Should Private Schools be Abolished?

I think they should.

1/ Any democracy worth its salt should be founded on the principle of equality of opportunity. Even the ACT supporters will agree with this. If it doesn't, then it undermines the fundamental principles of fairness.

Since private education allows the rich systematically to buy better education, thereby securing many economic and social advantages, It offends that basic principle. Ergo, they should be abolished.

2/ By opting out, the rich ensure the reinforcement of non-merit based advancement - via the old boys network or via preferential educational treatment (superior tutoring etc). Since un-earned privilege is the enemy of both pure capitalism and democracy, private schools should be banned.

3/ Every rich and advantaged child who is NOT in the state system automatically weakens the state education system - thereby weakening the education of all other citizens.

What about religious schools?

They are hardly full of rich kids.

Freedom of choice is a fairly fundamental ideoligy of right wing/ ACT supporters..

People going to private schools help pay for people to go to public schools (taxes) if all the private schools were abolished the flood of students into the public system would mean larger classes and/or less money per student...Cool raise taxes (im sure this would agree with act supporters too.

Why dont we just take everyones earnings off them and redistribute them equally to all. That would make everything EQUAL not just schooling.

As for old boys networks we should start seperating families up so they dont give jobs to thier extended family members, oh and church groups... or ....

Just ome out and say youre a communist fishy we will still respect you.

do you have any GOOD reasons...?

Almost all religious schools are public schools now anyway. Certainly what I would call religious schools. Those that aren't could become integrated in almost all instances.

Fish_boy #3 is crap. How does a rich kids omission from a state school affect other students quality of education?

We live in a free society Chairman Mao so if Johnny's parents can afford to send him to a private school then good for them.

Its simple styln. A rich child usually has a well connected family. Now, if your PTA head is a merchant banker and the chairperson of the board of governers is a full time corporate project manager, then the chances are that that school will be well run with excellent source of sponsorship when compared to a school where everyones parents are blue collar or on a benefit.

There will always be people with the attitude and enough money that they consider it a better option to have their children educated away from the heathens as they see it. It will never change and there's no point for it to.

BH!
Rob W

Priveleged kids will be priveleged kids no matter whether they go to private or state schools. Why wouldn't anyone in their right mind, who was in a position to do so, choose to provide their child the best possible education?
If the rich are put into state schools, their parents can still fund extra tuition, and their parents will live in higer decile areas, which will (probably) attract better teachers. In essence, you'd really just be saving people thousands of dollars in school fees for an education that would end up being of much the same calibre. Thus leaving them free to equip thier sprogs with louis vuitton schoolbags to make the rest of us feel poor.

On a related note.

I think everyone should have to drive a standardised car.

I hate it how I cant see the road past trucks like the superwide nissan pathfinders and if one of them hits me they will be fine and they will have to cut me out of my compacted car. I especially hate the fact that the sneer down at me from up on high like they are better than me or something.

And dont get me started on houses.

Very true tpl, auckland grammar being the classic example.

fb - I understand your reasons but private schools at least reduce the taxpayer burden and is one of the few ways income is spread from the rich to the poor. As for better education in private schools - that is not neccesarily the case at all, and in fact may not even be true in general. Yes there are some advantages, but also some disadvantages.

Big brother knows best aye fish_boy... nice one.

Whats big brother got to do with it?

We have inheritance taxes because the U.K. experience tells us that in order to create a better democracy it is important to dismantle the heart of aristocratic privilege.

Since the private school network is also a buttress of un-earned privilege and bastions of anti-democratic thought, surely the standard applies?

Un-earned privilege?? What a load of bollocks fish_boy.


I will spend the money which I earn in anyway I please, and that includes spending it on my children.

It’s not up to you or anyone else to decide whether or not my kids deserve it, it is up to me because it is my money which is being spent.

So what? What about the like of Auckland Grammar? That's not a private school but performs well? Lower decile schools already get assistance.

Fish_boy we no longer have death duties in NZ so what inheritance taxes are you referring to? Sensible people use trusts.

stlyn - your example of auckland grammar totally supports fb point, not be against it. What sort of people do you think are on the board of the pseudo private schools?

In regards to low decile schools getting more money, its because they need it for a million different reasons. They still end up worse off, often quite substantially.

