At a time when the entire budget is coming under pressure, the idea of taking on fully half a million more students all at once would devalue the entire system and bring it to the point of collapse.
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. 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?
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? Parents who want to send their children to a fee-paying school are making a decision based on what is best for their children.
They decide to use the money they have earned to give their children the best opportunities in life. What right does anyone have to tell someone else how to spend their earnings? Private schools provide parents with an alternative to the state sector, and a learning environment, which might better suit their children. All they are doing is using their money to help their children. In addition, whilst there are many bad state schools, there are also bad private schools, and some excellent state schools which compete with the best private schools.
It is clear from this last fact that state schools can be the successes that we want them to be, whilst still allowing others the right to choose a different option. Private schools do not provide all parents with an alternative — only those who can afford it. Consequently, equal opportunities are denied to the children of poorer families. With the patronage of wealthier parents, private schools attract resources far higher than state schools.
Moreover, with the often academically selected children from more affluent backgrounds, greater resources and smaller classes, these schools are unsurprisingly more attractive to teachers than state schools. We have a situation where state schools are potentially deprived not only of able pupils, but also very able teachers, thus compounding the inequalities. Such a state of affairs is socially divisive, and must be avoided.
The existence of private education can actually be financially beneficial to state schools. The state funds the education system through taxation. Parents who do not send their children to state schools still pay those same taxes. Therefore, there is more money per child in the state sector.
State schools will never improve if, instead of funding them, government pays thousands of pounds in assisted place fees in the private sector every year. Furthermore, the bursary system does little more than improve private schools whilst depriving state schools of some of their most able pupils. Another factor is that whilst a small proportion of children do get in on academic ability with bursaries, they are a small minority of those similarly able and disadvantaged, whilst less able children from more wealthy backgrounds benefit.
This should strike any observer as deplorably unfair and discriminating. On the disparity between private and state schools, the correct way to improve the education for children in state schools is to spend more money on state schools, devote more time, energy and enthusiasm to them.
By and large, the complaint is that private schools are doing well and providing a good education, whilst state schools lag behind. It is in all our interests to set the standard of education as high as we can — you do this by raising state schools to the supposed standard of private schools, not by depriving children of a private education.
It is true that many of the problems facing state schools stem from within them, but the existence of the private schools outside hardly improves morale amongst staff. It is not as simple as saying we need more money to improve state schools. It is the Government which makes decisions over education funding. What is more, the existence of private schools must necessarily diminish the social diversity in state schools. Thus, until private schools are banned, and more social groups are forced to take an active interest in funding issues for state schools, there will not be a sufficiently broad-based, united lobbying force to impel Government to take the action it fears now would make it unpopular and spend the necessary money.
Indeed, the funding problems may more quickly be resolved if a few more prominent and powerful politicians had children in state schools.
Not all private schools operate that way. Not all private schools are small and not all private schools hire the best educators who will always be helpful to pupils just because they are in close contact.
It is as if to say that quantity of time with children equates to quality of time with children. Your second sentece is wrong because the rich also pay taxes so they are paying double what we pay. So you are wrong. Will mean fiscal responsibility Yes because…. No because…. Yes because…. Notify of. Inline Feedbacks. Steve Collis. Private schools, of course, are not all homogenous or identical.
With the ability to select who attends, many private schools create intentionally diverse student bodies. If society values diversity, then the schools will value it, too. Eliminating public education altogether and replacing it with tens of thousands of private schools dotting the American landscape would likely create all kinds of problems. As in Chile, an all-private system could just stratify society into something resembling the status quo, whereby the best and most elite schools would cost far more than the tuition vouchers provided.
Access would still come down to the ability to pay given that, in the real world, tuition costs are a big reason private schools draw only about 10 percent. For millions more, of course, the price tag renders that debate moot. And again, many opt to bypass these stark choices altogether by living in areas with strong public schools.
Just 40 minutes away from Detroit Country Day School lies Ann Arbor, home to the University of Michigan and several neighborhoods that boast high-performing public schools. One unseasonably warm morning last October, as the leaves were changing color, I watched as parents pulled up in shiny SUVs at Pioneer High School to drop off their children, most of whom appeared white.
Some teens conversed as they looked at their smartphones, sporting new-looking backpacks, shorts, and Birkenstocks; many carried band instruments and lunches. At this school, roughly 53 percent of students are white, while most of the remainder are black or Asian. For example, research shows that in both Cuba and Finland, where all schools are run by the federal government, students outperformed by a large margin their peers in countries with similar cultural and geographic profiles.
On a regional assessment conducted by the United Nations between and , students in the all-public Cuba outperformed the largely private Chile in sixth-grade reading and sixth-grade math. In fact, Cuba is the only Latin American country with scores significantly higher than the regional average in both math and reading. Lisa Lefstein Berusch, who lives on the outskirts of downtown Cleveland, decided to send her two white daughters to public school all 13 years.
