What after you're thoughts on the distinct difference between public and state schooling? My previous blog post in relation to this one had mentioned the beneficial effects of free schooling(following the regulations of summerhill school). However, free schools would not be paid for by higher class parents; all schools will be equal. Equal. If we Illiminated all private schools, and replaced them with higher quality, equal state schooling- this will create a more fair society. Why seperate the rich and the poor? This is an outdated tradition from hundreds of years ago!
Having attended to both private and state schooling, I have experienced a series of different learning enviroments. My private school learning did benefit somewhat, but I was unhappy. Moreover, being amongst a smaller class was a struggle to make friends; there were just enough of us to enable teachers to give each student more of a priority. Whereas in a state school, theres thirty of us and we have less induvidual attention, and treated equally. However, I respect being treated equally over recieving all the advantages from private schooling. I despise this seperating the rich and poor, its really, REALLY appauling that it continues to this day. Childrens education should not depend on the families income. Social mobility is only possible with a good education educaton-whereas the private system limits that to only a few. For example, even today disproportionate numbers of Oxford and Cambridge students were privately educated. I don't believe buying your way into a higher class education should ever occur in a fair society.
Lets end this proposterous tradition of seperating induviduals based on the wealth aspect. We want free, fair and equal schooling.
Wait, so we are going to abolish some of the greatest education institutiations in the world because you in a private school you "struggle to make friends"? I agree that the issue of social mobility needs to be addressed, but why does that have to involve abolishing the one part of the education system that is performing well? British private schools are an enormous international export, earning millions for the UK economy every year. Parents from all over the world spend enormous amount of money sending their children here for an education! The reason they do it is because UK private schools are the best in the world.
ReplyDeleteThe best way to improve social mobility would be to improve the standard education in the state system.
If you read my article to the end, you'll notice that the main reason I dislike private education is the money aspect. Why should parents be given the opertunity to buy their child's way into a better education? Children have no control over their upbringing. I don't care about how much our economy benefits from private schooling, if it means children are being divided according to their parents wealth.
DeleteFine, but where do you stop? What about private tuition? If you abolish private schools these parents will almost certainly buy private tuition for their children outside of school time. So if you are adamantly apposed to separating by wealth, then surely you should make private tuition illegal also? How about all the other advantages middle class children receive due to their parents income, going to museums and galleries? Are you going to make all of these things illegal? This is a question of how far the state should be allowed to go in bringing a socially desirable outcome. I believe that if parents wish to spend their hard-earned money on educating their children privately - money that has already been taxed at 45% - then that is their right.
DeleteThe way to solve the problem is not to abolish some of the best schools in the world, but to improve the quality of education in the state sector. I understand your print about separating by income, but surely the main issue should be ensuring that all children, independent on their parents income, receive a good education that provides them with opportunities for later life. Now abolishing world-leading educational institutions, many of whom have partners in the state-sector, does not seem like the most productive way to go about this issue. Improve standards in the state sector to the point where parents CHOOSE not to educate their children privately.
You also say that "you don't care how much our economy benefits", so you don't care about the thousands of jobs provided by private schools? You don't care about the enormous pressure this takes of the state education system? You don't care that private school parents are effectively subsidising the state system, by paying their taxes but their children not taking up places in a state school? Fine, lets say you don't care about any of these things and your happy to see mass redundancies around the country, a mass exodus of foreign students, the decline of several free schools that have formed partnerships with the private-sector. Not to mention the fact that 8% of students in HMC schools are students from disadvantaged backgrounds on 100% bursaries, and 30% of pupils receive some form of financial support. Lets ignore all of that and consider the practicalities. You probably know that 7% of students are educated in the private sector, which is around 650,000 students. The average cost of educating a child in the state sector is around £4000 a year, so that works out at roughly £2.6 billion a year. Quite a lot of money the government would have to find out of nowhere. But it doesn't stop there, because as you probably know, we have run out of school places. Theres hardly enough room to accommodate a growing population, let alone a sudden influx of 650,000 pupils. To educate 650,000 pupils you would probably need to build around 350 new schools (each accommodating around 2000 pupils). Now under the last government the average cost of building a new school was £28 million, so in total that would add up to around £9.8 billion in capital costs.
Now I understand that you may "not care" about how much our economy benefits, but you can't seriously be suggesting that over £10 billion of extra costs isn't worth considering?!
The way to solve the issue of educational apartheid is not by destroying the schools that the OECD has ranked the best in the world, its by making our state system better.
Okay, fair enough- our economy is £10 billion better off. Schools are not there for buisness or economy growth. The main issue is that state and private schools are still separating richer children over poorer children. Arguably, most parents if they could-would send their children to private schools. But most can't afford it, so it's an unfair system. Why can't we make our state schools equally as good- and then scrap private schools. Children have no control whatsoever over their upbringing. If a child's parent can buy their child in to a better education, how is that fair? It's seperating societies. Poorer parents can't afford the best for their children. It's all down to the wealth of the parents.
Delete£10 billion is a lot of money. I don't believe it's worth considering when there's middle class and lower class parents who want the best for their children's education- but can't afford it.
50 percent of applicants for Oxford and Cambridge are from public school. Those who are applying for universities are more likely to get in if they went to a private school. So basically, a child's prospects are lower if they attended a state school. Even if they're the brightest child, or try their hardest- a lot of them get turned down and replaced with private school students.
A child's future practically depends on the wealth of the parents with this system. If a child's parents are poor, it's likely these children won't be able to achieve half as much as they could have. Any form of seperating lower class and richer children should be abolished, no matter how much our economy benefits from it.
How would you go about abolishing private schools? Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states: "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."
ReplyDeleteNow In my opinion abolishing an alternate source of existing education (namely private schools) clearly hinds this right?
I'm all in favour of human rights, and of course parents should have a choice of what kind of education their child is getting, but not if it involves money. That's my main objection, money. I don't believe parents should have the right to buy their children in to a better education. Children have no control over their upbringing.
ReplyDelete"parents should have a choice of what kind of education their child is getting, but not if it involves money", what choice would they have then?! If a pupil’s parents have the money to pay for private schools, they will simply spend the money on private tutors and other resources which would give an advantage to their own children against others.
DeleteThey would take their children to a state school like any average parent would have to. Why should wealthier parents have an advantage no average person has? It's completely out of proportion. If parents are willing to go that far by using private tuition, or other resources- let them. At least that's not seperating society half as much as it is now.
Delete