Mumsnet Talk

sminkopinko - how would you suggest these new academies are funded if all they have to do is "stop discriminating against those whose parents can't pay"? They'd need some kind of funding stream in order to survive presumably

Or you could view free schools and academies as the further privatisation of all education in all but name. Soon they'll fund all schools, including Eton, with a certain amount of taxpayer's money, but allow top up fees for schools which choose to charge it, to allow extra add-ons, like fabulous playing fields and boarding accommodation, and you'll have a whole range of different levels of private provision, depending on how much extra the parents of children in the school can afford to pay... with the worst schools being those with parents who can't afford to top up at all, who will only get £5,000 per year per pupil regardless of inflation. Doesn't sound that great to me.

If people can tell me what I can do with my after-tax income, can I have a say on what they do with benefits/tax credits?

Luncheon vouchers, anyone? Thought not.

I'm not in favour of banning private schools although I loathe the concept with a passion. I think it is an unworkable and unrealistic proposal.

I am very much in favour of giving better funding to state schools though and definitely changing the grammar fiasco system.

I really wish private schools didn't exist. I'm not sure whether or not it would be feasible to ban them, or whether that would ultimately be a good thing. But I do think society would be better without them.

It's not workable... Market forces would prevail still, like you say, property, tutoring, overseas education. It's ill thought out, money will always generally give more choice.

Why would society be better without them?

Why do people use them (and even more people aspire to use them), if they are bad for society?

Don't forget private schools alleviate a massive burden on the state. The government can't afford to educate the population based on taxes alone, unless you all want to pay more for education rather than allowing it to be a choice.

NaturallyGullible: in a word, they are divisive.

They are not bad for society. They contribute massively towards the econly and research, plus nhs and law etc. There should be more scholarships though for bright children and state primary schools really need to buck their ideas up. Early education is critical, not in terms of knowledge but inciting a willingness to learn and better yourself.

Football is divisive, religion is divisive, IQ is divisive, disability is divisive, money is divisive, gender and race are divisive. Human beings are divisive? Part and parcel of the human condition? Work with it... Can't irradiate it. Simplistic viewpoint.

Mintyy- equally estates of social housing and enclaves of expensive housing are devisive, but people don't seem to complain about that. I don't know what the answer is (other than pure communism) - people with more money will always have an advantage in society.

Humans are all evolved to compete - they are diverse and divisive?

x-post there- please don't think we're ganging up on you!

Yes, simplistic. And?

Sorry, just trying to explain my point.

People are not simplistic? Very complex? So how can a simplistic solution work? Ignoring so many facets of human nature.

While we are banning private schools for being 'devisive', we might as well ban private housing, private transport and any thing private and just rely on state. infact lets all become clones. That will definitely be workable.

Top up fees would not be allowed.

Charitable trust monies and alumni donations (if any) can continue to benefit the new (wider) intake of ex-private schools. The state will take up any slack.

Yes, there would still be inequality and people playing the system but the fundamental, absolute explicit wrongness of giving a better education to those who can pay than we give to those who cannot would be gone. And that would be great.

You don't need to explain your point to me. I was giving a simplistic answer to someone else.

I don't see how they are divisive. The students don't view them any differently to any other schools.

Senior school students are focussed on their GCSEs and A-levels, just like students at maintained schools.

I don't really think they are on each others' radar screens as far as schooling is concerned.

When they come together in the wider community (church, scouts/guides, neighbours) they get on pretty well.

I think that banning private schools would damage the ecomony. The freedom that private schools enjoy (far more than free schools) is the freedom to innovate. Schools like Steiner or Summerhill offer an alternative education.

I am in favour of people having choice and banning private schools would take away choice.

There are issues with some private schools not furfilling their charitable duties. I can understand that private school parents may well angry of with state school kids getting the benefit of the facilities that they have paid for. However some private schools do manage their charitable responsiblies well.

Many state school parents have confidence in their choice of schooling for their children. I believe that state education supplemented with extra curricular activites and possibly tutoring is the best start in life.

The reason humans are so successful in many areas is because we are complex not simple. If you banned private education, people would adapt in another way to get what they deem to be a satisfactory education for their goals.

I don.t agree with them. I believe that a suitable education should be provided for your child now matter how much/or not money you have. I think that if the people who have the power have no choice BUT state schools, someone might start thinking about improving it. I am not innocent to think that everyone with money won't move next door to the GOOD state schools though.

I think there shoukd be a luxury tax on private schools/health etc.