到底应不应该禁办营利性私立学校？.

　　Editor’s note: China has a free, compulsory education system that is supported by funding from the central government and covers six years of primary school and three years of junior high school. That is nine years of education. Under revised legislation, profit-driven private schools are not allowed to engage in nine-year compulsory education. What do you think? Is it a wise decision to ban private schools that might provide better education? China Daily readers share their thoughts.

　　编者注：中国有着免费的义务教育制度，它由中央政府拨款支持，包含六年小学和三年初中。也就是九年教育。新修订的法律规定，营利性私立学校不允许加入九年义务教育。你怎样认为呢?对可能会提供更优质教育的私立学校颁布禁令是否为明智之举?《中国日报》读者分享了一些他们的看法。

　　Ted180 (Canada)

　　Ted180(加拿大)

　　Despite my (moderate) lt-wing views and my dislike of elitism, I would oppose banning for-profit schools (which, I presume would serve higher-income children). As long as they meet the requirements of government educational standards, they should be permitted. They should receive no government money, and parents should not receive any tax deductions for the cost. I do not favor an overly-intrusive government.

　　尽管持有(温和的)左翼观点，也不喜欢精英主义，我还是会反对禁办营利性学校(我认为营利性学校可以为高收入家庭的孩子服务)。只要它们满足政府教育标准的要求，就应该允许存在。它们不能接受政府拨款，父母也不因学费减税。我不赞同政府过度干预。

　　Seneca (US)

　　Seneca(美国)

　　The State does not really provide free education; the State compels you to undergo compulsory "education". What you do not really want to get but must accept is better called indoctrination. No one gives anyone education for free. There is a big price tag attached to it, although the tag may be invisible to the naked eye. The price I see is - very limited freedom to think. In some cases this form of "education" leads to a stunted mind.

　　国家真的不应该提供免费教育，国家强迫你们接受义务“教育”。你真的不想接受但是又必须得接受的即是教条灌输。没有人会为别人提供免费教育。免费教育附带的代价巨大，虽然肉眼可能看不到。我看到的代价就是十分有限的思考自由。在某些情况下，这种形式的“教育”会导致思想“畸形”。

　　TedM (UK)

　　TedM(英国)

　　Private schools can provide something extra to a universal public system. They provide a choice for those able to afford something more. Often private schools are faster to adopt modern methods and a broad and balanced curriculum. However, in China there are too many private schools only existing to con innocent parents out of their money. As usual in China, if there is a problem to solve ... do not solve it but BAN it all instead... it is easier!

　　私立学校能够提供公立学校所没有的其他东西。它们为这些能够承担更多费用的家庭提供一个选择。私立学校往往能够更快速地适应现代方法以及广泛和平衡的课程。然而，中国有太多私立学校只会骗取无辜父母的钱财。类似于中国往常的做法，如果有问题需要解决……干脆不去解决而是全面禁止……这样更加简单。

　　Samlam (UK)

　　Samlam(英国)

　　I don’t think it a good idea to let for profit private schools develop so fast. It is a problem of balanced education for students. You can see the gap between the students in different areas is bigger and bigger. It has happened especially in for profit private schools. If you are interested in it, you’d better go to the countryside in China to take a look at it. On the other hand, improving education in China is the government’s responsibility.

　　我认为任由营利性私立学校发展得这么快并不是什么好事。这事关为学生们提供平衡教育。你可以看到不同区域学生之间的差距越来越大。尤其是在营利性私立学校内。如果你对此感兴趣，你最好去中国的乡下看看。另一方面，在中国提高教育是政府的责任。

　　Therore, the government wants to re-balance it.

　　因此，政府希望重新平衡教育。

　　Jaaja (Australia)

　　Jaaja(澳大利亚)

　　Regardless of scholarships and bursaries, private schools can and do exist because the majority of people attending pay thousands of pounds a term. This is impossible for families of lower income, so naturally the majority of people who get the privileges of private school - better facilities, smaller class sizes, more opportunities, more qualified teachers - are already from a more affluent family. These children have an increased chance of fulfilling their potential due to their school life, and therore take the better jobs, leaving the less fortunate to the lower paid jobs. And it goes full circle, slowly separating the classes and cultures of our society. And this is obviously completely unfair.

　　虽然有奖学金和助学金，私立学校得以存在的原因是大多数就读的人每个学期需缴纳几千英镑。这对于低收入家庭而言是不可能的，因此大部分人获得就读私立学校——更好的设施、规模更小的班级、更多的机会以及更合格的老师——特权的人自然是来自于更为富裕的家庭。由于学校的生活，这些孩子有更多的机会挖掘他们的潜能，因此能够找到更好的工作，让那些没这么幸运的孩子从事低收入工作。周而复始，慢慢地也就区分了我们这个社会的阶级和文化。这明显是一点也不公平的。