Shouldnt equal education be available to everyone?

[angell84]

I have just returned to the U.K. after a very long period abroad, and I am shocked at the school system in the U.K. I lived in another country where equal education was available to everyone.

Why do we have comprehensive, and independant and fee paying schools in the U.K? Why is better education given to those with money who can afford it? Shouldn't equal education be available to everyone?
The discrimination in education - is shocking in the U.K.

you do know that most other countries do not have as many private schools as the U.K?

One of the reasons UK private schools host lots of international students

I think the problem is society isn’t equal- those who can afford it live together in more affluent areas. I grew up in a grammar school area where there was 3 tiers of education. Where I currently live there isn’t the same system but the gap is caused between those in catchment and those not meaning you have very affluent schools and those with significantly higher levels of deprivation. Then add private schools in which provides ‘choice’ for those who can afford it- but such is society?

you do know that most other countries do not have as many private schools as the U.K?

You don't mention what country you are talking about. But I do know that the UK has only about 7% of it's students in private schools. In Australia where I live , 40% of kids go to private schools ,and in the USA, 10% of all kids do so.

Your assertion is far from accurate.

But OP there are gymnasium in Germany aren’t there? So like grammar schools, and more technical schools? And there are American International schools in Germany in large cities and Catholic private schools in cities like Cologne. I know there are some boarding schools and I also know of German families who send their children to English boarding schools for a year to improve their children’s English or to the schools like Aiglon or Le Rosay in Switzerland.

Different people have different opportunities.

Even if you abolish private schools, there will still be areas with 'better' schools, you can probably guess which ones. The ones that recieve generous donations, have 'powerful' people to answer to parent wise and will be inaccessible to those who cannot afford to live nearby. The difference is that they will also get an equal share of the state school pot, which takes it away from others. The real issue is that there needs to be real funding in schools, not just a token few extra million, and working conditions needs to be made better for teachers so that there are actually enough to go round. Absorbing the pupils of private schools would be challenging and put more pressure on an already weak system.

Why keep doing, a very old system, just because it has been done that way before?

Because most of our prime ministers come from this system, they have benefitted and want the same for their children.

The school system in Scotland is very different to England. Yes there are private schools but the state system is very equal. No selective schools or exams to get places in schools. Most children go to their local high school. Some are good and some are bad but they all offer the same educational curriculum.

There are some countries where state schools (free) are the only options for citizens, they are not allowed to go to private schools. A totalitarian government can decide and implement such things.

UK is a free society where education is a basic right and everyone is guaranteed a right to free education. If some choose to pay for private schools that is their choice to make. There is no evidence that the presence of private schools in the system diminishes the quality of learning at state schools. Hence it's hard to argue that all private schools should be closed.

Besides it's a socialist/communist viewpoint that education, healthcare, jobs etc should be standardized and provided for by the state i.e one size fits all and that is the only choice available to all. That model of society has been proven to be broken.

A by-product of capitalism is wealth inequality. I don't think that can be erased. A by-product of this is the fact that some people can afford and choose to pay for more expensive private schools. In a way, one probably wants them doing so and hence keep state school spots available for everyone else.

@deep501 the U.K. is a free society?

So why do we have rigid classes? Why do we have Aristocrats? Why do we have people who go to private schools taking the top jobs in the country? Why do we have a house of Lords? And a house of "commons".

It is a corrupt, elite system that favors the people at the top over and over , and makes other people suffer badly (poverty, homeless, food banks) with no way out - over and over.

Here is an article from the guardian:

"Britain is "deeply elitist" because people educated at prublic school and Oxbridge have in effect created a "closed shop at the top", according to a government report published on Thursday. Alan Milburn said that having such little diversity at the top of society was "not a recipe for a healthy democratic society".

*public

We live in a very disadvantaged area with no grammar schools, I teach but we will be applying for private schools in our closest city and hoping for a bursary. The option to go to private school is there, and they will take poorer students to maintain their charity status.

The teachers in my school are exhausted, all of my classes have 32 students. In some GCSE classes I have a range of reading ages from 5 to 17 which makes it very difficult to tailor the lesson for anyone. Just like other local schools we have big issues with county lines, some of our children have experienced terrible trauma or just struggle with school work so act out and have awful behaviour. I was out of the classroom 1 day last week and text books and stationery were thrown out the window.

I want Dd to have the educations she deserves, where its OK to be clever, where draconian rules don't have to be put in place just to keep the peace. I don't want her lessons disturbed by awful, disrespectful behaviour. If you got rid of private schools these issues would still exist but you would have even more students to squeeze into overcrowded schools.

@angell84 perhaps you can start by answering which country you just came from and are citing to be the panacea of education? That question has been asked a few times, somehow you evade answering.

Once you provide that context, then you can try to understand what free society means. Refer to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_society as a start.

It seems that your definition of free society is that everything is literally handed out to you for "free" .. education, food, money, jobs. Anything short of that you classify as corrupt, elitist.
Seems to me you desire communism (refer to my earlier post), considered moving to China?

Excuse the typo - I can't delete the post. That should say private schools and Oxbridge.

Link to article here: www.sbs.com.au/news/britain-deeply-elitist-society-study

@deep501 some one right above you has just said that state schools are very equal in Scotland, and last time I checked, Scotland wasn't a communist country.

Don't you think that there is room for improvement in England? As I said, I am from England - and it breaks my heart to see the corruption and injustice that goes on. Where is the empathy and kindness. People are suffering. Questions need to be asked

@deep501 in the link that you provided on a "free society", it said that people in a free society should have economic freedom.

So how does England have a free society, when the privately educated keep getting the best jobs? That does not sound like economic freedom.

Here is an excerpt from the article above

"Britain is still "deeply elitist" with privately-educated pupils continuing to dominate top roles in society, a report warns.

Many of the country's judges, politicians, armed forces chiefs, journalists, TV executives, public officials and sports stars attended fee-paying schools before going to study at Oxford and Cambridge, it suggests.

This stark lack of diversity means that many of Britain's key institutions are not representative of the public they serve, and the people running them may not understand the daily issues facing people from different backgrounds, according to the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission."

@angell84 - please read the article fully to understand their definition of "economic freedom" as well ...

you started your post saying you spent long time abroad where education was perfect, care sharing which country that is? To provide a frame of reference for the rest of us?

In your view, OP, what should people be able to spend their money on? You've made it clear they shouldn't be able to spend it on better school facilities or smaller class sizes. How about personal tuition? Sport or drama clubs? Better food than average? Books at home? Subscriptions to educational magazines? Online educational resources? Larger houses with separate bedrooms for their children?

All these things cost money. All these things raise educational attainment. Should we make them all illegal?

There is a right to an education. Not to an equal education.

We should not penalize people by catering to the lowest common denominator. We should be looking at how best to help the intelligent but disadvantaged pupils through interventions, greater challenges, scholarships etc.

League tables are not elitist. You said the country you have come from has equal education across the board. How can you actually know that if you do not compare the schools?

@LangSpartacusCleg totally agree with this.

There is a difference between need to uplift through various support methods and the desire to receive everything for "free" and consider that as a basic right/right to economic freedom.

It's a lost cause trying to explain that to OP who is clearly focused on blaming the UK system for everything that is possibly wrong.

@angell84 any complaints about the UK weather while you are at it? Returning from your long stint abroad, you must have a view on the sunshine being brighter elsewhere too?

Why won’t you tell us which country you’ve lived in in the EU?

I agree Langspartacus.

I would also assert that whilst state schools are not rising to the highest common denominator there must be options. Not all schools are right for all children and in my experience, with my DC, the comprehensives available were in the context of education (science and language provision) and behaviour.

I do think the UK system is shocking but not for the same reasons as the op.

I would be very happy to pay a little more tax for education nd the NHS but I would expect the ethos and standards in both to improve. SEND would be a priority; it's the NHS's CAMHS and there is something disturbing about a society that does not sufficiently suppirt its most vulnerable children and young people.

First para needs the word unacceptable added. Apols

DH and I have an income in the top 10% of households in the UK (I was at state school, he was private although both Scotland rather than England so different system). Our DC go to state school because the private alternatives are not worth the money, the local state secondary school and 6th form college send several children to Oxbridge every year. DN is at Oxford, along with several of her classmates from a state school. Going to state school is not just for 'poor' people and does not prevent access to the top jobs. Concentrate on getting church schools abolished rather than worrying about private schools.

If you want to adress inequality please tell us about the healthcare system in the country you've come from?