The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Cubist wrote:
> I'm sorry Belldandy but your argument simply does not hold water. The
> number 1 reason why parents put their children into private schools
> is because they expect a higher quality of education for their
> children. It is both expected from private schools and private
> schools boast it.
Yes, but that's not what the debating question is, is it?
It's what reason there could be to ban private schools, and arguing they allow people to send children to places they pay for to achieve a decent education is not really going to win many people over. Even if you argue that all schools should be raised to the level of private schools then you're using the private school system to change the public ones, which is not banning is it ? The essential counterpoint, to my mind, is that people are free to use money as they wish within reason.
In addition it could be argued that most people want to increase standards in public schools but no one is too keen to pay for those improvements. Which returns it to the old "you get what you pay for" argument.
Compared to the USA we're far more inclusive anyway, especially at college/university level.
> To keep private schools within our society segregate the rich from
> the poor in education and frankly as the opposition will say I am
> sure they do not deserve this higher quality of education they simply
> have it due to their parents amounts of money.
They economically segregate the society, as does housing, healthcare, car ownership, and everything else. It's kind of a hallmark of a capitalist society.
Attacking people with money is also a bad idea in a debate because the country is not really full of "old money" people anymore, many people with money worked for it and do deserve it, and gained it through education and their own selves.
Saying ANYONE does not deserve a high quality education is a massive no no in any education themed debate. Everyone does, the question is how to provide it to everyone without sending public spending spiralling through the ceiling towards the moon, at the same time as improving the NHS, improving public transport, cutting taxes, and so forth.
Maybe that would be a better debate topic...
> Well if I was opposing it that is one of the things I'd say but I
> guess I'm not so it doesn't matter. I'm sure the proposition can use
> this to help them in someway though. Good luck.
> I'm sorry Belldandy but your argument simply does not hold water. The
> number 1 reason why parents put their children into private schools
> is because they expect a higher quality of education for their
> children. It is both expected from private schools and private
> schools boast it.
Yes, but that's not what the debating question is, is it?
It's what reason there could be to ban private schools, and arguing they allow people to send children to places they pay for to achieve a decent education is not really going to win many people over. Even if you argue that all schools should be raised to the level of private schools then you're using the private school system to change the public ones, which is not banning is it ? The essential counterpoint, to my mind, is that people are free to use money as they wish within reason.
In addition it could be argued that most people want to increase standards in public schools but no one is too keen to pay for those improvements. Which returns it to the old "you get what you pay for" argument.
Compared to the USA we're far more inclusive anyway, especially at college/university level.
> To keep private schools within our society segregate the rich from
> the poor in education and frankly as the opposition will say I am
> sure they do not deserve this higher quality of education they simply
> have it due to their parents amounts of money.
They economically segregate the society, as does housing, healthcare, car ownership, and everything else. It's kind of a hallmark of a capitalist society.
Attacking people with money is also a bad idea in a debate because the country is not really full of "old money" people anymore, many people with money worked for it and do deserve it, and gained it through education and their own selves.
Saying ANYONE does not deserve a high quality education is a massive no no in any education themed debate. Everyone does, the question is how to provide it to everyone without sending public spending spiralling through the ceiling towards the moon, at the same time as improving the NHS, improving public transport, cutting taxes, and so forth.
Maybe that would be a better debate topic...
> Well if I was opposing it that is one of the things I'd say but I
> guess I'm not so it doesn't matter. I'm sure the proposition can use
> this to help them in someway though. Good luck.
I'm sorry Belldandy but your argument simply does not hold water. The number 1 reason why parents put their children into private schools is because they expect a higher quality of education for their children. It is both expected from private schools and private schools boast it.
To keep private schools within our society segregate the rich from the poor in education and frankly as the opposition will say I am sure they do not deserve this higher quality of education they simply have it due to their parents amounts of money.
Well if I was opposing it that is one of the things I'd say but I guess I'm not so it doesn't matter. I'm sure the proposition can use this to help them in someway though. Good luck.
To keep private schools within our society segregate the rich from the poor in education and frankly as the opposition will say I am sure they do not deserve this higher quality of education they simply have it due to their parents amounts of money.
Well if I was opposing it that is one of the things I'd say but I guess I'm not so it doesn't matter. I'm sure the proposition can use this to help them in someway though. Good luck.
Cubist wrote:
> 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.
Because the opposition did not mention anything about high quality education, simply private education? If you opposed private education and came out with this statement then the other opposition which supports the existence of private schools could get you on the valid point that you're making the association that only high quality education comes from private schools, which is not the case, hence your own prejudices have effected your argument.
It's not the same argument and not what the topic is.
> 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.
Because the opposition did not mention anything about high quality education, simply private education? If you opposed private education and came out with this statement then the other opposition which supports the existence of private schools could get you on the valid point that you're making the association that only high quality education comes from private schools, which is not the case, hence your own prejudices have effected your argument.
It's not the same argument and not what the topic is.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Page: