Happy Face 29 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 The point is state education is payed for by taxes. If the rich and influential all send little tarquin to private school the they have no interest inhaving tax spent on state education. Therefore less money is spent on state education. Not only that they pay more to teachers so the best teachers are taken out of the state sector. The rich get to send their schools to well maintained schools wih all thefacilities money can buy. The poor send their kids to underfunded schools with badly paid teachers. Welcome to Britain pre labour You're assuming that the small percentage of people rich enough to send their kids to private school have enough influence to change government policy. There'll always be more kids in state school than private, there'll always be people in a position to send their kids to private school who nevertheless know it's only right that underpriveliged kids get a good education. Therefore less money will never be spent on state education because the ruling party couldn't bare to lose the votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adios 717 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 The point is state education is payed for by taxes. If the rich and influential all send little tarquin to private school the they have no interest inhaving tax spent on state education. Therefore less money is spent on state education. Not only that they pay more to teachers so the best teachers are taken out of the state sector. The rich get to send their schools to well maintained schools wih all thefacilities money can buy. The poor send their kids to underfunded schools with badly paid teachers. Welcome to Britain pre labour That really is taking the piss. Why? Read the bold bit, funny image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spongebob toonpants 3902 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 The point is state education is payed for by taxes. If the rich and influential all send little tarquin to private school the they have no interest inhaving tax spent on state education. Therefore less money is spent on state education. Not only that they pay more to teachers so the best teachers are taken out of the state sector. The rich get to send their schools to well maintained schools wih all thefacilities money can buy. The poor send their kids to underfunded schools with badly paid teachers. Welcome to Britain pre labour You're assuming that the small percentage of people rich enough to send their kids to private school have enough influence to change government policy. There'll always be more kids in state school than private, there'll always be people in a position to send their kids to private school who nevertheless know it's only right that underpriveliged kids get a good education. Therefore less money will never be spent on state education because the ruling party couldn't bare to lose the votes. You are forgetting that the voting public are idiots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4355 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Ah the old "if I opt out that leaves more for the ones who don't" bollocks which of course is applied to healthcare just as much. As I said on the legislation thread and as Bob has alluded to the thing is that the more the rich, powerful and influential opt out of state services the less they will care despite any well-meaning intentions (or bastard selfishness in the tories case). In reference to the point about a minority, elections are now decided by middle-englanders - a disproportionate amount of whom use private education. Its not just about resources its about a stake in something that you care about for the good of everybody and not just yourself. I have no kids - does that mean I should not be allowed to discuss education? - of course not - I care about society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted October 4, 2006 Share Posted October 4, 2006 Ah the old "if I opt out that leaves more for the ones who don't" bollocks which of course is applied to healthcare just as much. As I said on the legislation thread and as Bob has alluded to the thing is that the more the rich, powerful and influential opt out of state services the less they will care despite any well-meaning intentions (or bastard selfishness in the tories case). In reference to the point about a minority, elections are now decided by middle-englanders - a disproportionate amount of whom use private education. Its not just about resources its about a stake in something that you care about for the good of everybody and not just yourself. I have no kids - does that mean I should not be allowed to discuss education? - of course not - I care about society. Students at fee-paying schools make up only 7% of the school population, I can't see the parents of the other 93% tolerating a government that reduced education spending. Hell, we're close to chucking out a party who've increased spending by billions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob W 0 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 private education is socially divisive of course other countries seem to manage OK with a "comprehensive system" but here its all buggered up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21055 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 private education is socially divisive of course other countries seem to manage OK with a "comprehensive system" but here its all buggered up Out of interest, which other countries do you think deliver a better, fairer system to the UK one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 44110 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Every kid sould have the same chance at school. Your kids already have an advantage at home with (I asume) caring loving hard working parents, providing assisatance and good role models. All the more reason for kids with bad parents to be given a chance The harsh reality is, giving a kid a good rearing at home, gives him an unfair disadvantage in a normal school environment. Oo-er! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 21055 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Every kid sould have the same chance at school. Your kids already have an advantage at home with (I asume) caring loving hard working parents, providing assisatance and good role models. All the more reason for kids with bad parents to be given a chance The harsh reality is, giving a kid a good rearing at home, gives him an unfair disadvantage in a normal school environment. Oo-er! You disgust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Every kid sould have the same chance at school. Your kids already have an advantage at home with (I asume) caring loving hard working parents, providing assisatance and good role models. All the more reason for kids with bad parents to be given a chance The harsh reality is, giving a kid a good rearing at home, gives him an unfair disadvantage in a normal school environment. Oo-er! Fnnarr fnnnarr! Woop woop! etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now