Perhaps children from better socio economic back grounds will always do better and maybe just maybe they're smarter to start with.

There's more to school than money and you don't need huge sponsorship for a child to do well by learning the curriculum and being encouraged to read and study.

Fish_boy how does a good level of sponsorship for a school encourage children to perform better academically? Sure they can go on field trips etc and maybe get more computers but you don't need a computer to learn history or english. A good education really comes down to the quality of teachers and no one wants to work in a decile 10 school.

Children from a blue collar upbringing probably don't have as much emphasis put on education as opposed to those from a better socio-economic back ground.

Do you mean decile 10 or decile 1. Decile 10 are from the richest communities, 1 from the poorest.

Sponsorship can do a lot to improve education, it can reduce class sizes, increase resources, give teachers more time to prepare for lessons, built better facilities, have better equipment. Yes quality of teachers is important, but that doesn't vary as much better decile 1 and 10 schools as people would think. Often the lower decile schools have better teachers as you have to be a good teacher to survive.

As for chances of educatinal success, yes background has a huge bearing. A kid who spends the first 5 years of their life stuck by themselves in a cot with no toys will have little chance of succeeding in comparison to the child whose parents spend a lot of time with them and who has a lot of stimulation. Its not lack of desire for the child to succeed usually, its lack of awareness of what is required.

Justahalf thanks I got my decile 1 and 10 back to front. If private schools were abolished then the psuedo private schools would continue to well at the expense of schools in poorer areas. So if you think about private schools probably have little impact on decile 1 schools any way.

I fully agree with fish_boy in principle..but i don't think that it is very practical and in an atempt to be more pragmatic, I suggest that legislating more scholarships to decile 1 (covering transport & accodmidation) and private schools

bingo

styln - I agree with that point, thats one reason why I accept the existence of private schools is Ok. btw, many teachers would rather teach at a decile 1 than a decile 10 school, myself included when i was teaching.

NA - what do you mean about scholarships? I assume you mean for poor kids to rich schools. If so that is a really bad idea for too many reasons to list here, except to say it was tried and had some real negatives.

But Grammar is a completely public school.. there is no pseudo-private school. Maybe because it bucks a general trend for public schools to achieve lower academically than public schools (on average. This is a fact).. that's because it has a 100+ years of work and good management behind it (and because it happens to have some considered richer areas in it's zone.)

BH!
Rob W

Grammar is called a state school, but in reality its an exclusionist provate institution. Why?

Because while private schools erect barriers to entry via fees, Grammar uses as an entry barrier the property values of its zone. The net effect is exactly the same.

Grammer has conspired to increase the values of the surrounding properties to stop poor people getting in?

(BTW Fishboy - do you also think there should be no private health care?)

Hmm...with regards to the 'pseudo-private' schools like Grammar regulating their rolls through property price...I don't see how that works. If a school is regarded as a good school, houses in it's zone will be in higher demand, and thus the average price will rise due to competition. For example, look at Papakura - half of the city is zoned for Papakura High, the other half for Rosehill - and Rosehill zoning is frequently used as a selling point. Similar point for places like...Hillcrest, I think it's called, down in Hamilton - people *want* their kids to be at that school, hence they want houses in zone, fixed amount of housing + more buyers than sellers = increased prices. Nothing to do with the school at all.

With integrated/special character schools - some of these schools have some of the strangest restrictions and rules that are applied to their students, and really *need* regulation - I believe that at Baradene (younger sister goes there), for example, religious education is a compulsory subject until 7th form - and no allowance is made so that the students can take up extra subjects - out of five bursary/level three subjects, that's one. Maybe some more regulation of things like this need to happen...

As for the truly private schools, Kings, Christs etc - they run their own scholarship programs, which are normally quite good. Furthermore, a lot of the percieved 'elite' families there are actually middle/middle-upper 'class' families with both parents working, and making a lot of sacrifices - I was a scholarship kid, and my Dad worked nightshift + overtime to get me through school - ended up doing 8 days on, 1 off, at one point. It may well have been purely the realms of the 'elite' in the past, but it's not really like that as much now...

Just a bit of a younger person's perspective.

That should be "direct intervention of the school", rather.

