View source for The Ethics of Private Education for Children

{{Philosophy-bar}}
__NOTOC__
== Colin's Contention ==
'''If one espouses utilitarianism as a principle, one would, I presume, want all children to have equality of opportunity. '''
* Might a better society not emerge if children were not assigned their future careers very early on, to discourage friction between groups?
* Is there evidence from countries without a private school system for the wealthy that this works to society's overall benefit?

'''The State cannot afford to provide schools with the range of opportunities, both educationally and extra-curricularly, that the private schools can. The vast majority of parents can’t afford to do this, so exclusion '''[from opportunities]''' becomes the norm. '''

'''This presupposes that private education is ‘better’ than state education, but in what way?'''

'''Are we therefore guilty of setting the wrong standards for education, and should we have a new approach, perhaps one in which, after the acquisition of basic reading and arithmetical skills, children can diverge into learning a curriculum that is individual. Or some other format?'''

== Other Points by Me (Bold for emphasis) ==
A parent wants the '''best for their own child'''. They are in one of the best positions to determine what is best. That is '''parental responsibility'''.

Many parents adopt a '''hybrid''' approach to their children's education, for example:
* Paying for them to have music or football lessons.
* Paying for a private tutor.
* Educating them privately until the political mood suggests their chances will be better in the state system.
* Educating them privately when family finances can afford it.

What should happen if your child wants education in a subject the state does not provide, for example, the Finnish language?

What happens if your child cannot coexist with other children, for health reasons?

If we eradicate private education, then we eliminate private tutoring.
* Surely that is an entrepreneurial activity for many?
* Kant, for example, started as a private tutor. No doubt Bach gave private lessons to wealthy pupils.

Don't we believe in '''lifelong learning'''? If so, when should the State stop funding this?

Why should the State stop funding the education of youth '''immediately after the A-levels'''?

We believe in responsibility for oneself and for one’s family. If we believe an action will help ourselves or our families, we believe we should do it. We do not have a duty to see first whether the State can do the action first.

If you are against private education in the most absolute sense, you are saying that families should not be able to pass on their skills to the next generation. Not only career skills&mdash;e.g. legal skills&mdash;but also practical domestic skills. This is absurd and utterly impractical unless you take babies from their mothers at birth.

==== Criticisms of Utilitarianism ====
* What about the interests of the individual who is left out of the majority who gain for the greatest total happiness?
** ''No child left behind'' is not a utilitarian principle. 
* Fails to respects the rights of the individual.
* Assumes everyone values state education.
* Libertarians want a minimal state in which each individual makes their own decisions and pays accordingly.

==== Does Kant have the answer? ====
* The categorical imperative as respect for humanity and its capacity for reason.
** Wouldn't apply to my parents as they are currently in their state of dementia.
** Doesn't appear to give a clear answer without understanding the impact of education, and whether humans should be forced to undergo it.