Should England ban private schools

[walrus]

It may be the best way to have students continue drinking government propaganda

Labour will pledge to abolish private schools if it wins the next election, after the party’s annual conference voted for a proposal to “integrate” them into the state sector.

In a major policy shift, a motion approved by delegates at the gathering in Brighton said a government led by Jeremy Corbyn would “challenge the elite privilege of private schools” and claimed that “the ongoing existence of private schools is incompatible with Labour’s pledge to promote social justice”.

It said the party would include in its next manifesto “a commitment to integrate all private schools into the state sector”.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ind...766.html%3famp

[Master]

It is a good idea in theory and aiming for an egalitarian society but it will not happen. Labour say they will do it but never get round to it if they get into government.

[Kirkland Laing]

It would be an excellent thing but yes definitely unlikely to happen.

[Gandalf]

I disagree. If the parent has the means of improving their child then they have the right to do so. It is a different thing but out here there are many private academies and the difference between those who go to them and do not is often considerable. In a public school you have classes of 30, but in a private school between 6 and 12. This means a lot more ability to directly influence the class and make genuine observable improvements. The private school teachers, at least in my experience are often better and more efficient. If you can afford it or are willing to just spend less on other things then why should that opportunity be taken away?

I think there is a place for private education and it is up to parents if they are willing to work hard and pay for it. It isn't the preserve of the super elite and if parents are heavily invested then school, parents and child alike are pushed to achieve.

An average non boarder is 14,000 pounds a year in the UK. If you have 2 working parents with a reasonable level of work it isn't that out of range. Then even if you don't want the private school route you can always hire a private tutor on an hourly rate to catch up and get ahead.

I think it is about choice more than anything. It isn't for the government to decide everything in one's life. It is up to the parents.

[walrus]

I disagree. If the parent has the means of improving their child then they have the right to do so. It is a different thing but out here there are many private academies and the difference between those who go to them and do not is often considerable. In a public school you have classes of 30, but in a private school between 6 and 12. This means a lot more ability to directly influence the class and make genuine observable improvements. The private school teachers, at least in my experience are often better and more efficient. If you can afford it or are willing to just spend less on other things then why should that opportunity be taken away?

I think there is a place for private education and it is up to parents if they are willing to work hard and pay for it. It isn't the preserve of the super elite and if parents are heavily invested then school, parents and child alike are pushed to achieve.

An average non boarder is 14,000 pounds a year in the UK. If you have 2 working parents with a reasonable level of work it isn't that out of range. Then even if you don't want the private school route you can always hire a private tutor on an hourly rate to catch up and get ahead.

I think it is about choice more than anything. It isn't for the government to decide everything in one's life. It is up to the parents.

If a parent wants to keep their children away from the bullshit public school system and they have the means why not. Or is this about making everyone equal. As teaching in public school becomes indoctrination no matter it is such a concern

[Gandalf]

I disagree. If the parent has the means of improving their child then they have the right to do so. It is a different thing but out here there are many private academies and the difference between those who go to them and do not is often considerable. In a public school you have classes of 30, but in a private school between 6 and 12. This means a lot more ability to directly influence the class and make genuine observable improvements. The private school teachers, at least in my experience are often better and more efficient. If you can afford it or are willing to just spend less on other things then why should that opportunity be taken away?

I think there is a place for private education and it is up to parents if they are willing to work hard and pay for it. It isn't the preserve of the super elite and if parents are heavily invested then school, parents and child alike are pushed to achieve.

An average non boarder is 14,000 pounds a year in the UK. If you have 2 working parents with a reasonable level of work it isn't that out of range. Then even if you don't want the private school route you can always hire a private tutor on an hourly rate to catch up and get ahead.

I think it is about choice more than anything. It isn't for the government to decide everything in one's life. It is up to the parents.

If a parent wants to keep their children away from the bullshit public school system and they have the means why not. Or is this about making everyone equal. As teaching in public school becomes indoctrination no matter it is such a concern

I think what they are discovering is that children who have been to public school have been better taught and are thus generally at an advantage compared with the average state student. They have smaller class sizes, teachers who are less over burdened, and because of the investment the parents really care about the outcome. I have an old friend who teaches at a private school back home and he loves it there. The classes are small, he is relatively autonomous, and gets to do his thing in relative peace.

