"Independent (private) schooling re-enforces and maintains the class system and privilege based on wealth; that is, it can only be afforded by the rich to give their children a head start. Therefore private schools should be banned."
Add your comment as a post on the above issue. Make it evidenced and a properly evaluated judgement of the issue's advantages and disadvantages. Remember that state school is not just about comprehensive schools but also the Tripartite (Grammar) school system that is also state run, also consider the pros and cons of these different education systems both on the individual and society as a whole.
Even though private schooling seems to reinforce the class system it only advantages the elite of society, therefore meaning that they have an unfair advantage over the rest of society in ways such as having more one-to-one time with a teacher which will help to add to and increase each individuals knowledge and understanding, also it develops an old boys’ network meaning the elite have more opportunities to get to the top than the rest of society due to what and who they know. Instead of banning private schools I think that all schools should meet in the middle and all become free schools with some aspects of comprehensives and grammar schools but also some aspects of private schools too so it gives the whole of society to opportunity to flourish and become the best they can be and the ones who have the potential to be at the top will be instead of the people who have been given an unfair advantage due to the social class they were born in to.
ReplyDeleteAlthough private schooling does grant 7% of the population a head start in finding a prosperous career, I do not believe that private schooling should, as a result, be altogether scrapped. It is unfortunate that not all students and families can afford to send their children to private schools, with some reaching costs of £20,000 every year. However, the parents who are able to afford these costs have worked hard to earn the money necessary. If some of these less fortunate families suddenly came into a great deal of wealth I am sure that they would perhaps consider sending their child to a private school also. Although ideally all schools would be redesigned as private schools, this would be extremely expensive and most schools cannot afford to make this change. Private schooling does also reinforce the class system as most pupils will come from an upper class background, whereas in public schooling the majority of pupils will come from middle and working classes.
ReplyDelete'the parents who are able to afford these costs have worked hard to earn the money necessary' this may be true but with only them and a few others being able to send their children to these schools it keeps these groups above the rest of us. With them taking the better paid jobs it leaves the lower class people to still struggle to make money whilst they're swimming in it. All in all i just believe that unless by some miracle we may 'come into a great deal of money' which is unlikely, then it seems it will stay this way, unless their is a change. Perhaps this change is in bettering the public school, or whether its in banning private schools, something has to be done.
DeleteNot nessicreally, many of the more upper class parent's get these better jobs through who they know, this follows the "it's not what you know, it's who you know". Parents could also have gone to school with the headmaster of the private school, therefore using this as a key to get there kids potentially "better" education.
DeleteIt's usually the working class who work harder at their jobs to try and climb the employment lader, but as they're not advantaged enough to know anyone well enough in the upper class. They do not gain the same advantages so they do struggle, I agree.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteEven so, it could in a way encourage a meritocracy, pushing parents to strive for their best in their own lives to benefit that of their child'. Which in itself will decrease the gap between the upper and lower classes as more lower class families work up to this standard and later have the same opportunity to send their children to the private schools
ReplyDeleteHowever a Marxists would say that society is set up as the bourgeoisie and the proletariat and the bourgeoisie suppress the proletariat meaning that even if they work up to the standard of the bourgeoisie (which many do work harder) they will never be paid to the same level as the bourgeoisie are due to them being forced to sell their labour the bourgeoisie to make a living and they will never pay them to their level in order to keep their power over them.
DeleteI disagree. Social mobility is extremely hard to achieve in today's society therefore, only a tiny proportion of lower class families may have the opportunity to send their children to private schools. Looking at what Sophie said in the comment below; those with inheritance should not be allowed to go to a private school. So, if someone in a lower class who has gain inheritance, has the opportunity to get a better education and in the future may get a better job meaning they move up the class system - they shouldn't be allowed to do so?
DeleteAlthough some people who can afford to send their child to a private school have worked to get their money, other people have acquired their money through things like inheritance so therefore shouldn’t have the right to send their child to a private school when they have not earned the money to do so. I agree with Leanne that the two should meet in the middle so everyone has an equal chance of success. I also believe that private schools do not reinforce the class system but reinforce the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat which the Marxists would see as a negative thing on society.
ReplyDeletePeople that have gained money from inheritance should obviously go to private school if they wish. Their family has clearly earned the money that they inherited, therefore do deserve to go to a private school if they wish to spend their money on it. Anyone with the money to go to private school should do as they are aiming for something higher and following the family.
