Private Education

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Really? You make an utterly hyperbolic statement, I call you out on it, so you respond as if I've started dribbling. What is unfair about a system where all contribute, and all receive the same, adapted to their needs?

Ok, you said:

Why should you be able to buy something you are not qualified for.

Who gets to decide if anyone should be able to buy anything? Why should you be able to buy an ipod? What if you listen to Ke$ha on it? Clearly you aren't qualified. Perhaps you aren't qualified to take Karate classes because you are clumsy, why should you be able to buy them? Are you an F1 driver? Why should you be able to buy a sports car? You clearly aren't qualified.

Where you get the authority to tell parents they can't provide the best possible education for their children? Are you going to go around and tell people "Your kid is too stupid for the private school that you paid for with your own money, he doesn't get to go." Of course you aren't. On the face of it telling people what they can do with their own money and their own children is absolutely antithetical to liberalism and freedom.

[The Blue Bard]

Ok, you said:

Why should you be able to buy something you are not qualified for.

Who gets to decide if anyone should be able to buy anything? Why should you be able to buy an ipod? What if you listen to Ke$ha on it? Clearly you aren't qualified. Perhaps you aren't qualified to take Karate classes because you are clumsy, why should you be able to buy them? Are you an F1 driver? Why should you be able to buy a sports car? You clearly aren't qualified.

Umm, nice list of irrelevance. If education is a universal right, you should not be able to buy it. And qualification is based on a clear academic test. You can have all the money in the world, but if you can't pass a driving test, you can't drive. if you want to go to a good school, then you have to work for it.

Edit: Better example, you cannot buy a job you aren't qualified for, same applies here

Where you get the authority to tell parents they can't provide the best possible education for their children? Are you going to go around and tell people "Your kid is too stupid for the private school that you paid for with your own money, he doesn't get to go." Of course you aren't. On the face of it telling people what they can do with their own money and their own children is absolutely antithetical to liberalism and freedom.

If their kid cannot pass entrance exams, then I don't care how wealthy you are, your kid is not going. Simple as that

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

If education is a universal right, you should not be able to buy it.

#1 I don't believe that it is

#2 Of course you have to buy it, no one is giving it away for free, you just want to change who is buying.

Edit: Better example, you cannot buy a job you aren't qualified for, same applies here

Sure you can, people do it all the time

If their kid cannot pass entrance exams, then I don't care how wealthy you are, your kid is not going. Simple as that

Like I said, you feel like you own people's children and their money. It is a base affront to the foundation of western society.

[Lummel]

Private schools take nothing from the education system.

Dunno about that. Before the introduction of university fees then privates schools (like private hospitals) benefited from being able to recruit professionals educated entirely at public expense to provide a purely private benefit, many private schools are also charitable foundations (having been originally established to provide free or very cheap education for the poor) and receive tax privileges, private schools are also allowed to join the local government pension scheme (I don't know if they have to pay an enhanced or any management fee for that) those are cashable benefits from the public purse to private business that provide services to the wealthy.

Do you think that the Labour party, as a party of the workers, should support their re-introduction?

Labour are the party of the workers now are they ? Has clause IV been reinstated? What workers anyhow? Lawyers and accountants maybe...;)

Maybe you just need to relax and embrace our ancien regime heritage!

[The Blue Bard]

#1 I don't believe that it is

#2 Of course you have to buy it, no one is giving it away for free, you just want to change who is buying.

In Western society, the right to universal education is enshrined in law. I sense the inevitable 'you want the rich to pay for the poor' argument, so I will preempt that by saying that in a healthy society, all should contribute for the greater benefit of all, rather than snarling at each other like jackals.

Like I said, you feel like you own people's children and their money. It is a base affront to the foundation of western society.