In public schools the teacher drop out rate is tremendous. Rather than banning private schools where students and teachers are often quite comfortable, they should probably do something about public schools. Maybe Greta has a solution.Oh, she dropped out to save the world. Maybe someone else.

[Master]

Private schools are the preserve of the super elite look at the Tory party and people in power. It is a demonstration that there is a massive class divide and further perpetuates it.

[Kirkland Laing]

I disagree. If the parent has the means of improving their child then they have the right to do so. It is a different thing but out here there are many private academies and the difference between those who go to them and do not is often considerable. In a public school you have classes of 30, but in a private school between 6 and 12. This means a lot more ability to directly influence the class and make genuine observable improvements. The private school teachers, at least in my experience are often better and more efficient. If you can afford it or are willing to just spend less on other things then why should that opportunity be taken away?

I think there is a place for private education and it is up to parents if they are willing to work hard and pay for it. It isn't the preserve of the super elite and if parents are heavily invested then school, parents and child alike are pushed to achieve.

An average non boarder is 14,000 pounds a year in the UK. If you have 2 working parents with a reasonable level of work it isn't that out of range. Then even if you don't want the private school route you can always hire a private tutor on an hourly rate to catch up and get ahead.

I think it is about choice more than anything. It isn't for the government to decide everything in one's life. It is up to the parents.

If a parent wants to keep their children away from the bullshit public school system and they have the means why not. Or is this about making everyone equal. As teaching in public school becomes indoctrination no matter it is such a concern

I think what they are discovering is that children who have been to public school have been better taught and are thus generally at an advantage compared with the average state student. They have smaller class sizes, teachers who are less over burdened, and because of the investment the parents really care about the outcome. I have an old friend who teaches at a private school back home and he loves it there. The classes are small, he is relatively autonomous, and gets to do his thing in relative peace.

In public schools the teacher drop out rate is tremendous. Rather than banning private schools where students and teachers are often quite comfortable, they should probably do something about public schools. Maybe Greta has a solution.Oh, she dropped out to save the world. Maybe someone else.

It's not the quality of the teaching. It's the network they develop at private schools that gives them a leg up throughout life. The old school tie thing. It means a tiny class of people get all the top jobs and run the country and hand those jobs onto their kids. There's almost no way for equally bright or brighter non wealthy kids to break into the elite and I know this to be true as I'm a non wealthy kid who broke into the elite. Britain and America rank dead last and second last in terms of social mobility, that is people being able to move up in the world because they're bright and hard working. Countries like the Scandanavian countries with excellent free education through postgraduate level rank at the top of the social mobility list.

Rich kids would still have private tutors outside of school and still have lots of advantages but not as many. Anything that can help reduce the massive inherent advantages in life that they have and help much brighter more deserving kids to get the top jobs should be done as it's actually damaging to the country's economy not to do it.

[Gandalf]

You admit that you did it though. I am not sure that being elite is really the goal, but to just be self sufficient and able to get ahead in a field of choice you enjoy. Very few people are what you would call elite and I just argue to tax them more and invest in better state sector education. The private sector is a personal choice like healthcare. Up to the consumer.

Connections do play a role but there was a Guardian piece, or at least I think it was The Guardian, that conceded that private school students end up being two years ahead of state school students in terms of academic development. That is significant. In the state sector conditions are so bad 40% of teachers drop out within 5 years and I am not sure eradicating private education is fair on those students or those teachers who appear more content. Out here there is a lot of private education and parents know what raising a child is before getting into it whence few 6 children households. It is smarter and people are willing to invest themselves. Otherwise, why have a child if you don't want to nurture or invest in outcomes?

I certainly wouldn't want to send a child to a modern inner city state school back home. I would honestly consider alternatives and just try to provide the things that I lacked. It would mean a lot of the things I see here and have learned along the way. I would want my child to be trilingual, to understand that there are many wonderful skilled responsible jobs out there etc. It has little to do with trying to be George Soros or Doctor Evil.

[Fenster]

It makes sense, however, the hypocrites proposing it is an insult.