DeleteNina, the New Right and Functionalists would agree with you as they see greater monetary reward as an incentive to work harder and therefore be of use to society rather than a burden on it - however, inherited wealth has not been earned by the person who inherits it but by their dead ancestor - therefore Marxists would say that because this wealth was initially earned through exploitation of those less powerful in society - inheritance should not be allowed and wealth should be re-distributed after death through heavy taxation of estates left behind - this of course, would in turn be questioned by Functionalists and the New Right as they say that this would not be an incentive to work hard and provide an easier life for your children - it is an impossible dilemma as unquestionably inequality of wealth has a real impact on people's live chances etc but if all were equal would society stagnate and never progress?
DeleteIn reply to Sophie "meeting in the middle" seems like an unlikely and optimistic viewpoint; although this does seem ideal with smaller class sizes, more individual resources and not having to completely follow the curriculum (differentiating it for different ability pupils), the high expenses to create these changes would effectively cost taxpayers more. Equally, reducing the rights of private schools in the things they pride themselves on (previously stated)would be unfair as parents are spending their money in order for their child to get a head start in universities and careers - and should have every right to spend the money they have in the way they want.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the money they do spend on private education does reinforce the class system as private schools tend to have upper class students (and gain higher level careers) while public schools have middle and working class students (who are less likely to have jobs in politics and law).
Private schools can be extremely beneficial to students, as the smaller class sizes and better facilities mean that children often get a higher standard of education and a better chance of getting into university. This means that the decision to send your child to a private school can be costly, and therefore reinforces class division as it is often only the upper classes that can afford this. However, I do not think that private schools should be banned, as parents, particularly those who have worked hard for their money regardless of background, deserve the option to send their child to a higher-quality school if they wish to. Having said this, the quality of teaching in private schools is often no different to comprehensive schools, and I think this should be corrected so that parents are paying for the right reasons. Alternatively, fees could be lowered, meaning that those of a lower class could have a better chance of attending private schools.
ReplyDeleteAlthough private schools tend to segregate the class system, giving the lower class children less of an opportunity, if parents in the upper class can afford it, then they should have the right to allow their child to strive further for success. Therefore private schools should not be banned, but perhaps comprehensive and all other schools should share aspects equal to private schools, so everyone can benefit in education for opportunities.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to do this is to spend more money on state education - this may involve taxing the rich more - as Marxists would advocate. They would say that the rich are only rich because they have not paid the poorer people the true value of their work and are living off other people's earnings - therefore taxation would redistribute the money back from the rich to the poor and enable the poor to compete on a more level playing field in education.
DeleteIt makes sense to allow those who have worked for the money to be entitled to send their child(ren) into better education, but it would make sense for the government to fund certain 'exceptional' children from standard school to go to a very renowned school which will propel them forward in life, as ultimately a well-off parent may send their child to a reputable school and the child may personally not be grateful for this and waste the oppurtunity.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that it is not necessarily the education that is better, but the access to social capital that gives greater access to the higher levels of society. To include anybody in this class is to exclude others! - How can we call ourselves a meritocracy whilst there are bigger barriers to achievement in front of some people than in front of others?
DeleteYes the parents of children who go to private school have earned the money and have every right to send their children private school but what about the children who would benefit from going to private school but don't have the money, should their parents receive some funding to be able to pay for the school. That way children who would do better in a private school will get that chance.
ReplyDeleteHow do you choose who goes and who doesn't - what about those left behind?
DeleteI don't believe schools should be banned because parents should have the choice to be able to send there child to a private school if they have the resources. Although, the existence of private schools may undermine the educational principle of equality, even if all children went to the same type of school it may not be much different. While the upper class may be able to bring a positive educational attitude and thus motivate the working class and middle class pupils to strive higher, mixing both ends of the class spectrum may result in lower self-esteem and increase problems such as labelling and anti-subcultures (Keddie 1973) for the working class etc. Upper class pupils will still have advantage of better resources and better early education, therefore their language and dictation will cause an assumed difference in ability for those less wealthy and cause negative teacher labelling. The one definite advantage of forcing all classes of children to attend a state school would be the access to higher social capital, which is one of the main reasons why upper class pupils are able to attain top job positions easily.
ReplyDeleteExcellent points, well made - do you think that possibly one answer to improve state education is to spend more money on it by taxing the rich at a higher rate?
