>IMO, the best way to avoid issues like this would be to ban private schools
Why should it be illegal to give my child a better education than what the state provides?
Why should it be illegal to give my child a better education than what the state provides?
Maybe this makes us all poorer, but maybe it makes us all richer?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
If the students of wealthy families are in those public schools, the quality of education there going to go way up. Wealthy parents have much more time to take an active role in their child's school, volunteering for events, organizing fundraisers (and donating to them), scrutinizing the curriculum, and holding teachers to account. Parents living in poverty tend to be too busy to pay much attention (let alone to run for the school board), or may not realize what opportunities for improvement exist.
There's no reason the state can't provide an excellent education, and in many countries it does. But if public education is de-facto only for the poor, then it s not going to be much of a priority for the state either.
No, the majority electorate has input regarding what the state provides. If I'm lucky, I'm part of that majority.
Government systems do not cater to minorities unless the majority electorate decides to be charitable.
Private systems sometimes provide the minority extra choices because they chase profits instead of votes. Of course, that's only if there is profit to be made off the minority.
Neither system does a good job of catering to poor minorities. But getting rid of one wont make the other better.
You really have to have witnessed what these parents can do to understand their transformative impact. I've seen it for myself.
If not, what is different about a ban on emigrating such that your argument applies to a ban on private schools, but does not apply to ban on emigrating?
Would not the quality of the US government stay higher if those American citizens with the largest capacity to influence it were forced to remain American citizens rather than become, e.g., German citizens when things in the US become worse than they are in Germany?
By the way, moving countries is surprisingly rare and quite difficult to do, even when times are tough in your home country.