Whether the pseudo private schools have any role in house prices being high is irrelevant, the effect is only the well off can afford to go there - just like private schools. That is what makes these schools succeed to a large degree. The differences between schools is nowhere near as large as people think, most have good/bad teachers, systems etc. Some do better at some things some at others.

liam - a few points. Religious education does not replace traditional subjects, it is an add on. Its not a bursary subject so they do 5 plus RE. As for the not so rich attending private schools, yes some do and yes scholarships do make it easier for some of these families. But they are the exceptions that prove the rule. You have to be well of to afford the $7000- $10000 per year it costs to attend, even with parents making sacrifices. A few scholarships that reduce that amount still make it only available to a minority of the population.

I would question the sacrifice that parents make as well. A state school, plus extra money spend on after school tutors if needed, would acheive the same results a lot cheaper generally. The main benefit is probably being able to join the old boys network.

Fish_boy watch out it looks like you share similar sentiments to Brash on this one re the property prices of houses in the zone.

Grammar have to come up with a zone and it's not surprising that property prices are hiked by parents wanting to live in the zone. Parents can still buy a cheap town house in the zone say low $300,000's. You can blame the Labour Government for insisting on zones. It's not the schools fault it is a good school.

Fish_Boy perhaps no state schools should be allowed top exist in rich areas? All the rich kids would then be forced to travel to lower decile schools which according to you would improve the standard of education.

Out of interest did you go to a state or private school?

My parents spent a lot of money to send me to a private school so that I'd get the best education. I hated it for the first year but after I made non-snobby friends it was great. I don't know what I would have turned out like if I'd gone to the local public college but I'm so glad for the opportunities I've had from going to the school I went to. Most of the people from my area that went to the public college are now single parents, low income earners with few job prospects. Pretty much everyone in my peer group from the private school is career-focussed and doing really well for themselves.

But the snobbery really sucked.

Thats a bit simplistic. If the huge amount of funding that private schools recieve was redirected into public education it would improve the standard of education for all and it would certainly be higher than it is in our cash strapped public system of present.

Reguardless of the comments of "free choice", the considerations of free choice are not applicable to the children, who obviously have no choice into which socio economic group they are born into and therefore to which school their parents can afford.

Not that its relevant, but I went to private school.

lol did you ever like get on detention for being the only one with socialist views?

Fush_Boy you should have gone to school in Manurewa. Just think how that would have benefited society.

Nope there was a whole cell of us - about 6 actually. We got all left wing and into saving the people of Nicauragua and listening to the clash and thinking libertion theologist Jesuits with AK-47's were really really cool.


And I even had a red brigades tee shirt I wore at every opportunity.

How? If you happened to buy a house 30 years ago, like my parents, which is an inzone area you can go and Grammar can't stop you no matter what your parents earn. At least half of all houses in Grammar zone have been owned by the same family for over 20 years (I read it somewhere recently).. which means the whole arguement about only rich people can afford to buy in-zone and send thier kids their obsolete.

Grammar had public school fees of about $150 like most other schools at the time I was there. It is plain and simply a high achieving public school which, as a flow-on from having many successful graduands, reaps some support from them in later years.

Is this to be discouraged because other schools aren't/can't do it?

There are a few 'rich kids' at all schools but I know most of the guys I knew at Grammar had working parents who did not drop them off in a range-rover every day like at Kings Prep etc..

BH!
Rob W

No, that is simplistic.

It would not help one bit.. as discussed there will ALWAYS be people who are willing to pay to have their kids in private schools (for the smaller classes, location, networking prospects or whatever).. The governement should re-address it's willingness to fund stupid activities, like yachting, to the tune of $30million when that money would go along way to giving every school-teacher and nurse a 5% payrise.

BH!
Rob W

Without wanting to get too entangled into this debate, you've just proven one of JAH's points Rob.
Unless your family has owned their house in the Grammar zone for years, there's no way in hell you're going to be able to buy a house in the zone NOW unless you have shitloads of money.

justahalf - stand corrected on the RE stuff, but as for the main benefit of going private being the old boys network...I disagree, I'd actually say the main benefit is the extra resources available to students, the fact that the teachers are dedicated, driven, and better paid than their public counterparts, and also that the nature of education/discipline (absolute zero tolerance policy on drugs, harassment etc, and the fact that the teachers go out of their way to push and motivate students) at private schools tends to give their pupils the edge.

However, as Cyber_Princess pointed out, there are some snobby gits (had that problem too, coming from Red Hill)

Private schools are essentially the product of capitalism applied to the education system. If someone wants that type of education for their kids, they pay for it - and the number of people on the waitlists for schools like Kings shows that people *are* willing to pay, for whatever reasons. As for it being morally right or wrong...morality rarely counts for anything in a capitalist system.

As for phil's point...RobW was actually saying that if you own a house there, Grammar can't stop you from attending. As for not being able to buy a house in Grammar zone - again, demand outstrips supply, for whatever reason. Lots of people want Ferraris, but can't afford them, because demand exceeds supply, and the price is high as a result - as long as the state can supply a good education, private schools are an option, and should be available. If the state can't...well, that's not the private school's fault, it's more a case of where exactly the Government is spending its income - Rob's example of $30 million going to sports like yachting is a case in point...

Basing your opinions of all private schools on one old instituion is pretty narrow minded in the extreme, i dont see it as an issue.

I see two problems with the way things are. Schools are underfunded and some people dont want to learn/ dont value education. Basically i wouldnt sacrifice an intellegent kid to the public school system just to help some people feel more equal in life. (thats only to say the chance of them attaining the same level is reduced)

I moved to a private school after the school i was at wouldnt teach me at a level above the class i was in. I went to a school that had quite a lot resources to work with people who wanted to learn, whether they were above or below average. To me one of the best things about it was there was very little if any resentment of people who achieved good results whether it was on the sports field, academic or arts. Conversly people who werent as smart werent looked down on. All in all there was a range of people from various backgrounds both poorer and super rich. My year might have been a bit different but we didnt have such a problem with snootyness.

To me the question is why do we have an education system and culture that such schools are neccessary. Fuck banning them till we can sort out the problems with our society that people who achieve or work hard are ridiculed. Perhaps we should be giving money to these private schools who seem to be able to give the environment that people learn so more people can afford a good standard of education. You would of course end up with a remainder whos parents dont value education or who dont have enough money then you could focus your attention and resources on those people. Lowest common denominator schooling isnt exactly going to help our knowledge based economy is it?

That's crap. You can buy a $300,000 apartment or town house in the grammar zone.

What are people's views on integrated schools such as Catholic Schools where there are fees but not where near as high as for say a fully private school? Fish_boy do you have a problem with these too?

That is the main aspect of private schools which I think is by far the main difference from public schools. Even the extra resources they have is minor by comparison to the attitude of being successful academically.

liamf - you seem to have little knowledge of public schools. Your comments are so one eyed they aren't worth responding to. The reality of public schools is not what you think it is.

Yes, ban them. Religion is just a slightly more sophisticated manifestation of ignorant superstition. Superstition has no place in the education system.


I'd close Churches to.

I went to a private catholic school in England and it was much harder than the non catholic public school I went to here, I feel that you get what you pay for.

Disregard religion for a moment Fish_boy. Catholic schools provide a good standard of academic, and other extra curricula achievement but you don't have to be rich to be a part of it. I also disagree with your likening of religion to superstition but can't be bothered arguing such a nonsensical statement.

Well, bearing in mind the separation of church and state I resent my taxes being spent on supporting the purveyors of mumbo-jumbo.



Ban religious schools and shoot the priests.

Fish_boy I'm surprised by your reaction. I would have thought that religious schools would be able to offer less privileged children a good education. That way they don't need to live in Zone or have to pay $10,000 a yearto go to Kings etc. I'm sure your taxes get spent on lots of things you resent.

Your comments about religious schools is not true at all, especially catholic schools. They were traditionally schools run with little money and staffed by brothers/nuns who often didn't want to be teachers really. They had large classes and poor conditions. That has changed now with integration but they still get less than state schools I think you'll find, they don't get building maintenance money. There is at best no difference between religious and state schools except for religious having less money and sometimes worse staff due to some positions having to be filled by someone from that position and therefore a smaller field to choose from and therefore worse people appointed.

I have to agree with 2shay on this one.You definitely get what you pay for!!Be it schooling,electronics,clothes,shoes,food.......................etc.