4 ms·
Those things are not mutually exclusive. For example, in England we have academies, which are exactly what you described, directly accountable to the Departmen
by intarga 7y ago
Those things are not mutually exclusive.
For example, in England we have academies, which are exactly what you described, directly accountable to the Department of Education. However, we also have community schools, which are accountable instead to local authorities, and we also have voluntary aided schools (like faith schools), which receive some state funding through the local authority, but are primarily funded and run by a foundation.
You still get to choose where your child goes to school, and if you really want to you can also homeschool them.
Private schools are not about choice, they're about quality. Unfortunately, that comes at the detriment of the quality of state education, and ultimately social equality and mobility.
- anm89 7y ago"Private schools are not about choice", according to who? That's a subjective opinion which you are presenting as a fact. The authors argument revolves around removing choice so everyone gets the same thing so we are forced to make that one option higher quality. I'm not saying that is the only way to do it, but that is what this person is arguing for and that is what I'm arguing is a bad idea.
- intarga 7y agoI made the case above that choice in education is not exclusive to private schools, and there I perhaps worded that statement poorly and should have said "Choice is not the defining characteristic of private schools". You still have just as much choice in the type of education your child gets without private education. The author's argument revolves around removing the choice of paying for quality, not removing choices of the type of schools and education available. If we got rid of private schools, we'd still have all the choice, but the choices and quality would be available to everyone, not just rich families.