 year old would realise is unrealistic.
The idea that people will just hand over their school buildings to the state education system without financial recompense is something that my 9 year old would understand is unrealistic.
The idea that this country could become communist without severe bloodshed and destruction is beyond unrealistic......

Odaat, argue away by all means! You are entitled to your opinion and this thread has many posts from those who believe the private sector should be abolished. The reason you are being 'jumped on' is because instead of offering an articulate argument, you are suggesting that the tax payer is paying for private schools and that the state should just confiscate the property and use it as a state school.

Most of the posters on here from either side of the fence are educated and reasonable and therefore even though there's debate, there's reason. Your arguments and more so your solutions are just plain untrue and somewhat bonkers!

Exactly Impatient. Odaat people are not sneering at your dreams or your ideology but at your slightly away with the fairies idea of how the real world actually works! You have to be pretty sure of your facts and figures before you come onto a thread which is basically about politics snd economics and start speaking to people in the dismissive and disparaging tones you used earlier. Now you've been made to look a bit daft at least back down with good grace and stop trying to make it look as though we just can't deal with a counter argument. So far you HAVE no counter argument.

I think what the OP really means is that we need more good schools available for general public.
I'd really love to send my children to a certain school, but its out of our reality even if we gave up holidays for life.

For the sake of argument if there were only state schools with all the same facility's ect there would still be good schools and bad schools for the following : good teachers that inspire learning, average teachers that just teach, students who do well in their study's and children that misbehave. To anyone So all in all do you think having one standard of school would make a difference ?

If all schools were state comprehensives, quite apart from the quality of teaching and management, there would still be huge variations just because of different intakes: a comprehensive in a prosperous middle-class suburb full of academics from the nearby university (like the one my DH went to) would almost certainly produce very different results from one in a deprived area where very few of the parents had post-16 qualifications.

The UK school system both reflects and perpetuates the social inequality in wider society - Finland and the other countries quoted have much less inequality to start with. Abolishing private education in the UK might look like it would end inequality in British schools, but there is no way that it would succeed unless you tackled all the other things that make the prospects of children born into different families and areas so unequal.

Truffle - there has been a huge school building program going on around the uk for several years. It's set to continue. Private schools have the buildings and the teachers (trained by the state) to accommodate all the extra places, as your average private school class is often only half the size of a state school class. Why can't the state lease the buildings and take over funding of these schools rather than pay to build new schools? The tax payer had already provided most of the training for staff in these schools after all...

I completely agree with you op. I think it is very wrong that private schools exist and that it is what causes us to have such a huge wealth divide.
The rich and powerful send their kinds to private school so that they then have the upper hand in continuing to be rich and powerful and so the cycle goes on. If those in power use private schools it makes state schools worse, they have no vested interest.
You won't get a lot of people agreeing with you because people seem to think they deserve large amounts of money but I'd rather see an equal society.

Ha! I'm not sure anyone at any of the average day schools we have used is powerful. Sure, a few are wealthy but not powerful that I'm aware of.

When talking about power and extreme wealth you are surely talking about ridiculously expensive old style public schools such as Eton, Harrow or Radley? The vast majority of independent schools in thus country are vastly different from these both in operational terms and in ethos.

itsbetterthanabox if the rich and powerful were to use state schools what would be the difference based on the following: they make sure their children study and get good exam grades and then they have private tutors and extra lessons outside of school eg music, sport ect for their children ?

Well not necessarily. Yes they may use tutors but the other stuff is completely dependent on the family obviously. It would still level the playing field and all state schools would be improved because those in power would have a vested interest.

Would you stop people sending their children overseas for schooling, or setting up their own home schooling groups with other parents who didn't want to send their children to state schools?

People can home school if they want.
Why would a child be going to another country without their parents?

itsbetterthanabox but if they only focused on how well their child was doing, then how would the school be improved ?

They care how it benefits their peers, their class.

itsbetterthanabox would that mean then that only a few select state schools be very good due the improvements of the rich and powerful and the rest of the state schools being average ?. Would this then lead to more people preferring to send their children to these very good state schools ?

No it wouldn't. You can't just put funds into certain schools. It goes national.

itsbetterthanabox but then why would you put funds in if it goes national, if you do not see it going towards furthering your children's education ?

Because it would be bloody obvious if it didn't and people would actually protest that. But when it's done through private schooling it's low level and insidious people don't see the effect it has.

"Why would a child be going to another country without their parents?"
What's the difference between sending your child to school in another part of the country and in another country? If they're coming back by plane it's hardly any different at all.

Why not try improving the state school system to render the low level private schools obsolete? You can't do much about the likes of Eton and Harrow etc.

Sending your child away for school is almost entirely a private school thing so that'd go with it.
The state schools will improve without private schools existing.
Education needs to be equal for all.

I just do not see this level playing field. I live in catchment to an outstanding school, and yet many of my neighbours still choose private education. Closure would result in a smaller catchment and increase the pool in terms of wealth for outstanding schools. Private schools do not create the divide between outstanding and failing schools.