Should Fee-Paying Private(?) Schools be abolished?

[Skashion]

The facts simply are that high-ability children from lower income families do not progress at the same rate as low-ability children from higher income families. Indeed, by the age of seven, low-ability from higher income families outperform the high-ability from lower income families. So even talk of grammar schools being meritocratic becomes irrelevant that point, at least it does if a grammar school fails to take this into consideration.

I don't think abolishing fee-paying private schools is necessarily a good answer to this problem but let's not pretend it isn't a problem. It's only not a problem if you're the type of person who thinks it's tough shit that people don't have the same opportunities simply because of who their parents are. If you're that type of person, no amount of rational debate will help anyway.

 

[Damocles]

WE should abolish fee paying schools when all of the state run schools provide the same high standard of education, and not before.

Everybody should be given the greatest possible start in life. For the rich, that means that their kids get a leg up because of their parents achievements, which is an inequality, but a justifiable one. The rich are providing their kids with the best possible start that they can give them. People who aren't rich don't go to fee paying schools are still getting the best start that their parents can provide to them.

This is akin to saying that the rich should not be able to give their kids more than the poor, which is absurd.

Yes, life is unfair and some inequalities are the result of wealth and social agility. The other option, is to flatten the whole playing field and the only possible way of doing this is by removing wealth from people.

 

[Skashion]

I think anything which increases social mobility more than it reduces inequality is justified.

In this case I'd argue that abolishing fee-paying schools would be a drop in the ocean. Schools can compete with one another in more ways other than simply the salaries they can offer. The schools in better areas and with more intelligent kids will still attract the better teachers on average. What I'd propose is that kids with ability be detected at an earlier age (mechanisms are already in place for this now) and given additional help. There should also be an index for entry into selective schools with regards to how ability correlates with family wealth. If x amount more family wealth improves school performance by y, schools should accept candidates from z less x by a margin of y.

 

[Damocles]

For my proof that the under-educated are supported much more than the over educated, I offer a comparison in the number of 'special schools' (either institutions or programs, compared to the amount of 'advanced learning schools'). The goal here isn't education for the sake of education, which is what it should be, it is education to a minimum standard that will cope in the real world. Further and Higher Education is done at University and Colleges. My point, is that I don't understand why we cannot do them earlier on.
I want the education to be even MORE tiered, as long as it is agile enough that students to move between the different tiers.

We need to support children at all levels of education, to give them the best possible, not hack them down because we worry about lack of social mobility.

 

[Skashion]

I'm not for 'hack[ing]' down. I'm not saying ban fee-paying schools. I'm not saying ban middle-class families from moving into areas where the good schools are. I'm for higher ability students from lower incomes moving upwards and not being inhibited by their parents lack of wealth.

 

[Damocles]

I'm not for 'hack[ing]' down. I'm not saying ban fee-paying schools. I'm not saying ban middle-class families from moving into areas where the good schools are. I'm for higher ability students from lower incomes moving upwards and not being inhibited by their parents lack of wealth.

As am I, though I understand why kid are sent to the fee paying schools, or moved around, as the current education system continues to focus on minimum educational levels rather than understanding that development occurs at differing times for different kids.

 

[Skashion]

I know what you're getting at. I'm absolutely sure schools could push bright kids much further, and they should without fear of social mobility. I sadly have experience with this and it lead to me becoming disinterested in maths until A-level where I found I was behind when I had been very very much ahead to start off with (throughout primary and into first year of secondary). I'm not saying don't do that, quite the opposite. I'm saying make sure the bright kids are the bright kids, and not just the wealthy ones because as it stands, wealth leads to better performance without being innately more able. Make allowances for that, get bright kids into the same classroom and push their brains as far as possible.

 

[Joycee Banercheck]

If you're clever, well done. If you aren't. tough shit.

 

[Damocles]

If you're clever, well done. If you aren't, work harder.

Intelligence isn't a genetic trait, it comes from a focus on education either from the kid or from the parents.

 

[Damocles]

If you're clever, well done. If you aren't, work harder.

Intelligence isn't a genetic trait, it comes from a focus on education either from the kid or from the parents.