If the state is providing education, surely it is better that the most able are given opportunity to develop, and not be stuck in an inner-city hellhole because their local school was rubbish. Also, no, it is an affront to unbridled free-market economics, I don't think the idea is profoundly shocking to social-democratic Europe, from which, sadly, Britain is drifting ever further towards the unholy trinity of Thatcher, Reagan and Friedman

[The Blue Bard]

Labour are the party of the workers now are they ? Has clause IV been reinstated? What workers anyhow? Lawyers and accountants maybe...;)

Maybe you just need to relax and embrace our ancien regime heritage!

Well, if they were any real sort of party of the left, as opposed to Blue Labour. On a side-note, its interesting that the factories that employed masses of working-class people were allowed to go to the wall, whilst the banks must be protected at all costs. I live in an area that never recovered from the closure of MG Rover

[TerraPrime]

There are two problems here. They are related, but they are not the same.

First problem is the so-called "old boys club" syndrome, where graduates from certain schools (Eton, e.g.) tend to receive favorable treatment on account of their pedigree instead of their ability.

Second problem is the unevenness of educational quality across the spectrum of available opportunities.

The first problem is not going to go away just by raising the rigor of academic standards of these non-pedigree'd schools. The basic premise is that graduates from these schools are getting into positions that they perhaps do not qualify for based on their own aptitude. So having even more qualified candidates will not really address this problem. The other facet of the problem is that graduates of these schools who are already in positions of power (screening committees for admissions, e.g.) tend to favor other graduates from that school or from schools similar to that. Again, allowing more of the deserving students to go on to get a good schooling is not going to address this.

The second problem where private schools may get better teachers and resources due to their funding capacities is perhaps something that can be addressed. People who can afford it will continue to make the lives of their scions easier. It is, after all, one of the allures of being rich - to be able to provide a better set of opportunities for your kids. Money buys opportunities. It's hard to eliminate that without going all communist. It seems to me that the way to address this issue is to work on closing the gap of quality between private and public schools. In my view, disparity in tangible and quantifiable matters, like the condition of the building, the availability of rudimentary teaching aids, etc., is far less important than parental engagement, when it comes to student performance. Working-class parents tend to have less free time to devote to shoring up their kids' academic performance, or they may not feel that they are educated enough themselves to be of help, etc. That's where some help can be tremendously useful, I think. Of course, the buildings should be functional and the classrooms should be equipped with the basics needed to teach, but we really don't NEED to have every student holding on to a laptop in order to teach them. Differences in monetary capacity do make a difference, but the difference it makes tend to diminish after a certain point of basic reference. So the richer private schools do have some advantage, materialistically, but it's not that hard to overcome that, imo.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TBB,

"Unholy trinity"? And you accuse Tormund of hyperbole?

[The Blue Bard]

TBB,

"Unholy trinity"? And you accuse Tormund of hyperbole?

I think that Thatcher, influenced by Friedman, did incalculable damge to this country, and that most of America's financial problems today date back to Reagan. And to be fair, there's a difference between a tounge-in-cheek turn of phrase and accusing someone you're talking to of being a Stalinist.

I don't really think that Mrs Thatcher is an evil entity from another dimension, but on the other hand, I've not seen any evidence that she's not.

[Brienne the Beauty]

BtB, you are right, it makes no difference really, I just detest the 'born-to-rule' arrogance of our present elite

This sort of hatred does no good, and in fact impairs your cause.

We will always have an elite, because there are only so many people who can be rich or powerful at any one time. The elite whose grandparents were labourers are currently indistinguishable from those whose grandparents were earls. Social mobility does not remove the elite, it simply makes the elite classes more open to people of all backgrounds.

In my limited personal experience, the wealthy aren't as snobby or mean as they are popularly supposed to be. In person they are not greatly different from anyone else, although perhaps with more confidence, which is not the same as arrogance. They want their kids to go to the best schools available because they love them and want them to do well, not because they are afraid of them accidentally touching a pleb and getting cooties.

