6 ms·

It's a way to give children a more equal start, even if they come from poor families. Right now there's clearly a two-tier education system structured in a way

It's a way to give children a more equal start, even if they come from poor families. Right now there's clearly a two-tier education system structured in a way that poor kids have very limited access to better schools. Equal opportunities.

brobdingnagians 7y ago
But that is making everyone equally poor, not equally rich, in the same vein of thinking as the government in "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. People become wealthier and better off by helping each other and inventing new things with the freedom to explore, not by fiat of law or force. The kind of force and compulsion you are talking about will lead to equality of poverty. The first step on that road is the loss of everyone's freedom of choice. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron
- ownagefool 7y ago
  This is an issue of perspective. Similarly, it would mean rich kids mix with poor kids, allowing for more diverse sharing of culture and learning. Maybe this makes us all poorer, but maybe it makes us all richer?
  - hgoel 7y ago
    No, it does not as rich kids generally live in rich neighborhoods and poor kids in poor neighborhoods. All it does is make everyone miserable.
    - ownagefool 7y ago
      Maybe. I honestly wouldn't know for a fact. I believe Finland is generally consider to have the best education system in Europe, without any real private schools. So is your opinion based on evidence, or just feeling?
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    People imagine the “mixing” of socioeconomic groups at a young age in school to be some kind of great formative event for students that’s more or less required now in the modern narrative around education. It’s mostly bullshit, IMO. Cultural norms between rich and poor transfer extremely slowly, and without a heavy handed approach it’s anyone’s guess which direction they flow. I grew up upper middle class, and went to a high school that did this and it was terrible. Poorer students brought with them drugs and violence and a “fuck it” approach to academics. The more wealthy students just stayed away. By the time we were juniors everyone had self selected into AP and Honors classes, so there was virtually no interaction. I didn’t learn a single thing from that experience other than that I actually need to keep my gym locker locked so that may stuff didn’t get stolen.
    - ownagefool 7y ago
      That's an interesting anecdote, but I think you need to be in for a penny in for a pound on this sort of stuff. Truth is, I'm playing devils advocate. I've worked in tech for 15 years and have bought a house in a good free school area, so it's a bit hypocritical, but I don't overly believe the US or the UK has the best education systems. You could argue they're the best at the high end. Indeed, Ivy League and Oxbridge has some of the best reputations in the world, but interestingly, most of the Red Brick pulls in rich kids (especially Oxbridge), which recently have been exposed for having easier exams (in the UK), which complicates the issue. Are they the best because they're the best, or because they have all the money? Blah blah blah, different colours of grey.
- carlmr 7y ago
  It could also lead to better funding and quality of public schools. Rich/intelligent people would be more invested in taking care that public schools have appropriate funding if their kids had to go to the same schools.
  - pochamago 7y ago
    I live in an area without a heavily funded private school. All that happened was the richer people started their own town with its own school district that has better funding than the city. I don't think you can solve the problem by trying to take away valuable tools, you have to give access to those without the advantages.
    - carlmr 7y ago
      Well this wouldn't work obviously if it wasn't a more far reaching ban. If the next private school was in Europe I'm sure not many people would move over there. The next town is not a hindrance.
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        The point is that the rich people found a public school that they could make act like a high-quality private one. The inner city kids were still left in the same situation as before.
ownagefool 7y ago
Further to that, your child needs a society to live in. You could have the best educated child in the world, but if the society behind them doesn't function, the chances of achievement would be particularly low. It's one of those greater good and where do you draw the line arguments. On one side, there's anarchy, every man for themselves, but you'll have to give up property rights here, because why should the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for police and courts for you, on the other hand there's communism, but with no reward for work, why would we bother? Once you accept everyone is on the spectrum, it's harder to argue against a good education and medical system, paid from by tax, if it has the wider benefit to society.
- hgoel 7y ago
  Not at all. You're making this very bad assumption that anyone arguing against those things (or arguing against banning private versions of them) doesn't care about wider society. Not to mention that "good education and medical system" is itself meaningless as the entire issue is what constitutes a "good education and medical system". Paying for police/courts matters because they protect our rights directly. Public-only schooling doesn't really give anyone anything, it just pulls everyone down. Similarly, public-only fully tax payer funded healthcare only encourages abuse. For both, a tax payer subsidized system is far more preferable. We can't possibly make things equal for everyone without making everyone equally miserable but we can make it easier by having public schools and hospitals that are partially tax payer funded so people can atleast get the benefit of their existence, while those with better resources can enjoy their private education and healthcare.
  - ownagefool 7y ago
    Not sure I agree I've made a bad assumption, because I didn't actually state where I draw the line. I'm actually not sure, I believe the issue is too complex for someone like myself to understand without serious study into the area, and I'm not really in that line of work and cannot individually affect British policy, so I do my job which is tech. You however do make an assumption when you state "public school pulls everyone done". Why? Do you actually believe the US private school system produces the smartest kids in the world?
divbyzer0 7y ago
Having a private school gives a comparison (and hopefully competition) with state schools. Also, private schools can do better for children with learning difficulties - smaller class size etc. I say this as a parent with one child in private, and one in public. I'm very happy with both, but each school caters to the individual childs strenghts.
vageli 7y ago
I guess one way to make things equal is to remove opportunities, but that seems like a step backwards.