[walrus]

I disagree. If the parent has the means of improving their child then they have the right to do so. It is a different thing but out here there are many private academies and the difference between those who go to them and do not is often considerable. In a public school you have classes of 30, but in a private school between 6 and 12. This means a lot more ability to directly influence the class and make genuine observable improvements. The private school teachers, at least in my experience are often better and more efficient. If you can afford it or are willing to just spend less on other things then why should that opportunity be taken away?

I think there is a place for private education and it is up to parents if they are willing to work hard and pay for it. It isn't the preserve of the super elite and if parents are heavily invested then school, parents and child alike are pushed to achieve.

An average non boarder is 14,000 pounds a year in the UK. If you have 2 working parents with a reasonable level of work it isn't that out of range. Then even if you don't want the private school route you can always hire a private tutor on an hourly rate to catch up and get ahead.

I think it is about choice more than anything. It isn't for the government to decide everything in one's life. It is up to the parents.

If a parent wants to keep their children away from the bullshit public school system and they have the means why not. Or is this about making everyone equal. As teaching in public school becomes indoctrination no matter it is such a concern

I think what they are discovering is that children who have been to public school have been better taught and are thus generally at an advantage compared with the average state student. They have smaller class sizes, teachers who are less over burdened, and because of the investment the parents really care about the outcome. I have an old friend who teaches at a private school back home and he loves it there. The classes are small, he is relatively autonomous, and gets to do his thing in relative peace.

In public schools the teacher drop out rate is tremendous. Rather than banning private schools where students and teachers are often quite comfortable, they should probably do something about public schools. Maybe Greta has a solution.Oh, she dropped out to save the world. Maybe someone else.

It's not the quality of the teaching. It's the network they develop at private schools that gives them a leg up throughout life. The old school tie thing. It means a tiny class of people get all the top jobs and run the country and hand those jobs onto their kids. There's almost no way for equally bright or brighter non wealthy kids to break into the elite and I know this to be true as I'm a non wealthy kid who broke into the elite. Britain and America rank dead last and second last in terms of social mobility, that is people being able to move up in the world because they're bright and hard working. Countries like the Scandanavian countries with excellent free education through postgraduate level rank at the top of the social mobility list.

Rich kids would still have private tutors outside of school and still have lots of advantages but not as many. Anything that can help reduce the massive inherent advantages in life that they have and help much brighter more deserving kids to get the top jobs should be done as it's actually damaging to the country's economy not to do it.

Excuse Kirk he tends to skip over a few things
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...rticle/511925/

[Kirkland Laing]

You admit that you did it though. I am not sure that being elite is really the goal, but to just be self sufficient and able to get ahead in a field of choice you enjoy. Very few people are what you would call elite and I just argue to tax them more and invest in better state sector education. The private sector is a personal choice like healthcare. Up to the consumer.

Connections do play a role but there was a Guardian piece, or at least I think it was The Guardian, that conceded that private school students end up being two years ahead of state school students in terms of academic development. That is significant. In the state sector conditions are so bad 40% of teachers drop out within 5 years and I am not sure eradicating private education is fair on those students or those teachers who appear more content. Out here there is a lot of private education and parents know what raising a child is before getting into it whence few 6 children households. It is smarter and people are willing to invest themselves. Otherwise, why have a child if you don't want to nurture or invest in outcomes?

I certainly wouldn't want to send a child to a modern inner city state school back home. I would honestly consider alternatives and just try to provide the things that I lacked. It would mean a lot of the things I see here and have learned along the way. I would want my child to be trilingual, to understand that there are many wonderful skilled responsible jobs out there etc. It has little to do with trying to be George Soros or Doctor Evil.

I did it but I'm one of a vanishingly small number who did. The financial industry has always had to employ a few people smart enough to handle all the money rather than hand it to so and so from the top floor's son or nephew who bankrupts the bank and puts them all out of a job.

Most of the professions and the people around them though are uniformly generations of the same families. My money and connections leveraged my very bright sister's ascent from TV journalist to owning a chunk of one of the world's biggest PR firms. Without the money and the threats and the steamrollering people she could never have made the jump from journalist to where she is now, somebody with money/connections/ability would have beaten her to it.

