Should private schools be abolished?

Private schools are bastions of inequality, only toffs can enter and only toffs emerge. Private schools disadvantage kids from poor backgrounds even if they’re brighter than the ones who can afford to pay. Private schools should be abolished.

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

Private schools cause inequality between pupils.

We have fought to overcome inequality in relation to sex, social class, race and many other elements, but private schools remain. Private schools represent inequality because only pupils with well-off parents can afford to attend these schools hence, disadvantaging the other pupils.

Furthermore, besides private schools showing a distinction between social classes they jeopardise the education of state school students by prioritising private school students over the other students. In this sense, private schools are unjust and need to be abolished to continue the success in moving towards a society which is fairer and sees equality between all its citizens.

Abolishing private schools is not going to abolish inequality between pupils as this inequality can be shown every day just in state schools. For example, bullying is extremely common in all schools whether they be state or private. Bullying represents inequality between pupils as often it is the result of one pupil being different to another. Additionally, teachers may treat their students differently depending on their intellectual ability or their behaviour. Thus, this can affect equality between pupils.

Furthermore private schools in no way jeopardise the education of state school students, in fact according to liberal democrat Simon Hughes, private school intake to universities must be cut. So actually it can be seen that state school students are being prioritised.

To summarise, private schools are not the only means of inequality between students and so the abolition of these would not completely diminish student inequality.

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

children need social education

Education should not merely be academic. Children need to be exposed to different classes and types of people. This is the sort of education that will decrease the wealth gap in Britain. If the more wealthier among us were educated with the least wealthier of us, people would be less prejudiced. This would result in the least well off people being accepted into higher class jobs instead of losing out due to the interviewer being prejudiced against people who were not so eloquent, but just as articulate. This is what we need for a meritocratic society.

Most private schools were established as a means of schooling orphans and the less well off. This tradition has continued in to the 21st century with many independent schools offering bursaries from 5% to 100% of the fees paid already by the Trustees of the school. Also, the wealth gap has been increasing steadily since Labour came to power, which proves that having socialists in power does not lessen the disadvantage/advantage gap.

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

Private Schools inhibit reform of the public system

It is an inevitable feature of democracies that the rich have particular access to politicians and policy-makers. While the rich don't have a need for public education because they can pursue education for their children from other sources, they have no motivation to lobby politicians on behalf of the education system and a perverse incentive to remove education from political agendas in favour of their preferred issues and legislation.

Only by forcing the rich into the same situation as the poor can we expect to gain meaningful ground in terms of education reform, especially in terms of increased funding relative to national and municipal budgets. We cannot expect education will be a national priority until the entire nation has a vested interest in the good order of the system.

By "forcing the rich into the same situation as the poor" there will only be resentment, and the most well off will send their children abroad to more democratic societies where freedom of choice is allowed.
This proposition argument assumes that those who are less well off do not have the motivation to lobby Parliament, which is an insult to those who work hard trying to implement education changes, and send their children to state schools.

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

It is a right of the parent to choose where their child goes to school

A parent and their child have the right to choose where the child goes to school. Locally, the state shool might be failing, and it is unfair to the child if they have to go to this school just because the state wants to penalise those who have worked for their money and want to spend it on a worthy cause i.e. their child's education.

Not all of the rich have worked hard for their money. Large amounts of those who send their children to private schools have never done anything to deserve their wealth, they have simply inheritied it. Why do their children deserve a better education than anyone else's children?

Education is indeed a wothy cause and that is why we should not penalise those who cannot afford to pay. Just as those many of those who are rich have not done any to deserve their wealth neither have those who are poor ever done anything do deserve being poor, many are poor because of inability to work - maybe a longstanding illness which rendered them incapable of studying or working. Consider a teenage mother, should she be penalised because she did the what she thinks is the morally right thing in not having her baby aborted, which meant that she couldn't work and therefore won't be able to afford a better standard of education for her child.

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

Private schools aren't necessarily good for the child.

A private school is a very institutionalised, artificial environment where the child will be exposed only to children of their own socioeconomic background. Added to this, there are less safeguards in place to assure the parents that the children are being taught from the same curriculum as a state school and are not being abused, especially if it is a boarding school.

The pressure on private schools to take and provide for students of less priviledged backgrounds means the students are increasingly diverse. Private schools are institutionalised, but this need not necessarily be a bad thing. Many opportuinities are avaliable through a private education which a state school will not provide, sport, music etc. Exploring beyond the curriculum is a key part of the ethos and can help expand student's minds. The centralisation of the exam process means that the curriculum has little chance of being abused.

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

Denies bonding with siblings that are left at home

Time not spent with a sibling over many years reduces bonding

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

Increases likely hood of Homosexuality or at best Bi-sexuality

Penis penis penis penis. I love penis

Absolutely nothing is wrong with homosexuality or bisexuality.
An all female or male boarding school does not change the orientation of the individual, as there is plenty of time for students to meet others outside of school.

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

The child will feel un-loved and un-wanted

They will spend their time after leaving school trying to earn their Fathers love and therefor not being true to themselves. They will go for money for example and not choose a career that will be compatible with who they truly are. This will lead to unhappiness, depression, hyper sanity (through intense education - learning too much too soon), sexual gratification in extreme and diverse ways and divorce.

