Closing all private schools would benefit state schools

Thank you! I thought I was missing something. It’s not just me, this is utterly moronic.

The only private school teachers that might find the move hard are the unqualified ones, as much fewer state schools employ unqualified teachers

This is a naive. Do you really believe that academies and non Lea run schools don't already use unqualified teachers? They can and they do, often more so than private schools. That's certainly the case locally.

*illiterato · Today 05:01
there is often better pay and conditions in state schools

but then I don’t understand why state schools are complaining of a recruitment crisis but private schools aren’t, at least not to the same extent.*

Because in state schools, the pay is not the main issue, or the main stresses for most of the teachers who leave, often before they’ve hit the top of the main pay scale.
What makes a quarter quit in the first three years? They knew what the pay was when they started.

That's because there are so few of them around, so they only tend to take children whose parents can afford private tutors, and so on. If, say, a quarter of all schools were grammar schools, this would not be an issue.

People who argue that private school kids would benefit comprehensive education because they are somehow miraculously going to transform it but also think its fine to have a system where the cleverest kids are creamed off to go to free schools that most local children can't get into are hypocrites.

My DCs went to a boarding school we were sent the accounts annually the vast majority of their income went on staff wages but the. This is hardly surprising with a ratio of 1 teacher for every 7 pupils and loads of other staff: matrons nurses catering staff admin staff gardeners cleaners etc. in fact after making a substantial contribution to the bursary pot and maintaining building etc school barely broke even. It’s a charity so no profits to share holders. The idea that state schools do more with less is laughable Ive worked in state schools and £45k pa boarding schools unless you’ve worked in both you have no idea how little the children at the former have and how much the children at the latter have. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong I’m just stating facts.

ANd houses would only be bought when houses were sold, and many private school parents would not move because they are in very rich areas already

Round here most of the local private school children live in the areas which are within the catchment of the 'best' state schools already. If they were to close schools (presumably to new students rather than just trying to place several hundred children of all ages mid school time) then these children would then take up catchment places for those good state schools. Lots of our local state schools have had to widen catchment areas, or take from outside catchment due to the number of local students not going to them. Introduce potentially more future students close to the school - less places for out of catchment.

Do you really believe all the potential new students who would have gone to private school would then be clamouring for places in the less desirable state schools? If so I think you are very naive. The children who will miss out in places to the best state schools will be those who can't afford to live in the best catchments.

They absolutely are and shouldn't be funded by the taxpayer IMO.

They may have been designed for working class kids but they definitely aren't now.

you make it sound like a bonus. The extra pupils will require the 'extra' money, so there will not be a surplus
And please show some research on the percentage of teachers who flip between state and private schools, because I doubt many do this. And I very much doubt that private school teachers will be gratefully flocking to state schools even if the private ones were closed
You are wearing rose-tinted glasses and need to brush up on your dociology and economics

I disagree with the fact that you can essentially buy a better education for your child if you can afford it. No it’s not ALWAYS better but let’s be honest, if there weren’t benefits no one would send their kids private. I also don’t disagree with individual parents doing what they think is right for their child and sending them private. I’ve taught children who I strongly felt specific local private schools would be the best fit for them.

But overall I just don’t think it’s right as a system. I think it perpetuates inequality. You’ll get flamed on here though because state schools can’t “just stretch”, and I do think it would just end up with certain state schools being essentially the new private schools, and I don’t think it would in any way benefit the state schools that really need help. Also people get very defensive about this topic (unnecessarily).

I think OP wants a forced takeover of those businesses by the government, with all the equipment seized by government, and the magical idea that all the teachers would want to work in state.

ALL governments rely on private schools because if an extra 7% of kids attended state schools the government wouldn't be able to fund all the places.

Private schools save the government a fortune!

I agree with your thinking but the parents would then just spend a fortune on private tutors etc... rather than ploughing money into the schools.

If private schools closed immediately, short term you would have home schooling arrangements which would become groups.

the teachers would work there...those that wanted to stay in teaching.

i think a return to governess type posts would happen. Many private school teachers would teach many subjects.

i don't understand how you think this could work. It wouldn't benefit state schools.

You only have to look at the state sector now to see that school’s are hugely affected by people buying their way into catchment areas.

@Nimbostratus100 look at the best GCSE result school in your nearest non grammar area, and the worst. Then tell me what the average house price is in each.

