Closing all private schools would benefit state schools

I don't like it when people say that they chose private school as making the best choice for their children but don't recognise that without having money that isn't a choice to make.

People sending children to state school isn't because they don't want the best for their children or don't care about their education, it's often about not having that choice to make.

DH and I work very hard indeed. We can't afford the choice to send ours to private school. I don't begrudge anyone who does but it's a privilege to have that choice.

@Sherrystrull Why do you care what people say or whether they appreciate their huge privilege? Why does it frustrate you? Does the fact of people living in nice houses or having lovely holidays frustrate you?

Rich people having nice things seems to be fine, since they've earned it, been given it, etc whatever, but those with the funds to educate their children privately seems to give people the irrational rage. Why should anyone be forced to behave any way such as being grateful or appreciative, just to make those people using the state system feel better?

The point is that people who educate their children privately while paying taxes are directly providing funds to my state educated children through their taxes. If they started using the system as well, it would be even more inadequate than it currently is.

I'm grateful to them. I don't see why they have to be grateful, everyone hates them by the look of it.

The people I would be wary of are those people with huge amounts ot money who do use the state system in the form of grammar school etc. They ought to be using private if they can afford to

It's Magic Government Money, it just appears.

Around here, if the private school in our town (one of the oldest in the country) closed then the single state secondary school would immediately be unable to provide around 20% of its lessons, because it would no longer have access to the facilities required. It would also have to cope with an additional 50 pupils per year, because those are scholarships funded by the private school.

The government would not be able to appropriate the assets of the private school, because it owns so much property in the town that it's a completely self-contained entity (which actually predates the UK government's existence), and most of its buildings are protected/listed to the point where it would cost the state too much to refit and maintain them. It would simply stop being a school, the land would be sold off for development and it would become a property and leisure company.

Maybe 10% of the teachers might move across, the others would simply go back to the careers they had before or retire rather than take an unrealistic pay cut.

The result of all of this is that the state school would quickly become even less able to provide an education than it is already, and would be replaced (again, for the third time in 35 years) at ridiculous cost to the taxpayer while completely failing the children in the area during the transition.

Yep, that would be a major win.

People saying that they are making the right choice for their children and wanting the best for their children by sending them to private school but not appreciating the huge privilege they have in being able to make that choice is what I find frustrating.

It’s envy / jealousy.

@Atnilpoe sadly they will never spend the dodgy PPI contract money on education

I wasn’t dealing with the issue of funding but objecting to the fundamental point you made that pupils with SEND and from inadequate parenting backgrounds don’t benefit from better funding, but other children do. Which is patently bollocks. As to where that money comes from, there always seems to be enough for dodgy PPI contracts…

If average annual state school funding is £7.2k per child, and there are 620k children in the private system, we’re talking about an additional cost to the taxpayer of £4.2bn per year (before taking account of the extra investment required in land and facilities).

Has OP said where the £4.2bn per year will come from? I can’t see it.

Lots of my colleagues want out of the state system. It's bad, badly funded and on its knees. The govt say they plough millions into it. Well none of us have seen that, we are being told to cut spending. SEN in children is becoming more prevalent, nobody is actually asking why and state schools cannot cope with that ever growing problem either. It's a total mess.

My DH is a teacher in a private school and would leave the profession if he had to go back to the state system. Many of his colleagues say the same!

It isn't the holy grail. There is no more money. Unless of course everyone pays more and more tax. Most state schools are at least half a million in debt and been told to cut staff. Some schools don't have enough teachers let alone support staff and are teaching maths classes to 120 kids at a time in a hall. What money????

@lolo99

That more funding can’t improve outcomes for children with SEND or from families who can’t parent well.

yes absolutely

Totally agree. And it will all just be hot air. Election guff for gullible voters. Any money earned by charging vat on private schools will create more in the state sector and NO they will not be putting it in education. The govt already think they pay enough and that is because us teachers work half our hours for free. They get double the work that they pay for! That is how the state sector still exists.

which part?

We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one @lolo99

Yes @Mammyofonlyone and the same argument will play out, on a smaller scale, when Labour adds VAT to private education. A good proportion of private school parents will be priced out, bursaries will dry up, there will be more children in state school and no more money to fund it since the VAT on the remaining school fees won't cover the cost of the extra places required for those many families finally forced to exercise their right to a free state education.

I honestly don't get why people don't understand this. Private schools existing (and being just about barely affordable for those that wish to pay) means MORE MONEY PER PUPIL in the state sector.

Inequality would exist with or without private education, so how would this help with addressing privilege? It wouldn't

One of my most vociferously anti-private-school friends lives in a huge house with no mortgage, paid for by her rich parents. She says private schools shouldn't be allowed to have charitable status since they don't provide, for example, overseas aid or nice homes for rejected pets. I've tried to explain to her that charitable status means they don't make profits for shareholders and they carry out charitable work in the community. These things are enshrined in the law, and the charitable status would be removed if it didn't happen.