The affection and devotion applied to an individual varies based on the character and morals of a parent, and is not dictated by the schooling of a child. The idea of doing a job for the sole purpose of monetary gains is in no way only applied to children from private schools. If you assume that those enrolled in private schools place a large focus on money due to maintaining their own lifestyle, we can also assume those in public school choose a career for money, as they realize the importance and value of money, and know the opportunities that money both provides and limits. In a day and age where we are surrounded by blinking lights and the development of technology we would have never imagined 20 years ago, let alone materialized, the education in private schools is not nearly overwhelming.

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

Inhibits personal experimentation and development to find and be themselves through control and conformity

Strict uniform attire, etiquette, Capitalist and Religious indoctrination, lack of casual interaction with the opposite sex, will all lead to not truly knowing or being ones self upon leaving school and reduce the likely hood of finding a compatible partner.

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

Promotes Capitalist beliefs (which as we all know is based on the Seven Deadly Sins)

An open minded view on socio-economic principals will be greatly inhibited. thereafter chasing money and materialism to find happiness.

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

The pressures of being at a Boarding School can, ironically, reduce education performance and achievement.

I was forced to take eleven Oxford and Cambridge GCE 'O' Levels - I got three. If I'd have gone to a Comprehensive and taken five, I'd have probably got five.

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

Parental stress in financing creates family trauma

My school cost £9,000 per term (40 years ago), I am sure this created a few parental rows.

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

Abolishing a good service on the basis that some cannot afford it is absurd

The Ferrari argument is absurd. Of course people should be able to choose what car they drive. If someone wants to spend that much money on a car that is their prerogative. However, education is a sensitive matter, especially compared to cars! Just because someone has been born into money, why should they be given an education that offers them more opportunities? Cambridge and Oxford boast that "only" 50% of their students are from public schools, but this is no achievement when the percentage of pupils attending public schools is far less than 50%. (1)

(1)http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/mar/05/schools.oxbridgeandelitism

Whilst it is true that some cannot afford to give thier children a private education this should not mean that the institutions should be abolished completely! This is equivalent to arguing that as some cannot afford Ferraris they should cease production. Of course there will always be inequality but this does not mean we should ban a good service for some on the basis that it is not available to all. Yes, perhaps we should try to make it more accesible through scholarships and bursaries etc, and perhaps one day it will be available for all, but until then it would be a step backwards to abolish private education. Communism didn't work people!

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

Hello peoples!!

"Private education opens doors"...

..but it is these same doors that the majority of gifted pupils of state schools do not even get a chance to walk towards.

Both sides of this debate have verified that a child will be given a better education at a state school. A well educated human being is certainly far more understanding of themselves and the world around them and although I have no proof, it seems sensible to assume that these well educated individuals will be more likely to "succeed" in society. But what it means to succeed in society is a topic to be debated in itself.

However, we all have our own understanding of what it means to succeed, yet I am certain many state school pupils do not even get a glimpse of their own participation in this. Which is where the absurdity of the schools division appears.

The only rebuke of an abolishment of private schools would come from the families who are funding their offsprings heightened education, and if it was to be declared that they would no longer have to pay so much for their sons and daughters schooling but would instead HAVE to enrol them to state schools, then the quality of teaching at these "common" schools will be greatly increased by demand of the pre-private schooled parents/guardians. As a result the divide that exists between toffs and serfs will eventually be levelled. And all pupils shall be considered gifted pupils.

I live in hope.

This case is that “private schools, meaning a school that is not run by government, “should”, indicating it ought to happen “be abolished”, to be taken away or cease to exit. Private education opens door, not shut them down. The choice is ours. Parent should be able to choose where their children get their education and the quality of the education. Also, parent should not be penalised for providing their child/children with better educations by sending them to private schools. Abolishing private schools is not going to abolish inequality between the students as this inequality can be shown everyday in government or public schools. An example would be bullying. Bullying happening very often in both private and state schools. So therefore, I say that Private education opens door, not shut them down. So that’s why we should NOT abolish private schools.

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

Social disparity is an American ideal that the country is built upon.

The ideals of the multifaceted country can not be generalized as Capitalist or Socialist. Education is a priority to becoming not only a contributing American citizen, but a global citizen as well. For every privtate institution with million, even billion dollar endowments, that could be spread, prioritized and effectively raise the standard of education on a national basis. What more reason do you need?

This is not a country that endorses socialist ideals, good or bad i don't know, but the idea of private education is fundamental capitalist ideal, and therefore can not be written off because of its endorsement of socio-economic disparity.

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

pupils that are dyslexic need individual attention that they will not get in public schools as the class sizes are too big.

public schools: class sizes too big
not always enough teachers to help pupils in need
pupils can't all be put at different stages as there are too many people in the same class

Should private schools be abolished?

Yes because... No because...

There is an issue of political freedom

Once we go down the road of saying that only the state can be in charge of education, the state can control what is taught and how it is presented. This is a would-be dictators dream.

The key to equality in education is not to destroy good schools, but to improve all state schools to a degree where paying for private education becomes pointless.This is not just a question of funding, but also discipline, leadership and promoting aspiration.

One point that is extremely unfair is the fact that private schools can normally claim charitable status. In my opinion this should only be allowed if the schools can clearly demonstrate that they serve a charitable function for the whole community, rather than just for their fee paying pupils.

Finally, the biggest barrier to social fairness in Britain is the extreme inequality of income. Once people have some money in their pocket, they can usually be relied upon to make sensible choices.

Debates > Should private schools be abolished?
Category: