Private School

[ASC1951]

But [dim kids] may become Chancellor of the Exchequer...

That's a silly comment best kept for C&D. George Osborne may have many characteristics that you don't like, but an Oxford 2.1 in Modern History says that dimness is not one of them.

 

[oldfatfool]

I don't think anyone has yet made the point that the choices we make about educating our children affect more than just ourselves and our own children. If we send our children to a private school, we are contributing to the continuance of the private system, and therefore to the sucking away of resources (of every kind) from the majority of children who will always be educated in the state sector.

Disagree. The fact is if you are paying for your childs education then the odds are you are working and paying the same amount of tax that you would be paying if you sent your children to state funded schools.

So it could be argued that by not burdening the state system with the education of your offspring whilst still effectively paying for the place you are in fact increasing the resources of the state system.

The '000's of pounds paid into the private system in school fees are not at the expense of the state sector and would never be available to the state sector if private education didn't exist. So facilities for state education would only fall (as many private schools allow state schools the use of their sports grounds and PAY for use of public amenities they don't have swimming pools spring to mind in many cases)

You could argue that the best teachers will be attracted to private education, better salary/ conditions, but then it is up to the state sector to weedle out the crap and to best utalise and looking at the Comp my son attended they could start by replacing some of the 'managers' with teachers.

 

[vernon]

I still believe that teaching is a vocation and the best teachers will be found in state schools as the money doesn't attract the best teachers, just those more driven by money.

With the current proposed pay structure and pension contributions you'll be lucky to find any newly qualified teachers in schools in the future....

 

[vernon]

With the current proposed pay structure and pension contributions you'll be lucky to find any newly qualified teachers in schools in the future....

I took a £4,000 p.a. pay cut to start teaching thirty years ago. No regrets.

 

[swansonj]

I still believe that teaching is a vocation and the best teachers will be found in state schools as the money doesn't attract the best teachers, just those more driven by money.

There will be some teachers with a vocation more towards the education-as-a-social-engine end of the spectrum who will go to state schools regardless of the money. There will be others with a vocation more towards the education-as-imparting-learning-to-young-minds end of the spectrum, who can be just as vocationally driven, but go to the private sector, because of the resources, the motivation of the pupils, the general atmosphere, the (perception of) fewer behaviour issues, and the greater opportunities for extra curricular activities. I agree the higher salaries in some private schools are a relatively minor factor.

 

[swansonj]

Disagree. The fact is if you are paying for your childs education then the odds are you are working and paying the same amount of tax that you would be paying if you sent your children to state funded schools.

So it could be argued that by not burdening the state system with the education of your offspring whilst still effectively paying for the place you are in fact increasing the resources of the state system.

The '000's of pounds paid into the private system in school fees are not at the expense of the state sector and would never be available to the state sector if private education didn't exist. So facilities for state education would only fall (as many private schools allow state schools the use of their sports grounds and PAY for use of public amenities they don't have swimming pools spring to mind in many cases)

You could argue that the best teachers will be attracted to private education, better salary/ conditions, but then it is up to the state sector to weedle out the crap and to best utalise and looking at the Comp my son attended they could start by replacing some of the 'managers' with teachers.

I think you may not be appreciating the significance of my "of all kinds" when I was talking about the sucking of resources away from the state sector by private schools, a point amplified by PK99. The money, which you talk about, is more of an issue than you make out (not least because if half the leaders of the Conservative party were educating their own children in the state sector, you can bet they'd take resourcing it more seriously than they do now), but it's still only one part of the resource-deprivation which the private sector inflicts on the state sector, alongside teachers, parents (see PK99), and pupils.

 

[Primal Scream]

The sooner private education in the UK is outlawed the better, it is a bastion of the class structure and purchased priviledge.

 

[oldfatfool]

I think you may not be appreciating the significance of my "of all kinds" when I was talking about the sucking of resources away from the state sector by private schools, a point amplified by PK99. The money, which you talk about, is more of an issue than you make out (not least because if half the leaders of the Conservative party were educating their own children in the state sector, you can bet they'd take resourcing it more seriously than they do now), but it's still only one part of the resource-deprivation which the private sector inflicts on the state sector, alongside teachers, parents (see PK99), and pupils.

You could throw all the resources you want at a school but a child is more likely to be brought down by their peers than lifted. All you would do by removing private education would be to end up with an elitist state school and a school for the rest in each catchment area, oh wait that would be the old Grammar school/ Comprehensive system that was scrapped and ended up with the Grammars going private wouldn't it?

 

[araapatlio]

The sooner private education in the UK is outlawed the better, it is a bastion of the class structure and purchased priviledge.

Outlawed? What right does the state have to ban a voluntary transaction and force every child into state education?

 

[Primal Scream]

Outlawed? What right does the state have to ban a voluntary transaction and force every child into state education?

Some thingthat were once legal are outlawed foxhunting for one. It would be better if in education at least the rich cannot buy additional privilege and advantage for their ofspring. When the elites have to use the state system hey may take more than a cursory interest in it.
afaiaa Finland has a top class education system and no private system.

 

[araapatlio]

Some thingthat were once legal are outlawed foxhunting for one. It would be better if in education at least the rich cannot buy additional privilege and advantage for their ofspring. When the elites have to use the state system hey may take more than a cursory interest in it.
afaiaa Finland has a top class education system and no private system.

But what right does the state have to ban private education?
Asserting that the state should have the power to ban things because you don't like them or don't think they are good is not sufficient.
If the state can ban private education, why can it not regulate speech? Why can the state not restrict your right to speak freely, in the "national interest" or because someone thinks it would be "better" if you were not allowed to voice your opinion?

 

[swansonj]

Oh, there are plenty of ways of tackling private education without banning it, were there the will. Charitable status is an obvious start. How about recouping the costs of teacher training for teachers in the private sector? Or, if you want to be really radical, cap the number of pupils that top universities can admit from any one school. Eton would be rather less attractive if Oxford only admitted a maximum of five old Etonians each year...

 

[Primal Scream]

The state has banned , foxhunting, Harecoursing, smoking in shops/bars, the use of certain pesticides, capital punishment, breathalysers.

This has upset or inconvenianced some people but has benifited society as a whole. Your free speech point does not imho stack up

 

[oldfatfool]

Some thingthat were once legal are outlawed foxhunting for one. It would be better if in education at least the rich cannot buy additional privilege and advantage for their ofspring. When the elites have to use the state system hey may take more than a cursory interest in it.
afaiaa Finland has a top class education system and no private system.

No they would just supplement the state education with private home tutors and or home tuition from themselves or would you make that illegal as well?

How far would you take leveling the playing field, No Tarquin I can't help you with your homework or buy you that text book I have to go down the offy now and spend all my money on Bensons and Bucky, and then there are 300 channels of Sky I have to flic through BY LAW

 

[araapatlio]

Oh, there are plenty of ways of tackling private education without banning it, were there the will. Charitable status is an obvious start. How about recouping the costs of teacher training for teachers in the private sector? Or, if you want to be really radical, cap the number of pupils that top universities can admit from any one school. Eton would be rather less attractive if Oxford only admitted a maximum of five old Etonians each year...

If the state tried to impose such limits on universities, Oxford would simply eschew state funding and evade the cap - making the problem worse. Unless you plan to simply impose it by force irrespective of accepting state funding?