I don't go to any elite events/gatherings but my sister does as part of her work and she tells me "in Britain I'm a fucking unicorn". Everybody else is from the same class, same posh accents, they all know each other and so on. The only people she meets with provincial accents are showbiz people whose talent got them there. She actually makes a point now of trying to hire people who have some kind of accent as they're far harder workers/smarter than the equivalent posh person just to have made it to the level she hires at.

We're the second from bottom major industrial economy when it comes to social mobility, just ahead of America. Anything that can be done to break up this monopoly, especially as it would greatly boost the economy in the long run, should be done.

[Kirkland Laing]

I disagree. If the parent has the means of improving their child then they have the right to do so. It is a different thing but out here there are many private academies and the difference between those who go to them and do not is often considerable. In a public school you have classes of 30, but in a private school between 6 and 12. This means a lot more ability to directly influence the class and make genuine observable improvements. The private school teachers, at least in my experience are often better and more efficient. If you can afford it or are willing to just spend less on other things then why should that opportunity be taken away?

I think there is a place for private education and it is up to parents if they are willing to work hard and pay for it. It isn't the preserve of the super elite and if parents are heavily invested then school, parents and child alike are pushed to achieve.

An average non boarder is 14,000 pounds a year in the UK. If you have 2 working parents with a reasonable level of work it isn't that out of range. Then even if you don't want the private school route you can always hire a private tutor on an hourly rate to catch up and get ahead.

I think it is about choice more than anything. It isn't for the government to decide everything in one's life. It is up to the parents.

If a parent wants to keep their children away from the bullshit public school system and they have the means why not. Or is this about making everyone equal. As teaching in public school becomes indoctrination no matter it is such a concern

I think what they are discovering is that children who have been to public school have been better taught and are thus generally at an advantage compared with the average state student. They have smaller class sizes, teachers who are less over burdened, and because of the investment the parents really care about the outcome. I have an old friend who teaches at a private school back home and he loves it there. The classes are small, he is relatively autonomous, and gets to do his thing in relative peace.

In public schools the teacher drop out rate is tremendous. Rather than banning private schools where students and teachers are often quite comfortable, they should probably do something about public schools. Maybe Greta has a solution.Oh, she dropped out to save the world. Maybe someone else.

It's not the quality of the teaching. It's the network they develop at private schools that gives them a leg up throughout life. The old school tie thing. It means a tiny class of people get all the top jobs and run the country and hand those jobs onto their kids. There's almost no way for equally bright or brighter non wealthy kids to break into the elite and I know this to be true as I'm a non wealthy kid who broke into the elite. Britain and America rank dead last and second last in terms of social mobility, that is people being able to move up in the world because they're bright and hard working. Countries like the Scandanavian countries with excellent free education through postgraduate level rank at the top of the social mobility list.

Rich kids would still have private tutors outside of school and still have lots of advantages but not as many. Anything that can help reduce the massive inherent advantages in life that they have and help much brighter more deserving kids to get the top jobs should be done as it's actually damaging to the country's economy not to do it.

Excuse Kirk he tends to skip over a few things
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...rticle/511925/

I'm not skipping over anything. You live in a country which is dead last in terms of people being able to move out of their social class due to intelligence/aptitude/hard work/initiative etc.

And increasingly it isn't a good deal even for the people at the very top who are on a treadmill from preschool age. This is unfortunately more than you read in a month but you should try and get through it. The absolute hell of being one of the top few percent and condemning your kids to the same life you have:

How Life Became an Endless, Terrible Competition

Meritocracy prizes achievement above all else, making everyone—even the rich—miserable. Maybe there’s a way out.



https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...inners/594760/

[walrus]

I disagree. If the parent has the means of improving their child then they have the right to do so. It is a different thing but out here there are many private academies and the difference between those who go to them and do not is often considerable. In a public school you have classes of 30, but in a private school between 6 and 12. This means a lot more ability to directly influence the class and make genuine observable improvements. The private school teachers, at least in my experience are often better and more efficient. If you can afford it or are willing to just spend less on other things then why should that opportunity be taken away?

I think there is a place for private education and it is up to parents if they are willing to work hard and pay for it. It isn't the preserve of the super elite and if parents are heavily invested then school, parents and child alike are pushed to achieve.

An average non boarder is 14,000 pounds a year in the UK. If you have 2 working parents with a reasonable level of work it isn't that out of range. Then even if you don't want the private school route you can always hire a private tutor on an hourly rate to catch up and get ahead.

