Private education

[Azale]

choice yes.
but public does not mean bad.

i place a higher value on integration and morals than on facilities provided.
what the public school lacks the students can, if willing, supplement themselves in the library.

granted it is easier and nicer to study in most private schools, but they dont teach you LIFE out there, do they?

Private schools dont teach you life? Public schools hardly do a much better job, and they suck where I live.

I would trade this supposed "life experience" from my cruddy school system for the private school system anyday.

There are good public schools, but there are terrible ones as well. To FORCE someone to go to a public school would be a horrible idea, and very unfair to alot of people who just have the unfortunate luck to live in an area with a cruddy public school system.

 

[Tycoon101]

Let's just say that the public sector really messed me up. Private schools were the only things that kept me from going insane.

 

[Grohan]

I doubt that. I went through the best school system in the world, and I've never lived in Finland (it was public too).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment

 

[Azale]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment

Umm, you do realize that the public school system varies greatly among states in the USA right? You can't compare Finland to the USA as a whole and say Arizona's system is therefore inferior...

 

[Grohan]

I based my claim on that study and I didn't realize that it doesn't take the differences between US states into account. But at least on a whole USA is inferior.

 

[GinandTonic]

I heard in Britain private = American public and public = American private. If this is true, then I don't see what is morally wrong about either...

Public schools in the UK are the old, posh private schools. When the first modern schools were formed they were called "public" schools as in they were open to the public - as opposed to private tutors or closed religious institutions.

So -

Public school = Old, very posh.
Private school = Less old, less posh.
State School = What it says on the tin.

There are also a variety of semi-private semi-state schools. Grant maintained, grammar schools etc.


In a perfect world there would be no need for private schools, but this is an imperfect world. Private education is anti-meritocratic and hinders the state-school system. I dont see how we could stop them ATM. Stopping them would do more halm than good.

Since the damage private education does to society is less than the damage their closure would do they remain a distasteful necessity.

IIRC UK private schools are having their charitable status reviewed. They will have to demonstrate they take enough disadvantaged students and offer enough grants etc to retain the charity tax-breaks.

 

[Azale]

I based my claim on that study and I didn't realize that it doesn't take the differences between US states into account. But at least on a whole USA is inferior.

Oh, I'm definately not debating that I am surprised Japan isn't first in math, Hong Kong's mathematics must be incredibly awesome if they can edge out what they teach in Japan.

 

[Elrohir]

Why are private schools distasteful?

 

[Golden Touch]

i dont like them. I think by sending yuor kids their you are basically saying the local education isnt good enough. instead of just giving in people need to make more effort to improve local schools and encourage the best teachers into them.
I would only send my child to public school if the only schools in the area were shockingly bad. providing they are perfoming ok then my kids go local. they may not recieve the same constant support - but I want kinds that can stand on their own two feet and learn how to graft. and I'll be there to help anyways.
this is a debate me and abaddon have all the time. as a public school boy he's pro public. and i'm starting teacher training in sept and want to work in tough innercity schools to raise the level of education for the masses. he cant understand that and thinks I should go for the easy life and more money.

I never did like the easy option. take abaddon for instance...

 

[Atlas14]

i dont like them. I think by sending yuor kids their you are basically saying the local education isnt good enough. instead of just giving in people need to make more effort to improve local schools and encourage the best teachers into them.
I would only send my child to public school if the only schools in the area were shockingly bad. providing they are perfoming ok then my kids go local. they may not recieve the same constant support - but I want kinds that can stand on their own two feet and learn how to graft. and I'll be there to help anyways.
this is a debate me and abaddon have all the time. as a public school boy he's pro public. and i'm starting teacher training in sept and want to work in tough innercity schools to raise the level of education for the masses. he cant understand that and thinks I should go for the easy life and more money.

I agree that it should be in peoples' interest to reform the public schools around here rather than pay $20,000 per year for essentially an equal education.

 

[Grohan]

Oh, I'm definately not debating that I am surprised Japan isn't first in math, Hong Kong's mathematics must be incredibly awesome if they can edge out what they teach in Japan.