Grammar schools are not elitist, and were designed to give working class children an academic education. The implication of your statement is that children with other skills, rather than academic ones, are somehow less important.

I would love to see some statistical evidence for your sweeping claims. I taught in a state school for 10 years and in private for the remainder of my career. Many colleagues moved from state to private, I can’t recall a single one who moved the other way. Anecdotal
evidence of course.

“they might have untold wealth in the form of sports equipment, science equipment, technology, test books, musical instruments! working photocopiers!!! school furniture!”

Why would the closure of private schools magically move that equipment to state schools?

Private schools are businesses.
You close them, you’ll likely force them into administration and those assets you lost will be sold (not given away) at the highest possible price by the administrators.

Do unicorns live at the bottom of your garden?
And if private hospitals didn't exist, the consultants would have to give 100% of their time to the nhs...
And if private bakers didn't exist, we would all take our dough to Windy miller to bake...
Are you the SoS forcEducation looking for advice?

One issue is that abolishing private schools wouldn't equalise state schools or education. You have the issue now where parents will move house, if they can afford it, to get their children into the best state school in their area. Affluent parents of state school children might also pay for extra private tuition, things like music lessons, drama groups and so on
Agree with this.
One school in my area is excellent and as good as private. They have a very sensible approach to school uniform and rules. They have generally supportive parents, students who want to do well, lots of extra curricular activities and a lot of private tutoring goes on.
Another school in my area is an authoritarian bootcamp that has had to spend a lot of time focusing on crowd control because there's a decades long history of awful behaviour and not valuing learning.

I'll let you guess which one has the catchment with the eye watering house prices.

Grammar schools are ridiculously elitist. Parents paying tax to support a school system they may not even have access to.

Parents who support Grammar education are tacitly agreeing that comprehensive education is crap.

A big problem with the state system, as many have already said, is that it's selective. Children are selected by their parents' ability to pay to live in an area where there are good schools. One of the biggest attacks on social mobility was the abolition of grammar schools, which, for all their faults, at least selected their intake by means of something approaching an actual measure of ability. The system was flawed, of course, but these flaws are easily fixed. For example, it should be possible to easily switch from a grammar school to another type of school, and vice versa, at the end of every school year, based on results. Those other types of school should also receive fair funding, and be geared to cultivating skills and experience. Each local authority should be required to have a fixed percentage of grammar schools, rather than in the past, when the proportion varied wildly. The entrance exam should be more flexible than the old 11-plus, and all schools should be single sex, as it's well known that girls do less well in mixed schools.

Abolishing private schools would not address these issues, and would probably make them worse, creating a two-tier system of state schooling. Having said this, once the state system is fixed, it may well be a good idea to reform the private sector too.

The only way any government could get rid of private schools is to make current state education really brilliant- lots more money, better trained teachers with better working conditions that improve recruitment and outcomes, and overhaul the curriculum (it's ridiculous that children are learning maths from age 4 and yet failing GCSE) while improving social care and attempting to raise standards of parenting in this country, which is woeful and producing the disruptive kids that can ruin education and attainment for many teens.

Then perhaps a proportion of parents would choose good state education over private which would slowly make mediocre private schools less attractive

Um, the UK is experiencing a net loss of teaching talent. It is not inundated with experienced, qualified teachers who want to live in Brexit Britain, whatever sector they teach in

The vast majority of teachers trained in the UK and gained their experience in the state sector, hence benefitting from experienced state teachers' guidance and support.

And that's not a criticism of teachers who leave the crumbling state system or of parents who send their children to private schools.

Just astonishment that anyone can think that their children have been educated without a penny if tax payers money.

One issue is that abolishing private schools wouldn't equalise state schools or education. You have the issue now where parents will move house, if they can afford it, to get their children into the best state school in their area. Affluent parents of state school children might also pay for extra private tuition, things like music lessons, drama groups and so on.

What we need to tackle is the wealth inequality in this country. The disparity in the quality of education is a symptom of this - also, to some extent, a cause, as children who are poorly educated are more likely to go into low paid employment and continue the cycle for their own children.

But a wholesale eradication of private education isn't going to solve a social issue that runs much deeper. We need to start narrowing the gap between the haves and have nots.

How come religion is a protected characteristic in every space except when it comes to school??

what an infuriating situation, @lunar1