I think it is about choice more than anything. It isn't for the government to decide everything in one's life. It is up to the parents.

If a parent wants to keep their children away from the bullshit public school system and they have the means why not. Or is this about making everyone equal. As teaching in public school becomes indoctrination no matter it is such a concern

I think what they are discovering is that children who have been to public school have been better taught and are thus generally at an advantage compared with the average state student. They have smaller class sizes, teachers who are less over burdened, and because of the investment the parents really care about the outcome. I have an old friend who teaches at a private school back home and he loves it there. The classes are small, he is relatively autonomous, and gets to do his thing in relative peace.

In public schools the teacher drop out rate is tremendous. Rather than banning private schools where students and teachers are often quite comfortable, they should probably do something about public schools. Maybe Greta has a solution.Oh, she dropped out to save the world. Maybe someone else.

It's not the quality of the teaching. It's the network they develop at private schools that gives them a leg up throughout life. The old school tie thing. It means a tiny class of people get all the top jobs and run the country and hand those jobs onto their kids. There's almost no way for equally bright or brighter non wealthy kids to break into the elite and I know this to be true as I'm a non wealthy kid who broke into the elite. Britain and America rank dead last and second last in terms of social mobility, that is people being able to move up in the world because they're bright and hard working. Countries like the Scandanavian countries with excellent free education through postgraduate level rank at the top of the social mobility list.

Rich kids would still have private tutors outside of school and still have lots of advantages but not as many. Anything that can help reduce the massive inherent advantages in life that they have and help much brighter more deserving kids to get the top jobs should be done as it's actually damaging to the country's economy not to do it.

Excuse Kirk he tends to skip over a few things
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...rticle/511925/

I'm not skipping over anything. You live in a country which is dead last in terms of people being able to move out of their social class due to intelligence/aptitude/hard work/initiative etc.

And increasingly it isn't a good deal even for the people at the very top who are on a treadmill from preschool age. This is unfortunately more than you read in a month but you should try and get through it. The absolute hell of being one of the top few percent and condemning your kids to the same life you have:

How Life Became an Endless, Terrible Competition

Meritocracy prizes achievement above all else, making everyone—even the rich—miserable. Maybe there’s a way out.



https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...inners/594760/

Ya Kirk I’m sure u read much more than me. I mean your never wrong despite making inaccurate statements about US history and politics that you are so convinced you are right.

[El Kabong]

IF England bans private schools THEN what is the public school curriculum and who makes the final decisions on it?

I figure there are at least some similarities between the US education system and UK system and everything taught isn't always cut and dry and sometimes (as you've seen in certain areas) specific topics are kind of a third rail....so how does that work in a one size fits all education system?

Then there's the whole class size issue and teacher to student ratio as well as taxation which pays for the operation of these centers of education...and those are all things mass immigration legal, illegal or otherwise make far worse.

How Life Became an Endless, Terrible Competition

Meritocracy prizes achievement above all else, making everyone—even the rich—miserable. Maybe there’s a way out.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...inners/594760/

Is it though? He seems to greatly lament nepotism. Also it's just taken for granted that anyone and everyone can be at the tippy top of the money making mountain rather than a more pragmatic "the world needs ditch diggers too" and that is very true. Also this lawyer and law professor seems to not even have manual labor and the money to be made in those fields on his radar. The value of a college education has peaked and is beginning to become more of an economic hindrance rather than a benefit. Now he IS quite correct on the "billable hour" and whew boy that's a fucking grinder that young high paid lawyers go through and it weeds out the pretenders from the contenders, there's plenty of other kinds of law and plenty of people make money practicing and they aren't all in mergers and acquisitions, they aren't all high rollin' wheelin' dealin' kiss stealin' limousine ridin' jet flyin' son of a guns....some do rather mundane things and they pay their bills, they do better than their parents before them. What that lawyer is saying is tantamount to "Well if you don't play football in the Premier League it isn't even worth your while to play the game"...meanwhile there's leagues all around the world all at varying levels of skill and some better or equal to the Premier League.

That lawyer/law professor is in a bubble and he doesn't even recognize it. Most lawyers like THAT yeah they aren't what I'd call observant of people on different paths than themselves.