DeleteI don't think there is anything wrong with parents spending the money they have earn't on their childs education, if they can afford it why not? It's their money, they can spend it how they want. They are only looking out for their childs best interest and so they can get the best out of it.So in that way it can be a positive thing for those involved. The negative aspect is that it leaves children in a working class family behind. But I don't feel there is any need to ban private schools, many of our politicians went to private school which i think is a good thing because if private schools were banned then you could end up with an uneducated person helping to run our country, although it could be good for the lower classes as there is someone representing them in parliament but they might not fully understand how somethings are run and need to dealt with.
ReplyDeleteMarxists would argue that the rich are only rich because they have not paid their employees a fair wage for their work and are therefore living off other people's money. It could also be argued that if private schools were banned, the richer parents would have to send their children to state schools which may have a positive effect on attitudes to learning etc in those schools - this would benefit all students.
DeleteIt could also be argued that a politician who does not understand the lives of ordinary people is as uneducated as one who has no qualifications.
I agree with Sophie and Leanne; Private schools help to reinforce the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat,and that the two schools should meet in the middle. To give all children in society a fair chance at having a thriving and prosperous career. But, does society need a class system to function? If we all had successful well paid jobs who would be the ones working in lower paid jobs, that we need to help keep society functioning? So in a way, i believe that all children deserve a fair chance at success, possibly by improving the comprehensive schools, creating smaller classes, getting more teachers and more class rooms to help make this possible to allow more one to one time with students and teachers, but i also believe if parents have the money, and the chance to send their child to a school where it is most likely they will get brilliant grades then why shouldn't they?
ReplyDeleteNice points,well argued and evaluated
DeleteI think that private schools shouldn't be banned as it creates a well structured society, as we live in a meritocracy. functionalist's would also agree with my opinion that if you work hard you should be able to spend your money on the things you want,this means if you want to only associate your children with more intelligent and upper-class people then you should have free choice to do so. The elite jobs should be filled with intelligent people that are comfortable financially meaning they have less financial stress and can focus on work more,this enforces the proletariat and bourgeoisie, which does make social inequality but without social inequality society wouldn't function. The private school students have a higher tax on their money than poorer people so I don't see the issue
ReplyDeleteJust because someone goes to private school it does not make them MORE intelligent - they perhaps just have the easier method of demonstrating it.
DeleteMarxists would argue that richer people have made their money by NOT paying their workers a fair wage for their work - therefore, they are effectively spending other people's money when they send their children to private school. Because it is difficult to ban private schools in a free society and you seem to want the best person to get any available job - it appears that more is needed to be done to enable state school students to compete with those from private school. To do this, it may involve "re-distribution" of wealth through heavier taxation of the rich in order that money raised could be spent on the education of the less rich. As state education improves and improves using this extra money it may be that richer parents actually decide that state education is a better all round education for their child after all.
I think that private schools should be scrapped they create social inequality when today everyone should be equal. Feminists would see that more boys go to private school than girls and tend to have the elite jobs of CEO than women showing inequality in education and the workplace. no one should be given a head start in life status and wealth should be achieved not ascribed. this creates social boundaries and strengthens hiraechy and power in society which isn't compulsory creating a structure of society that many consider unfair.
ReplyDeleteBut we do live in a free society - how could you get rid of Private Schools and still call us free?
DeletePrivate education increases the gap between classes and gives more power to the upper classes again as they are the only ones who attend private schools. This only accounts for 7% of the population this means that they are able to attain the higher jobs more well-paid jobs which means that this will happen to the next generation and will create a circle effect which will constantly not involve the lower classes. Even though some of the upper class people have worked hard this does not mean that the lower classes cannot work hard to make money and they will therefore be able to send their children to the private schools.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that Private Education is not just about the actual quality of education - besides smaller class sizes there is very little advantage of private education with regard to it's quality. What really makes a difference is access to the "social capital" that means that privately educated people may have a swifter and smoother path to the upper layers of society (regardless of their actual exam results compared to state educated pupils) because of the connections they can make a private school that give them access to people already there. This would appear not only to be unfair on those left out but actually not good for the nation as a whole as it would suggest that the best people are not necessarily getting the best jobs and the nation may be losing valuable talent simply because of a person's lack of social capital. This suggests, therefore, that modern Britain is not a meritocracy as for some people the path to the top is easy and for others there are barriers in place that they can do nothing about.
ReplyDelete