Some people feel that the responsibly for providing education should be borne only by the government and that private education should be banned.
Within a few hours, comments had been posted online, a number of them congratulating the Guardian on this brilliant satirical parody of the same article that we see on an annual basis from London journalists. Instead, I would like humbly to suggest that Janet is wasting her money.
But worse, she is doing her child a disservice. There are some things in this country where paying more actually gets you inferior results. And for me, private education is right up there with G4S security.
A genteel social occasion in some middle-class home can turn in an instant. Anyone can be leftwing if it means just reading the Guardian and voting Labour occasionally. However, this is a false dilemma. In any choice between "my children" and "wider society" all of us would put our own kids first.
My wife and I sent our kids to a state school because we wanted what was best for them. We wanted the very best education they could possibly receive. And guess what — it was all free! That would be a six-figure sum by the time they go to university. How much better it would be if that money was put into a savings account for a down-payment on a flat each, or saved for even later when they were starting a family?
Obviously we never did put the money away; I think I spent most of it on beer and curries, but the point still stands. My kids both walked to their local school with classmates they never would have met on the private bus to Dulwich College. Top tip by the way, there is a London bus, free to children, that travels exactly the same route.
My kids rubbed along with classmates of all races and classes. They know the other people in their community, they are not frightened when they walk down the high street after dark, they have gained an understanding of how society works that you could never get in an institution from which most of society is excluded.
There is a world of difference between studying Islam and going to school with lots of Muslims. When we drove past a prep school near where I live, my daughter said "I never knew there were so many blonde people in London. Oh, except for campaigning for this new school and then becoming its chair of governors for eight years.
In fact, my involvement in the school only increased my admiration for the outstanding teachers my children encountered at Lambeth Academy.
I am not quite naff enough to list their exam results here, but they and their friends did fantastically, despite a wobbly start when the school first opened.
And that was without the misery of two or three hours of extra homework every night and school on Saturday mornings. Obviously there is no way that Lambeth Academy will ever achieve the exam statistics of nearby private schools. But studying the results of schools with socially selective intakes is a bogus science.
If you read to your children from an early age, if the poor things are dragged round museums every other weekend, if you have the time and energy for them and are not leaving them at home alone every evening because you have a second job cleaning floors at Heathrow, then your children will do better academically.
What parents generally perceive as a "better school" usually means a school with an intake that is easier to teach.
Janet Murray was seduced by the idea of the extra attention that her daughter would get in a class of 11 too small in my unprofessional opinion.
Private schools are always boasting about all those extra-curricular activities. Far simpler to put a hundred grand on the barbecue and teach them to be rude to waiters yourself.
Not only is this divisive system bad for both sets of students involved, it is also bad for the country. The top tiers of our institutions and industries are packed with former public school boys, who are only there because of connections and an entitlement and self-confidence that is not matched by their ability to do an excellent job.
George Osborne is not chancellor because he is a financial genius without equal in the United Kingdom.The private schools prevent the public schools from a total service over education by the community as a choice. This is a produces with public schools for the student enrollment. The views of a public schools as something a child must accept as an option of there parents can not afford a private school education.
Advocates in State education exclaim that private education could does not support an equality among the public. The reason is that private education is introduced with . They need state schools to be crap to justify what would otherwise be an obvious attempt to advantage their own children over others and embrace the social apartheid of private education.
The centre-right press ensures that every failing is magnified, every success under-reported. Wilshaw, complain centre-right commentators, has gone rogue.
There are several advantages for students who choose to study in private schools.
One of the advantages is that private schools got small classes and small community atmosphere that allow for a lower students-to-teacher ratio; private schools got a rule that to put just 20 to 25 students in each class so no crowd will happen.
the role of government in education From Milton Friedman (/), Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press); earlier version () in Robert A. Solo (Ed.), Economics and the Public Interest, pp.
(New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press). Ensuring Equal Opportunity in Public Education which means these districts’ budgeting practices have a greater direct effect than state or federal education investments. The guarantee to.