brobdingnagians 7y ago

But that is making everyone equally poor, not equally rich, in the same vein of thinking as the government in "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. People become wealthier and better off by helping each other and inventing new things with the freedom to explore, not by fiat of law or force. The kind of force and compulsion you are talking about will lead to equality of poverty. The first step on that road is the loss of everyone's freedom of choice. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

ownagefool 7y ago
This is an issue of perspective. Similarly, it would mean rich kids mix with poor kids, allowing for more diverse sharing of culture and learning. Maybe this makes us all poorer, but maybe it makes us all richer?
- hgoel 7y ago
  No, it does not as rich kids generally live in rich neighborhoods and poor kids in poor neighborhoods. All it does is make everyone miserable.
  - ownagefool 7y ago
    Maybe. I honestly wouldn't know for a fact. I believe Finland is generally consider to have the best education system in Europe, without any real private schools. So is your opinion based on evidence, or just feeling?
- remarkEon 7y ago
  People imagine the “mixing” of socioeconomic groups at a young age in school to be some kind of great formative event for students that’s more or less required now in the modern narrative around education. It’s mostly bullshit, IMO. Cultural norms between rich and poor transfer extremely slowly, and without a heavy handed approach it’s anyone’s guess which direction they flow. I grew up upper middle class, and went to a high school that did this and it was terrible. Poorer students brought with them drugs and violence and a “fuck it” approach to academics. The more wealthy students just stayed away. By the time we were juniors everyone had self selected into AP and Honors classes, so there was virtually no interaction. I didn’t learn a single thing from that experience other than that I actually need to keep my gym locker locked so that may stuff didn’t get stolen.
  - ownagefool 7y ago
    That's an interesting anecdote, but I think you need to be in for a penny in for a pound on this sort of stuff. Truth is, I'm playing devils advocate. I've worked in tech for 15 years and have bought a house in a good free school area, so it's a bit hypocritical, but I don't overly believe the US or the UK has the best education systems. You could argue they're the best at the high end. Indeed, Ivy League and Oxbridge has some of the best reputations in the world, but interestingly, most of the Red Brick pulls in rich kids (especially Oxbridge), which recently have been exposed for having easier exams (in the UK), which complicates the issue. Are they the best because they're the best, or because they have all the money? Blah blah blah, different colours of grey.
carlmr 7y ago
It could also lead to better funding and quality of public schools. Rich/intelligent people would be more invested in taking care that public schools have appropriate funding if their kids had to go to the same schools.
- pochamago 7y ago
  I live in an area without a heavily funded private school. All that happened was the richer people started their own town with its own school district that has better funding than the city. I don't think you can solve the problem by trying to take away valuable tools, you have to give access to those without the advantages.
  - carlmr 7y ago
    Well this wouldn't work obviously if it wasn't a more far reaching ban. If the next private school was in Europe I'm sure not many people would move over there. The next town is not a hindrance.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      The point is that the rich people found a public school that they could make act like a high-quality private one. The inner city kids were still left in the same situation as before.

ownagefool 7y ago

Further to that, your child needs a society to live in. You could have the best educated child in the world, but if the society behind them doesn't function, the chances of achievement would be particularly low. It's one of those greater good and where do you draw the line arguments. On one side, there's anarchy, every man for themselves, but you'll have to give up property rights here, because why should the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for police and courts for you, on the other hand there's communism, but with no reward for work, why would we bother? Once you accept everyone is on the spectrum, it's harder to argue against a good education and medical system, paid from by tax, if it has the wider benefit to society.

hgoel 7y ago
Not at all. You're making this very bad assumption that anyone arguing against those things (or arguing against banning private versions of them) doesn't care about wider society. Not to mention that "good education and medical system" is itself meaningless as the entire issue is what constitutes a "good education and medical system". Paying for police/courts matters because they protect our rights directly. Public-only schooling doesn't really give anyone anything, it just pulls everyone down. Similarly, public-only fully tax payer funded healthcare only encourages abuse. For both, a tax payer subsidized system is far more preferable. We can't possibly make things equal for everyone without making everyone equally miserable but we can make it easier by having public schools and hospitals that are partially tax payer funded so people can atleast get the benefit of their existence, while those with better resources can enjoy their private education and healthcare.
- ownagefool 7y ago
  Not sure I agree I've made a bad assumption, because I didn't actually state where I draw the line. I'm actually not sure, I believe the issue is too complex for someone like myself to understand without serious study into the area, and I'm not really in that line of work and cannot individually affect British policy, so I do my job which is tech. You however do make an assumption when you state "public school pulls everyone done". Why? Do you actually believe the US private school system produces the smartest kids in the world?

divbyzer0 7y ago

Having a private school gives a comparison (and hopefully competition) with state schools. Also, private schools can do better for children with learning difficulties - smaller class size etc. I say this as a parent with one child in private, and one in public. I'm very happy with both, but each school caters to the individual childs strenghts.

vageli 7y ago

I guess one way to make things equal is to remove opportunities, but that seems like a step backwards.