The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
'This house believes that private education should be banned'
I'm Proposing this motion for a debate on Thursday.
I completely forgot about it until now, I DO have some basic ideas on a piece of paper somewhere... I just need to find it...
AAAHHH
I'm Proposing this motion for a debate on Thursday.
I completely forgot about it until now, I DO have some basic ideas on a piece of paper somewhere... I just need to find it...
AAAHHH
Page:
'This house believes that private education should be banned'
I'm Proposing this motion for a debate on Thursday.
I completely forgot about it until now, I DO have some basic ideas on a piece of paper somewhere... I just need to find it...
AAAHHH
I'm Proposing this motion for a debate on Thursday.
I completely forgot about it until now, I DO have some basic ideas on a piece of paper somewhere... I just need to find it...
AAAHHH
I prefer the debate - "This house proposes there should be two weekends a week"
Meh, easy one.
Private education is a choice made by those who can afford it.
It is not the task of anyone to tell anyone else how people spend their money that is legally theirs when what they are spending it on is legal.
It does not poach talent from public schools, because wealth is not an indication of intelligence.
It does not affect future education because university entrance is determinant on grades, ability, and finance.
It does reduce the strain on the public system by removing a portion of the school age population from the system.
Finally...
Banning something only a minority use is a dangerous precedent when there is no legal reason to do so. It's a democracy and a capitalist one, hence there is nothing wrong with it and if you want to ban it you may as well go on to ban all private facilities and gatherings, including "this house" for starters.
Private education is a choice made by those who can afford it.
It is not the task of anyone to tell anyone else how people spend their money that is legally theirs when what they are spending it on is legal.
It does not poach talent from public schools, because wealth is not an indication of intelligence.
It does not affect future education because university entrance is determinant on grades, ability, and finance.
It does reduce the strain on the public system by removing a portion of the school age population from the system.
Finally...
Banning something only a minority use is a dangerous precedent when there is no legal reason to do so. It's a democracy and a capitalist one, hence there is nothing wrong with it and if you want to ban it you may as well go on to ban all private facilities and gatherings, including "this house" for starters.
One at each.. end?
HálloHowArtThou wrote:
> I DO have some basic ideas on
> a piece of paper somewhere... I just need to find it...
So you want help finding a piece of paper?
Down the back of the sofa?
In the fridge?
HálloHowArtThou wrote:
> I DO have some basic ideas on
> a piece of paper somewhere... I just need to find it...
So you want help finding a piece of paper?
Down the back of the sofa?
In the fridge?
Though if you were PROPOSING it, I'd start from:
Equality - by being allowed to buy a better education, people attending private schools are being given a better chance in life than everyone else.
The key to arguing this successfully is trying to show how removing private schools could also benefit current state schools' kids standards, so that it wouldn't just be a question of bringing private school kids down to everyone else's level.
Maybe argue that there'd be more finances or something - those who currently pay more to buy private educations could pay more taxes, or there could be a new tax, which would go to increase funding for state schools.
Equality - by being allowed to buy a better education, people attending private schools are being given a better chance in life than everyone else.
The key to arguing this successfully is trying to show how removing private schools could also benefit current state schools' kids standards, so that it wouldn't just be a question of bringing private school kids down to everyone else's level.
Maybe argue that there'd be more finances or something - those who currently pay more to buy private educations could pay more taxes, or there could be a new tax, which would go to increase funding for state schools.
You could also argue that it's not in the pvt kids' interests to be so detached from the (probably) more varied society they'd find in a state school.
Dr Duck wrote:
> Equality - by being allowed to buy a better education, people
> attending private schools are being given a better chance in life
> than everyone else.
Public schools are not equal neither, and the performances of schools varies anyway so they do not provide all pupils with the same chances anyway. Plus you'd effectively be arguing that people with money coud not use it as they wished, and even if all had to go to public schools then those with money would be able to have personal tutors, more access to text books, resources, e.t.c. People are not being given a better chance, they're buying it, in the same way I bought broadband to allow me faster access to the internet, a better PC to play the new games to the maxm and so on.
> The key to arguing this successfully is trying to show how removing
> private schools could also benefit current state schools' kids
> standards, so that it wouldn't just be a question of bringing private
> school kids down to everyone else's level.
Good luck on that one...
> Maybe argue that there'd be more finances or something - those who
> currently pay more to buy private educations could pay more taxes, or
> there could be a new tax, which would go to increase funding for
> state schools.
Those who can afford such schools already pay more tax than those who can't, and the public would NEVER support further tax rises. It's verging on a revolt over the council tax as it is.
> Equality - by being allowed to buy a better education, people
> attending private schools are being given a better chance in life
> than everyone else.
Public schools are not equal neither, and the performances of schools varies anyway so they do not provide all pupils with the same chances anyway. Plus you'd effectively be arguing that people with money coud not use it as they wished, and even if all had to go to public schools then those with money would be able to have personal tutors, more access to text books, resources, e.t.c. People are not being given a better chance, they're buying it, in the same way I bought broadband to allow me faster access to the internet, a better PC to play the new games to the maxm and so on.
> The key to arguing this successfully is trying to show how removing
> private schools could also benefit current state schools' kids
> standards, so that it wouldn't just be a question of bringing private
> school kids down to everyone else's level.
Good luck on that one...
> Maybe argue that there'd be more finances or something - those who
> currently pay more to buy private educations could pay more taxes, or
> there could be a new tax, which would go to increase funding for
> state schools.
Those who can afford such schools already pay more tax than those who can't, and the public would NEVER support further tax rises. It's verging on a revolt over the council tax as it is.
Dr Duck wrote:
> You could also argue that it's not in the pvt kids' interests to be so
> detached from the (probably) more varied society they'd find in a
> state school.
Crap, in any kind of setting where you dump kids together they'll form groups/friendships based on interests/experiences/life chances, so throw a pile of private school kids into the public system and they'll just form their own group.
Even in the public system there is an acceptance that single sex classes seem to produce the best results - something most private schools have done for ages.
Ah, just seen on SKY that a pupil in a secondary school has been killed by another after a fight. Which kind of highlights that the problem re:performance and achievement lies in discipline, or lack thereof, in public schools for the most part.
> You could also argue that it's not in the pvt kids' interests to be so
> detached from the (probably) more varied society they'd find in a
> state school.
Crap, in any kind of setting where you dump kids together they'll form groups/friendships based on interests/experiences/life chances, so throw a pile of private school kids into the public system and they'll just form their own group.
Even in the public system there is an acceptance that single sex classes seem to produce the best results - something most private schools have done for ages.
Ah, just seen on SKY that a pupil in a secondary school has been killed by another after a fight. Which kind of highlights that the problem re:performance and achievement lies in discipline, or lack thereof, in public schools for the most part.
private education is expensive and all you need to do is work hard and ask the teacher!
get home tutoring much better so my freind said just too expensive as well.
get home tutoring much better so my freind said just too expensive as well.
How can the opposition support the notion that high quality education should only be available to those who can afford it!?! It should not be a case of cavier for some and bread for the masses.
And so on...
And so on...
Page: