Boris

The state system is "mostly" very good. I upped sticks and moved area to give my own kids a fighting chance.

 

Well if State education was up to scratch then all the middling 15k per annum schools would disappear and you'd just be left with the genuine network schools that you mention like Eton starting at 30k pa. If the State was providing what it should, then the only reason to pay for private education would be for the network.

If that happened you might have an argument.

However, given that the State system isn't up to scratch in many cases it shouldn't bother you if people like ZZtop's window cleaner want to make the sacrifices necessary to remedy the shortcomings of the State in educating their child. Frankly, it's no more any of your business than if they wanted to spend £15k on a new car.

 

This post was to Moose, not Diamond.

 

I've told you I don't care about individuals. This 'jealous and bitter' riff you have just says more about how you view the world.

Again you resort to fanciful logic, based on a lie about state schools and then defeat yourself by agreeing that private schools are as much as anything about a 'network'.

Give up while you are behind.

 

Haha, no problem. State education certainly isn't up to scratch in many areas. When I was a kid I knew nobody who went to private schools, now it seems every other person I know sends their kids private. Good on them, it's called choice.

 

Your post is complete gibberish.

My position has always been that there are some private schools which provide a network, but the vast majority simply provide a far superior education to your beloved State system. What "lie" are you talking about? We're 26th in the international ranking tables last time I looked - hardly a cause for celebration is it?

The fact you cannot escape from is you would rather ban private schools, and have those students create bigger classes in the State system for no increase in funding. You begrudge people spending their own disposable income on institutions you don't like, even if the alternative is worse conditions for everybody.

Mindless.

 

Agreed. Unfortunatley Moose doesn't want people to have choice over their own disposable income if it disagrees with his politics.

 

In the past the state did not provide housing, so the wealthy built themselves castles and everybody lived in serfdom because they couldn't climb the high walls. Occasionally the peasants might gain a few small victories, but the throne was fought over only by the wealthiest families in the country.

When you build walls, stupid people become powerful and those outside them are left with the scraps.

Its also not a very efficient use of labour if the best opportunities are afforded to those with the deepest pockets.

If private schools did not exist then state education would improve because the sons and daughters of the decision makers would actually be attending them.

 

Can someone remind me where Dianne Abbot sent her son for his education?

 

"If private schools did not exist then state education would improve because the sons and daughters of the decision makers would actually be attending them."

Possibly - but you can't deny people choice simply because the State is failing in its duties. The State budget is huge. There should be enough to provide good State education. If there isn't then funds should be redirected from elsewhere. If that doesn't happen then the Government should be voted out in the next election.

We already have sufficient mechanism for building a good state system without needing to resort to the draconian banning of choice for thousands of parents, just so we have a stick to beat politicians with.

 

State education is high quality it's just that your children have to share a classroom with dosser children who've decided they're going to flip burgers at the age of 7, which is why I send mine to private school.

 

Back on Topic

If the answer's "Boris Johnson" then it must have been a really, really ****ing stupid question.

 

Yes - I agree with this. The State school teachers fight an uphill battle and are forced to pander to those who only are interested in disruption. Lack of discipline and a poor learning enviorment are the number one problems, but if you lobby for increased school discipline you'll get called a dinosaur who isn't in tune with modern teaching techniques.

 

You should consider engaging brain before posting. I've not said ban public schools or debated their effectiveness or not. My point has been that they are one way in which a separate class defines itself and ensures it's privileges continue. This is hardly radical, why on earth would anyone pay for them if they didn't deliver advantage?

Deal with the reality of inequality, whether you care about it or not, rather than parade your ignorance about state education, its abilities and challenges and make up ridiculous hypotheticals like imagining the private sector would be absorbed into the state with no increase in funding. Lol.

 

Like the enthusiasm, good luck.

 

Evidence? I would imagine discipline on the whole is much better than when I was at school. My son would be surprised to see a fight. I saw them all the time.

But no keep on taking the tabloids.

 

"My point has been that they are one way in which a separate class defines itself and ensures it's privileges continue. This is hardly radical, why on earth would anyone pay for them if they didn't deliver advantage?"

Which part of this basic point don't you understand? Private schools generally deliver better educational outcomes than state schools. Thus people OF ALL CLASSES are willing to pay for that.

You seem to think that all private schools are the same as Eton which is frankly idiotic.

 

This is one of the biggest problems. Discipline is so poor in schools, with teachers unable to use sanctions, that the disruptive pupils rule the roost, and the reduced use of streaming means that learning has to go at the pace of the slowest - to everyone's disadvantage. Heads and teachers are more concerned about covering their backsides than they are about anything else (with good reason) as parents, local school boards, etc, are too ready to jump on any hint of infringement on childrens rights, etc. An accusation is made by a pupil, and the starting point is suspension of the teacher, something that sticks with the teacher throughout their working life. It's sickening to see how spotty unruly teenagers can dictate to entire schools how they are run.

Private schools, in general, have better discipline with effective sanctions, more supportive parents, and tougher educational standards in terms of homework given, etc.

There is a Head master up here called Barry Day, who is used by state schools to "turn them around" after years of decline. I know him personally, and have done for years since his first role as HM at Greenwood Dale School, an extremely troubled inner City school in Nottingham. (feel free to google him). He has demonstrated that underprivileged children can do well at school, if the school is run well. He has had years of battles with the local Labour education authority over discipline, aspirations and responsibility and sadly, it seems that only schools that are helped by Barry Day, actually seem to improve up here, the rest just carry on regardless producing poor results. the local council just do not like education methods that fall outside their own political dogma. It is sickening.

 

Classic Moose. Demands evidence from me. His evidence is "my son would be surprised to see a fight".

You couldn't make it up.

 

"Deal with the reality of inequality, whether you care about it or not, rather than parade your ignorance about state education, its abilities and challenges and make up ridiculous hypotheticals like imagining the private sector would be absorbed into the state with no increase in funding. Lol"

This "hypothetical" is nothing of the sort and is such a simple, simple point so I'll try and explain it to you one more time.

The parents of private school pupils pay income tax. They do not get a rebate from their income tax when they pay their private school fees. Thus they are paying for both a state school place and a private school place. This actually benefits the State school pupil because his class size is smaller and the tax contributed is the same whether the other pupil goes to the private school or takes his place at the state school.

Please tell me you understand this?

 

The point I'll make (and what I believe Moose is saying, but perhaps with some add-ons) is that the fact that it is possible in society to BUY something like better education is sad, considering how difficult it is for swathes of the population of the UK(/world) to make enough money to live in any sort of comfort.

Simple point, and the starting point for a debate that goes further. At the moment you and Moose seem to be talking about things at different stages of the argument.

The base level here is about money being able to buy something (education) that many people think should not be in any way dependent on the financial situation of an individual. Obviously this isn't such a simple point to put forward in a less developed - financially speaking and so on - country etc etc, but in the UK there is the infrastructure and so on for this debate to actually hold weight.

I don't in any meaningful way begrudge anyone who chooses to send their kids to a private school. The fact that such a choice exists is a reason for a sadness that is hard to concisely articulate. Some people will inherently disagree with this position or simply will not feel any sadness for this being the case, as they believe things like money and parents' money should have a bearing on a child's education, or they may believe some broader point about money and economic success.

To put what I've said above down to some sort of jealousy or similar though I think would be unfair and would completely miss the point.

 

"the base level here is about money being able to buy something (education) that many people think should not be in any way dependent on the financial situation of an individual. Obviously this isn't such a simple point to put forward in a less developed - financially speaking and so on - country etc etc, but in the UK there is the infrastructure and so on for this debate to actually hold weight."

For me your point misses that private education and private healthcare exist because the government is failing to utilise its vast tax revenues (and indeed borrowing capacity) effectively. It simply isn't doing its job. You should blame the government, not people who seek to use their money to rectify those failures. Let's not forget that these people have already contributed to the pot for something that they are not going to use. If they want to use their post tax income to remedy the State messing up eudcation or health, as opposed to going on a luxury holiday then I don't see why it should be anybody else's business.

 

"To put what I've said above down to some sort of jealousy or similar though I think would be unfair and would completely miss the point. "

Depends what your proposal is - do you want to prevent people using their own income to pay for private health and education? Do you want to take away their choice to do so?

 

It is not my business how they spend their money and the way things are means that it is advisable in many cases to use any wealth you have to pay for better healthcare or education for your children. I honestly think you've missed my point. Personally, I would never begrudge somebody choosing to go private when not doig so would disadvantage them. My point is about the fact that something I don't think people should have a financially dependent choice in such matters. Unless money is a perfectly efficient conduit for the measurement of how deserving someone is of basic rights and anything above that etc, this model isn't quite right.

I'm back off my lunch break now so my responses might make me cringe later but I think that's spelled out fairly simply. I hope I've got my point across.

 

It's sad that some people are able to choose a better education for their children purely because they have more money. Not everyone has this choice, practically speaking ('practically speaking' should make clear here that I am acknowledging the possibility that someone might come back at me by saying that those people should 'work harder' or whatever).

My point is nothing beyond that (as articulated so far anyway).

 

Sigh. It's an anecdote. It's not presented as 'evidence', it's to add a perspective on a personal view. You are the one who thinks they know what state schools are like definitively. How do you know?

 

Of course I understand it, but it's irrelevant because if such a revolution were to take place I'd imagine taxation might have also changed. Private schools are not 'supporting' the state system. For a start who trains their teachers?

 

I understand your point I think - but it's government that needs blaming for failing, not the concept of the private school.

 

I can only go on teacher's comments when I have met them. And of course what I read in the paper but doubtless that doesn't count as will be deemed "tabloid" or some such. There was one in the Guardian a year or so back with teachers complaining about a general deterioration in behaviour and that their hands were tied.

 

The concept of a private school existing in a place where a government could afford to give everyone a fantastic education etc etc...

I never 'blamed the concept of private schools', even if this seems a bit of a confusing thing to do. I definitely mentioned that if it made sense to send a kid to a private school and you could then you should. I went to private school for two years when I lived in a different country. I don't know if this makes me any more or less credible to comment on this in your eyes.

I think my point is a general one, but would take a while to explain in further detail. I think you probably get what I'm saying in the main, but maybe you aren't totally grasping the fact that I think the way so many aspects of society are set up is a cause for sadness and desire to change because they prevent stuff so obviously right like good education for all and healthcare for all from happening.

Anyway.

 

I guess it was only a matter of time before we got to the fix all solution for the left - increase tax.

 

"The concept of a private school existing in a place where a government could afford to give everyone a fantastic education etc etc..."

I agree with your sentiments. Government wastes money on a huge scale. I'd vote for anyway who redirected this waste into education.

 

Would you want to get rid of private schools in the long run then? Or do you see them as some sort of necessity? Te existence of private education boosting the fortunes of state education in some way perhaps? Or the choice being available being some kid of moral right?

Away from an individual choice level, are private schools inherently detrimental to a fair and equal society in a place where educational needs for all could theoretically be met?

 

I think your point is pretty clear and certainly valid, I do not think anyone would actually disagree with you, especially those parents who pay up to 30k a year on fees!

You have two sides of the same argument in my eyes. One saying that they wish all schools gave as many opportunities as private schools, and the other saying that because all schools do not give the same opportunities, they do not begrudge those who send their children there. The only reason the argument started was because of what I thought was a badly made point which insinuated something (I interpreted it like this) that I do not think the author intended; that private school children are sent there to avoid to stop mixing with children of lower classes.

Health and education should be a basic right in our country, and it is. As others have said, state schools are improving, but do not have the resources to be as excellent as many private schools. Apart from better facilities and greater support, the biggest benefit is that the majority of children in private schools appreciate that their parents are spending a large amount of money, and feel inclined to work harder to make up for this.

The main improvement, would be to somehow change the view and attitude of children towards education in this country. In the majority of the world, children see school as an opportunity, and maybe the view that it is an entitled right has impeded us. Somewhere along the way, we start to see learning as dull and uncool, rather than inspiring and life changing.

 

If Government well and truely sorted out education out then I do think all the middling "non network" private schools would disappear leaving just those institutions where you are effectively paying for a network (Eton, Harrow etc). If this were to happen then to my mind there would be a credible argument for removing them. I'd be swayed by this argument and think it is very valid, but ultimately my desire for the free market would probably overide that. It would be a close call though (in my mind).

However, when State education is not providing the necessary level of quality then I do not think there is a credible argument for forbidding people to pay extra to remedy this.