Berusch estimates that in her own neighborhood of Cleveland Heights, home to many affluent white people, fewer than half of the families on her block sent their children to public school. Suh says her public high school provides as many—if not more—opportunities for her two children compared to the smaller-area private schools. Her kids can, for example, participate in an annual Shakespeare play, a student-directed drama festival, a capella groups, and a wide array of courses.
Like Berusch, Suh wants her children to be in an environment that mimics the real world. While acknowledging the advantages of private education, where counselors are often assigned far fewer students to manage and mentor, she suggests that an all-public-school world might create an impetus for constantly experimenting with and improving the experience of public education. If all schools were public, he says, everyone—including wealthier families—would be responsible for every school, so more people would step up to address any problems in those institutions than they do in the real world.
School boards and after-school enrichment programs, for example, would have more volunteers; campus-improvement efforts and textbook upgrades would get more funding.
But this concept could be more of an ideal than it would be a realistic result. Pioneer High suffers from a wide racial-achievement gap. According to recent research by Sean F. And even in the most rigorous public schools, money can easily distinguish educational outcomes: Well-resourced kids who have access to private tutoring or college-prep services, who can study instead of work part-time, who get to take private dance or language lessons to enhance their worldview unsurprisingly tend to fare better than do kids who are less fortunate.
Segregation exists even in ostensibly integrated schools, where whites are disproportionately enrolled in AP and honors classes. Assuming the schools in an all-public world were funded as they are now—with a mix of federal, state, and local sources—the quality of education children receive would largely be based on where they live. Wealthier families tend to buy homes in more expensive areas where the steep taxes result in greater school funding—and are often correlated with higher-quality schools.
This suggests that in an all-public-school world, those with means would likely buy real estate in well-resourced districts—removing their resources from needier school communities and diluting from those poorer areas the pool of high achievers who experts say can benefit lower-performing students.
Wealthy people might even try to secede from poorly resourced areas and create their own districts. The victims of this phenomenon are often systems like Lincoln Consolidated Schools in Ypsilanti, Michigan, a lower-income area 20 minutes from Ann Arbor. Only 28 percent of the students at Lincoln Senior High School, roughly a third of whom are African American and approximately 59 percent of whom are white, will attend a four-year college after graduation, according to state data.
This is a common phenomenon. When a breakup forced her and her children to leave Ypsilanti, she decided to move to Saline, a city near Ann Arbor with a reputation for good schools: 72 percent of students at Saline High, where the vast majority of kids are white, attend a four-year college after graduation.
In fact, her daughter told her she was learning things in her Saline classes that she had already learned the year before at Lincoln. In Ypsilanti, that perception became the reality, with school segregation putting its already-disadvantaged youth at a further disadvantage. An all-public world could also put unconventional learners at a dramatic disadvantage. Why perpetuate the income gap that's already too wide? Few kids are motivated enough to learn on their own, So we'll end up with a bunch of morons running around.
If a poor person would like to go to a private school to receive higher education, He is not limited by money! For your information, The vast majority of private schools offer bursaries, Wherein they pay the full fees of the students.
If a student who applies to a private school passes an appropriate test, Than he is able to attend that school free of charge! This would be a terrible idea indeed, and in my opinion, would only deepen the divide between upper and lower class, and continue to beat down the middle class which our governments love to talk about. I am of the belief that if we do this, then rich parents will send their children to good private schools, and poor students to worse private schools assuming that education is still mandatory!
When this happens, the students from private schools, who have had better equipment, resources, teachers, and have been more prepared for high earning jobs will be the ones receiving these jobs, and then the poor graduates, with their inferior educations, will have a hard time getting a job better than one which will keep them earning just enough to send their children to the same private school.
In addition to augmenting wealth inequality, I think that even the sometimes mundane things learned by students are useful, as they at least provide you with some general knowledge on the functioning of the state, the earth, the "language of the universe" math , and other things.
Already, with the vast shared knowledge of our society, personal knowledge dims in comparison, but I believe that there is but education keeping us from becoming a robot specialised in the one domain in which we work, knowing little or nothing outside of this.
For these reasons, I would rather abolish private schools than public schools. A radical thought, yes, but I believe that if this is done, the parents who have money will instead of paying a school for only rich kids, will often make donations to their child's school, and then this will hopefully help all children get what they need to succeed in our Western democracies. Schools never forced children to come if the children are unwilling. The one that forced children to come is the parents.
Schools is a fun place were students play together and have fun together. It was never a prison to start with. Therefore, schools should NOT be abolished! It should stay forever! Public schools around the world are the most important character builders, socializing zones and learning places, above all.
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Google Search. Post Your Opinion. Create New Poll. Sign In Sign Up. Add a New Topic. Public schools should be abolished. Asked by: TheLibertarianChristian. A monopoly on education is the worst kind Governments should not have monopoly control of Education. Like Reply Challenge. Maximum words. Posted by: Mrkelly Report Post. Report Post. Like Reply.
0コメント