So they can understand the desire of everyone else to want to do well by their children, and indeed support it - most of them will have an ancestor or two from humble backgrounds. But if we start framing the argument as "If my children can't get an elite education, then neither can yours!" they will obviously become defensive and all debate is closed down.

[MinDonner]

"Unholy trinity" is a fairly standard phrase over here, it's not quite the same as real hyperbole.

But anyway. Given that there is a finite number of qualified teachers in a country at any one time, this is kind of a zero-sum game - if the rich are allowed to buy the best, that leaves fewer for the remainder, no matter their abilities or potential. There has to be some way to allocate this resource, and letting the market decide seems (to most of us Eurocommies) to be a social evil, causing and strengthening inequalities. So hell yes it's the government's business to intervene and make sure that this is distributed more fairly.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TBB,

Your plan simply shifts influence from te moneyed to the Politically powerful. How is that an improvement?

[Frog Eater]

If I have the money, I should be able to send my kid anywhere my money spends. Of course all of the Elite come from the best private schools. The best private schools cater to the Elite and continually turn out the best product.

I think that OPs entire basis is flawed at best. He is assuming that just because a poor child is capable, that they should get the same opportunities that a rich capable child will receive because their parents can afford it. But that just isnt how it works. All children are provided an education, but it sure isnt the best that money can buy. If I could afford to send my children to an Elite private school I would. But I cannot, so they attend the local public school.

Every private school can place whatever restrictions it chooses to on admission. If it chooses to place the price tag as the only burden for admission, then it wont truely be an Elite school. This is another way that I think OPs argument is flawed. You assume that the Elite children who are attending the private schools are not capable of the entrance requirements.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

But anyway. Given that there is a finite number of qualified teachers in a country at any one time, this is kind of a zero-sum game

So you at least, admit that it isn't a natural right, it's an auction.

[The Blue Bard]

TBB,

Your plan simply shifts influence from te moneyed to the Politically powerful. How is that an improvement?

Because the recipients of that influence shift from the children of the wealthy to society at large. And if governments have an increased number of working-class, grammar school products, that will be no bad thing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TBB,

As Min says the number of good teachers is finite whether kids are in public or private schools. The influence of the moneyed would end in favor of the influence of the politically powerful. I again ask now this is an improvement? Politically powerful is not coextensive with society at large.

[Brienne the Beauty]

Sure you can, people do it all the time

Yes indeed, you absolutely can buy a job you are not qualified for. Rich daddies buy companies for their kids. People with a modest inheritance can buy a franchise of a chain. Kids with a trust fund can intern for free with prestigious firms, leading on to a great job, where a poor kid could not afford to work for free for a year. And there's good old fashioned bribery!

But with higher education "not qualified" is a bit more dubious. A person with an average intelligence who has had the best education money can buy may be way more qualified for university than an extremely intelligent person who dropped out of their inner-city sink school at 14 because there was no actual teaching being done. That's bloody unfair, and what grammar schools are intended to fix. Raw ability is not enough to prepare you to benefit from a university education.

[The Blue Bard]

TBB,

As Min says the number of good teachers is finite whether kids are in public or private schools. The influence of the moneyed would end in favor of the influence of the politically influential. I again ask now this is an improvement?

If there are no private schools, then teachers will have to work in state schools. The quality of schooling improves. Outside influence, other than the child's ability ends, as there are no financial considerations.

I hope that's the answer you're looking for, I'm not quite sure what you mean by politically influential in this context, I don't think schools are going to select children based on the political affiliation of the parents.

[Brienne the Beauty]

Teachers are not a finite resource. If there was a higher demand, more people would train as teachers. A teacher working in a private school does not mean there is an empty seat in the staff room in a state school.

Private schools also do not necessarily pay better than state schools. A few years back I knew a teacher who took a pay cut to move from a state to a private school, because the small classes and youngsters with less troubled home lives made it a much less stressful job.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

No, the politically powerful can influence the recourses available to given schools and who those schools hire. As such, I believe, you are trading one oligarchy for another.