A small proportion of children attend schools in which their parents pay for, these are known as independent because they exist outside state education provision.
For example, they don't have to teach the national curriculum, nor make students sit SATS.
They can range from small private day schools to the progressive schools or to the old and famous public schools e.g. Eton and Harrow.
They aren't really independent, they depend on their financial existence on a legal anomaly, which allows them to register as charities, which gives them tax relief. They also receive allowances to educate children of armed forces and government employees who work abroad.
Are not inspected by Ofsted, and they don't have to show inspector reports to parents.
1 of 3
For Independent Schools
There are smaller class sizes with a better than average pupil to teacher ratio. (more 1 on 1 time with teacher).
There are better resources and facilities with a better chance of educational success.
Teachers are paid more (however may be same level of teaching as in a comprehensive).
Exam results are better and there is a higher chance of getting into university.
Parents should have the right to spend their money as they wish and should be able to improve their children's life chances.
2 of 3
Against Independent Schools
Some people don't have the money to provide their children with private education even if they wish to do so.
The quality of teaching is often no better (its just due to more individuall time with teacher and small class sizes).
Money spent of independent schools should be spent of improving state education so everyone has equal opportunities.
Attending a public school is enough to secure children good jobs, even if their qualifications aren't as good as a pupils from a state school.
Independent school sector is a barrier to the achievement of equality in education.
It is unjust that some children should get better opportunities through education just because their parents can afford it.
Comments
No comments have yet been made