Tangled up in Blue
Certified Senior Citizen⭐🦐
All those revolting kids eh? :winking:
-
Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.
Existing Users:.
Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.
New Users:
Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.
Fans from other clubs
We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.
Assistance Required
For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.
Why Shouldn't the Education System be Privatised?
All those revolting kids eh? :winking:
londonblue
Topgun Pilot
No. There's no space...We already have 3 state primary schools and at least 3 private primary schools on our doorstep.
maninasuitcase
President
I don't think it would work economically.
For example, if the education budget is say £100m, this covers the cost of buildings, maintainence, equipment, teachers wages, pensions and other associated running costs.
If we give the same £100m to a private company to run the education system, they will want to take their cut, say £10m, to pay their shareholders and for costs of running the scheme. That would leave just £90 to spend on education. It seems to me this is more likely to see teacher wages driven down rather than up, class sizes would have to increase and less money would be spent on buildings and equipment in order to balance the books.
There would be some winners, but I would think more losers overall.
For example, if the education budget is say £100m, this covers the cost of buildings, maintainence, equipment, teachers wages, pensions and other associated running costs.
If we give the same £100m to a private company to run the education system, they will want to take their cut, say £10m, to pay their shareholders and for costs of running the scheme. That would leave just £90 to spend on education. It seems to me this is more likely to see teacher wages driven down rather than up, class sizes would have to increase and less money would be spent on buildings and equipment in order to balance the books.
There would be some winners, but I would think more losers overall.
Lord Football
Blues on Tour
You see the thing about privitisation is this..... it really comes down to the words "public service" and "private enterprise".
A public servant provides a service to the public using the resources allocated to it. Its only aim is to provide the best service possible given those finite resources.
A private enterprise is there to provide a profit to the company directors and shareholders, and to allow it be bouyant on the stock exchange. Without a profit the private enterprise ceases to exist. In a case where a private enterprise buys up a public service, if it is not making a profit it will cut its costs. Invariably, this results in a reduced service; be that by providing less of a service or reducing the numbers of people who provide the service and in doing so diminish it. An example would be a privately owned school cutting the teachers so that each class had 30 instead of 20 pupils.
The only winners in a privatised public service are those who own the service and benefit from the profit. There are many losers when a privately owned public services fails.
Public service should remain in the hands of the public service, because at that rate the user (you and I) know what were are getting and now that it is a constant.
The privatisation of schools is simply a cuter phrase than "education for profit". Education should always be supplied to benefit the kids of today above everything else and certainly never supplied to make shareholders a little bit richer.
A public servant provides a service to the public using the resources allocated to it. Its only aim is to provide the best service possible given those finite resources.
A private enterprise is there to provide a profit to the company directors and shareholders, and to allow it be bouyant on the stock exchange. Without a profit the private enterprise ceases to exist. In a case where a private enterprise buys up a public service, if it is not making a profit it will cut its costs. Invariably, this results in a reduced service; be that by providing less of a service or reducing the numbers of people who provide the service and in doing so diminish it. An example would be a privately owned school cutting the teachers so that each class had 30 instead of 20 pupils.
The only winners in a privatised public service are those who own the service and benefit from the profit. There are many losers when a privately owned public services fails.
Public service should remain in the hands of the public service, because at that rate the user (you and I) know what were are getting and now that it is a constant.
The privatisation of schools is simply a cuter phrase than "education for profit". Education should always be supplied to benefit the kids of today above everything else and certainly never supplied to make shareholders a little bit richer.
ShrimperZone Sponsors
ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship
Southend United Away Travel
All At Sea Fanzine
