Closing all private schools would benefit state schools

Imagine a country run by people who had attended state schools and used NHS for healthcare, and how much more invested they would be in public services as a result.

I’ve just paid our school fee bill for Spring term. That’s a lot of money I could spend on tutoring and activities instead if everyone was forced to go to a state school.

Will extra-curriculars be banned too? What about a trip to the Globe or skiing at half term? Can we visit Pompeii or is that unfair?

It’s a good thing if I pay extra for schooling and healthcare. It means we deplete the “free” system less!!

"I would love to see private education in all sectors, including SEN, ceased in favour of a return to state funded education for all."

I did write ceased as opposed to 'seized', so not advocating for wrestling selective or fee-paying provision out of current management / ownership by dint of Marxist takeover.

A more equitable education system could be achieved through democratic means.

The reason why there are still grammar schools in Kent (I don't know about other areas) is because the constituents there didn't want them abolished and their MPs advocated for them. The Tony Crosland paper on comprehensive schooling was guidance not compulsory national policy (although it was enthusiastically adopted in many areas). You can read about this in Hansard if you want. It's quite interesting. There was a strong desire to emulate the USSR educational system.

The grammars have expanded in pupil numbers by around 30% since.

I'm neither pro nor anti grammar but I do think it is important not to ride roughshod over democracy, and nationalisation of private and charitable assets is practised by some pretty questionable regimes too (the grammars that went private or turned comprehensive in the 60s did so after consultation).

When I taught in a grammar there was the odd kid who'd clearly been tutored a lot but 95% of them were extremely bright...

Thankfully we live in democracy.

Most LAs are utterly useless, why inflict that on everyone?

The point about my idea for effectively turning private schools into a "grammar" system accessible to all is that it would do away with the process where those wealthy enough to afford fees nevertheless avoid paying them by careful tutoring in y4-6 to gamr the grammar exams. You can tutor for the place, but if you are affluent enough to afford the fees you will pay. It effectively works like opting in to a higher tax bracket (because itt's means-tested for everyone) if you want the "premium" version of education rather than the "basic" version but the poorest can opt in for minimal or no cost. With the right balance the tutoring becomes unnecessary and irrelevant because the "top up tax" for a higher quality of education than the majority of taxpayers wish to pay could stop being about academic prowess and offer the smaller-class-size more nurturing education options too, so that there are appropriate (lower pressure but still enhanced) options available for the kids who would need tutoring to get into the academic hothouses where they aren't really happy.

There are private schools in Finland (despite what many think). Private schools are, however, not allowed to profit from the basic element of education. The state funds that part of the education for all children, so private schools receive some state funding.

Change, good point re siblings: DCs school is lottery with sibling rule for subsequent admissions.
Two schools in our area offer this kind of admission by lottery, but places are only allocated if parents have named the school as one of their three preferences when making their application for a secondary school place. Parents only tend to apply from out of area if logistics work, eg good transport links or en route to parents' place of work. Both schools are in city centre locations in areas of social deprivation but remain popular choices.

@TheMotherSide There's never, ever been a period of history when the state was the sole provider of education. On the contrary, all early educational foundations like Grammar schools were either religious or funded by private sponsors. The Dame Schools of the early Victorian era were fee-paying. The first mention of education in law was 1870 and free universal provision to the age of 10 arrived in 1891.

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if someone's already mentioned Finland. Considered one of the very best education systems in the world with, I believe, no private provision. I think it's very interesting to consider different models that could offer a more equitable education for all students.
I can't see it ever happening here though, sadly. I think the system is too entrenched and those in power have little personal incentive to change it.

DCs secondary school now offers all its places based on 'lottery' style admissions so have an intake which is not linked to location of residence. It's brilliant, entirely disrupts the formation of 'postcodes of privilege' and ensure a diverse intake from a range of backgrounds. I wish more schools did this, especially at secondary, where children are more likely to be able to travel independently to school

I broadly like the idea of lottery catchments to avoid those with money pushing up house prices. But there are environmental.issues in getting children across towns to their allocated school, and in areas of deprivation, problems paying for that transport for many families. There's also something not quite right with siblings in different schools where it is forced rather than a parental decision.

So OP, yes if more kids join a state school then the school get more money as they get money per pupil. In reality that money may not actually cover the cost of the creation of the extra classroom/teachers etc so the school has to stretch to cover. For some schools there's the possibility that this injects some life into the school but for many schools this may just mean huge class sizes etc.
You'll also have to contend with the postcode games that people will play to secure their choice of state school.

But remember that unless taxes go up or unless the government alter how they spend on education then the actual funding doesn't really go up. The increase the school gets just covers the cost of educating that extra child but doesn't cover the costs of building new classrooms or providing extra facilities etc. That would need extra money.

We can see from the NHS crisis that just because a service is much loved and in crisis it doesn't necessarily result in extra money. And decades of underfunding such as schools have had means that extra increases may go towards mending leaking roofs and not towards actually improving educational outcomes.

Finally you have the challenge of "forcing" people out of choice. So by all means discuss whether they are charities or not but forcing them to close is a different ball game and where you draw the line (eg homeschooling, faith schooling) becomes problematic too

@Shinyredbicycle I work in an independent school and we have a few trainee teachers every year. Not all are trained by the state.

I did a PGCE in state schools and worked in two comprehensives for 16 years. Moved to the independent sector a few years ago but the state has definitely had its moneys worth from me. I would be doing something other than teaching if I hadn't moved to the independent sector. Was exhausted and worn down by behaviour management being such a huge part of the job, never mind the micromanagement from SLT.

Private education is great for our economy:

"Together independent schools contribute £16.5 billion to the UK economy, supporting 328,000 jobs and £5.1 billion in tax revenues. And the sector
saves the government £4.4 billion every year by educating pupils who would otherwise take up a place in state-funded schools." (Oxford Economics, 2022)

The indirect contribution is even greater as many foreign privately-educated students go on to attend our universities.

Private schools exist in almost all countries around the world, but the difference in some places is that the local population would not choose these schools as the quality of education is often lower or the curriculum is offered in English (eg. International schools) rather than the native language or in some cases they are specialist schools, eg, music-based.

Most countries have not prevented private education, but the most successful (e.g. Norway) have made sure the state offering is preferable. In my view, this is the only way to achieve a good education for all. We need to make private education unnecessary.

@Shinyredbicycle Plenty of private school teachers qualify through non-state funded routes. University of Buckingham are just one example of a non-state funded qualification route:

https://www.buckingham.ac.uk/find-a-course/?textsearch=pgce&title=PGCE%20courses

These courses are used by many Academies as well as private schools. Also, many teachers across state and private are not fully qualified.

My DCs had some excellent unqualified teachers - they were experts in their subjects and had a lifetime's experience of teaching.

To be honest, I have found the academic side of the teaching qualification itself is fairly meaningless in the classroom. It requires the student to write a few essays on educational theory, much of which the poor overworked state school teacher has little opportunity to use. Its main useful purpose is to provide training, experience and assessment in the classroom hence the fast-track 'assessment only' route for experienced teachers who find the actually need or want a qualification.

@Nimbostratus100 , better-off parents already choose to live in the catchment areas of good state schools - this is far from a new thing.
There are two excellent grammar schools near here, people move into the area for this very reason, and house prices are correspondingly ££££.

I would love to see private education in all sectors, including SEN, ceased in favour of a return to state funded education for all. I'd do away with academies too. All schools back into local authority control with well provisioned SEN hubs in most schools and excellent specialist provision, transparent and accountable under LA directive.
School funding to reflect local need and social and economic deprivation index, to a greater extent than pupil premium currently does.

I think property prices is a red herring in as much as this already happens to the point of exclusivity: there is no way I could afford to buy into my DCs primary catchment anymore. DCs secondary school now offers all its places based on 'lottery' style admissions so have an intake which is not linked to location of residence. It's brilliant, entirely disrupts the formation of 'postcodes of privilege' and ensure a diverse intake from a range of backgrounds. I wish more schools did this, especially at secondary, where children are more likely to be able to travel independently to school.

@ThePenIsBlue ,

You don’t have to have QT status to teach in a private school, but the vast majority of teachers do have it.

If you are thinking of the SCITT scheme, this does lead to QT status.

To be fair the PGCE is only 9 months (sep to jun) and is not ludicrously expensive. It is not analogous to doctors who go and work in the private sector after many years of work expensive training with the NHS.

ThePenIsBlue
There is an assessment only route to QTS that is sometimes used. GTP was an on the job training route which might be what you're thinking about.

Almost no child in the UK has the right to a qualified teacher anymore though as it was scrapped years ago when academies and free schools were introduced. I know of GCSE classes being taught by teaching assistants employed as unqualified teachers.

@KaihahUmoniiv ,

That is just grammar schools revisited.

The problem is that the system is massively gamed. I briefly taught at a grammar and it was sad seeing the amount of kids who had wall-to-wall tuition to pass the entrance exam and who struggled as soon as any of this was removed.

Grammar schools originally were brilliant for social mobility, but have subsequently been gamed by the middle classes as ‘cheap’ private schools-pay for 10 hours or tutors per week from 10-12 years old and then have a free education.

Your suggestion would just achieve the same at private schools with the ‘poorer’ applicants just paying for tutors in order to have the very rich pay their kids’ fees.

But I don’t think this is true. There is another way to become a private school teacher that just involves working in a private school for a couple of years, I think it’s called something starting with a G? I remember reading about it when I considered getting into teaching. So you have no official qualifications that would enable you to work in a state school….

I think you've reinvented the old Assisted Places scheme...with a dash of the old local authority system...

Thought experiment:

This is a massive oversimplification with random guesses for numbers but trying to formulate an ethical way for private schools to be genuinely charitable.

Suppose the country's population is broadly made up of about a third people who aren't really academically minded and don't want an in-depth education, just the basics prior to learning a practical trade, about a third of people who value education but are of medium potential and unlikely to be "high flyers" and about a third of people who are aiming to be in the elite of the highest of academic performance and achievement potential.

A basic state education is sufficient for the first 2 categories and it's inappropriate for twxes to be set high enough to provide via the state a fantastic level of more in-depth education for everyone who could benefit. The families in that final category may be willing to pay the taxes for a brilliant education but the majority don't support that and wouldn't benefit from it.

Currently it's mainly only those with the means to opt out of the state system who get to access a higher tier of education. Plus modest scholarships&bursary recipients.

What about if private schools could only keep their charitable status if they start having variable means-tested fees where the fees paid by the wealthiest are sufficient to ensure that everyone with the capacity to benefit is able to attend, with fees set at zero for the poorest, no more than £3-£4k per year for those on median incomes but gradually increasing to over £80kpa for the wealthiest.

I agree a bit like private healthcare. State schools will never match private as the funding is never enough- it isn’t that the money isn’t there. The govt don’t want to fund for the cattle classes. Why should/ would they give more than bare minimum? Shutting private won’t help a ditty.

Some families attending the £40k miss it as if it's £40 a year. School I used to work at was £35k, and we had families sending 3+ kids at a time.