BTW their next study will be relesed on December so we will see if the situation is going to change. Maybe they will sepetate the US states this time because they have previously seperated for example the regions of Italy?

 

[silver 2039]

Oh, I'm definately not debating that I am surprised Japan isn't first in math, Hong Kong's mathematics must be incredibly awesome if they can edge out what they teach in Japan.

Japan has nothing on South Korea. South Korea is insane. Its incredible the level of math the South Koreans at my school can do. Their standard is uber.

 

[GinandTonic]

Why are private schools distasteful?

1 - Anti-meritocratic. No level playing-field. Hinders social mobility.
2 - By removing many of the best teachers from the state system they hinder the state system.
3 - By removing many of the more privilidged students they hinder the state system.
4 - The social devide they create perpetuates a seperation of the haves and the have nots - to the detrement of both groups.

i dont like them. I think by sending yuor kids their you are basically saying the local education isnt good enough. instead of just giving in people need to make more effort to improve local schools and encourage the best teachers into them.
I would only send my child to public school if the only schools in the area were shockingly bad. providing they are perfoming ok then my kids go local. they may not recieve the same constant support - but I want kinds that can stand on their own two feet and learn how to graft. and I'll be there to help anyways.
this is a debate me and abaddon have all the time. as a public school boy he's pro public. and i'm starting teacher training in sept and want to work in tough innercity schools to raise the level of education for the masses. he cant understand that and thinks I should go for the easy life and more money.

I never did like the easy option. take abaddon for instance...

Good for you

 

[aneeshm]

Banning private schools is a gross violation of human rights. It's basically telling people that they have no right to try to get the best for their children, that they're not allowed to outcompete the state.

Over here in India, they're a business, and a damn good one at that. They provide the best of service. I know because I've been there. The middle classes and up all go to private schools. Only the people who can't afford private education go for public schooling (either that, or the public schooling in their area is incredibly,mind-numbingly good).

They're quite a profitable business, too.

You can't expect people from a decent socio-economic background to go to a public school!

 

[Azale]

1 - Anti-meritocratic. No level playing-field. Hinders social mobility.
2 - By removing many of the best teachers from the state system they hinder the state system.
3 - By removing many of the more privilidged students they hinder the state system.
4 - The social devide they create perpetuates a seperation of the haves and the have nots - to the detrement of both groups.

1. Boo hoo, the education system is for the best of the children. Placing everything under the control of the state systems is NOT beneficial to them.

2. Maybe if the state system could actually pay a teacher a fair salary and not the ridiculous amounts they get now that would not be a problem...

3. Huh? How so?

4. Umm...how so? Spouting off an idea doesn't make it true. From my personal experience, private school kids are just as normal as public school kids and there is not some deep jealous divide...

 

[bhsup]

Hey, let's not forget home schooling. If done properly, I doubt it can be beat.

Oh, just for the record, I went to a public school system (American meaning, obviously). Cass R-IV school district, Missouri. Go Wildcats!

 

[aneeshm]

1 - Anti-meritocratic. No level playing-field. Hinders social mobility.

Typical leftist mentality.

The state can't be better than the private system, so let's drag everyone down by force to the level of the state.

And they're quite meritocratic - they reward the person who has enough merit to afford them for his children. Even if they weren't, being non-meritocratic and hindering social mobility (though that, again, is grossly incorrect) is not a crime as long as it does not violate anyone's rights.

Nobody has a right to an education better than they can afford.

2 - By removing many of the best teachers from the state system they hinder the state system.

Ah. So let's force teachers into a system where they're unhappy, and forcefully destroy a system where they're happy. I wonder what is more distasteful - the state having to compete in the market as an equal, or your forcing teachers into a system which they may not like.

3 - By removing many of the more privilidged students they hinder the state system.

So now the privileged are not entitled to the right to free association?

4 - The social devide they create perpetuates a seperation of the haves and the have nots - to the detrement of both groups.