People seem to think it's wrong, but I can't see why. Is it that people are jealous? Of what exactly?

My kids are at state school I want them to continue to benefit from the rich people's taxes while not having to share already crowded facilities with them. I don't begrudge people who can afford it buying massive houses and cars, and not having mortgages which means they don't have to work.

I dread VAT being added to school fees and my local being flooded with extra kids, many of whom will have additional needs that will require resources the school may not be able to provide.

But then again, I was floored by the idiocy of the non-logic of those who voted for Brexit so why should this surprise me

@Cloudysky81 , the point you make is amply demonstrated in Malmesbury where James Dyson has offered to give a £6m science facility to the biggest of the towns' primary schools, which is regarded by Ofsted as Outstanding.

The donation has been declined by the local education authority because they don't want to see smaller village schools disadvantaged. However, the engineers and researchers who are moving to Malmesbury to work for Dyson actively want outstanding science provision for their DC and it would also enhance the local secondaries and serve Dyson's interests by building technical skills across the work force.

You are spot on there @squinker45, on this and with many other social issues.

A segment of people just think 'the government will provide the money' because 'that's how it works' with little or no regard as to where this money will come from. Especially in the run up to an election, it is a cheap way for politicians to win votes by telling people what they want to hear who then rush out to vote with no consideration as to the impact of delivering on these promises.

It's a bit like people buying massive TVs on credit, without looking at the APR of 3000% in the small print.

@Nimbostratus100 since there would be no more money in the government pot than there is now, but significantly more students to accommodate and, as you repeatedly point out, excellent experienced teachers to pay fairly, I just don't understand your reasoning at all.

It would have impact beyond the education sector. Just thinking of medicine alone, I know a lot of consultants who work in difficult to recruit areas of the UK who send their children to private schools, as the state schools in the area are poor. If they closed they would undoubtedly move hospitals to be in areas with better state schools.

I can imagine this will translate into other sectors, where it will become highly problematic to recruit high level positions if the surrounding schools are poor.

The state system works for middle and clever kids who don’t go private. It doesn’t work for SEN nor those children with very difficult upbringings where there is very little parental suppprt in a positive way. Would this change if more funding? I would say no- the issues for most of this lies with social funding for homes/ parents who are unable to parent well for whatever reason. Usually due to incapacity of some sort whether mental awareness or mental illness.

But where does that money come from? In your scenario, the private school parents weren't using the place at state school they were previously paying for with their tax, but the government was certainly spending it in the education budget, on those in the system. So if you force those parents to use state, where is the money actually coming from? They are still paying the same amount of tax. Either everyone in the state system gets a little bit less money or something else is squeezed, like the NHS. Or are we going to force people to stop using private healthcare and dentists as well? If so, who is paying for that? The government will pay, you say, because 'that's how it works' but actually people paying privately eases the pressure on state funded provision, since paying tax is law, but attending state school is optional.

You'd need to outlaw all alternative education provision currently funded voluntarily, and the only way to find that would be to increase tax. Also universities and other such providers including early years settings would need to be state funded, which would also increase tax, or quality would reduce.

Oh yes- and like @MintJulia our school also absorbed children of key workers where their regular schools were unable to during lockdown. Plus they have a strong community outreach programme where every senior school student has to volunteer in the community an afternoon a week either as a group or as an individual for some placements..... partly the space to do that is there because the school day runs from 08.15 to 5 pm so there is more space in the timetable.

I used to work at an independent school. While I was there, I set up a stockbroking competition. This has run for 4 or 5 years now and is opened up to 1-3 state schools each time (for free). That was just one example. Similar events were offered in other subjects. The school was small (only about 500 students) but central with good meeting spaces.

I'm now at a state school. We are in a partnership of private and state schools. We receive many activities free for our students, from careers talks to workshops to conferences to CPD (we host them too). Subjects like classical music, classics and MFL are really dependent on private input these days.

Meeting space, support staff (and edible food!) is something independent schools have in much more abundance. They have nice lecture halls, concert halls and theatres, playing fields and working IT (so do some state schools of course, but it's very area dependent).

If you've not already made up your mind that independent schools are parasites on society, you can read about partnerships here:

www.isc.co.uk/sector-info/state-and-independent-school-partnerships/

Many of the schools doing this work significantly predate government funded education, sometimes by centuries.

It would be mad to maintain your own athletics track or lovely Chapel if you can use another school's for free.

Of course independent school students and teachers benefit from working with state school students and teachers too. It's not a one way thing.

It's far from a straightforward matter!