Again, unequal opportunity is not a crime or something. As long as a basic minimum is provided by either the state system or by societal institutions, nothing more need be given.




By having private schools, it is not the rights of the students that are being protected, but the right to parents to do as they will with their money, their (and their childrens') right to free association, and to the pursuit of happiness. By banning them, you violate all these rights.

 

[GinandTonic]

1. Boo hoo, the education system is for the best of the children. Placing everything under the control of the state systems is NOT beneficial to them.

The better the educational system the better for the country. The vast majority of people go through the state system therefore the quality of that system is key to the social and economic wellbeing of the nation. A good educational system is good for everyone in a nation.

I thought meritocrisy was a guiding light for the founding of the USA?

2. Maybe if the state system could actually pay a teacher a fair salary and not the ridiculous amounts they get now that would not be a problem...

I completely agree.

3. Huh? How so?

I dont understand what you dont understand. If you remove the privilidged students from a system it places that system under greater strain as the remaining students are more likley to require greater resorces. The privilidged students are more likley to have help from educated parents or whatever. They are less likley to have behaviour issues.

In short they are more likley to be an asset to the school and less likley to be one of the difficult students that consume disproportunate resorces.

We all know that having good students in a class improves that class and that having problem students in a class can drag it down.

4. Umm...how so? Spouting off an idea doesn't make it true. From my personal experience, private school kids are just as normal as public school kids and there is not some deep jealous divide...

What are you on about? I wasnt saying either group was abnormal. I've known people from the toughest inner city state schools and the most expensive and the most prestegous Public (in the UK sense) and Private schools. I dont have a problem with any of the groups. Dividing society between the proles and the scions of the elite being groomed to run the country on the basis of their birth and not ability is not good for either group or the wider society. If you dont believe there is a social devide between those who attend the US's grandest Prep schools and those who attend a failing school in the inner city then more fool you.

Basically private schools are bad for a nation as a whole, but often good for the individual concerned. Kind of like the prisioners dilemma on a vast scale.

 

[pboily]

There is no difference in students that come from either streams, once they reach University.

Strike that, that's not entirely true. There is a difference: an awful lot of students from the private stream erronously believe they are better than their public brethren, but their grades don't support that conclusion.

 

[GinandTonic]

Typical leftist mentality.

I assure you I'm not a typical leftist.

Meritocrisy is good for the country. Inherited privilidge is bad for everyone. If you want to defend inherited privilidge please do so.

The state can't be better than the private system, so let's drag everyone down by force to the level of the state.

Read the thread and my comments before posting. I said private schools shouldnt be banned. I said they were a distasteful necessity. Perhaps your expensive school doesn't focus as much as they could on the importance of research?

And they're quite meritocratic - they reward the person who has enough merit to afford them for his children. Even if they weren't, being non-meritocratic and hindering social mobility (though that, again, is grossly incorrect) is not a crime as long as it does not violate anyone's rights.

You dont understand the term meritocratic. Again you expensive school is remiss in it's duties. It refers to the merit of th individual, not their parents.

I didn't say it was a crime, I said it was a distasteful necessity.

Nobody has a right to an education better than they can afford.

Not in India perhaps, but in the west they very much do.

Typical leftist mentality.Ah. So let's force teachers into a system where they're unhappy, and forcefully destroy a system where they're happy. I wonder what is more distasteful - the state having to compete in the market as an equal, or your forcing teachers into a system which they may not like.

Again, I didnt say this. Straw man nonsensical drivel. I said that many of the best teachers leaving the state system was bad for the state system.

Who are you arguing with here? I havnt said any of these things. Get a grip man.

So now the privileged are not entitled to the right to free association?

WTH are you on about? I didnt say that. I didnt say any of these things. This is abserd to the point of being delusional.

Everyone has the right to fredom of association. I said social devision is a bad thing for society.

Again, unequal opportunity is not a crime or something. As long as a basic minimum is provided by either the state system or by societal institutions, nothing more need be given.

I didnt say it was. I said it was bad for society. It is undesirable, not illegial.

You are looking for a fight with the wrong person.