Closing all private schools would benefit state schools

This is a very valid point @LolaSmiles - tinkering with the tax like this will not touch the sides of the spare funds of the families who use the poshest schools with fees of £40kpa. It will be those of us scraping together £15kpa for a bearable school where the local alternative is awful who will get forced out. The old boy network will be unaffected.

There's a chance that your average small town private schools will fizzle out or become less common in my opinion, and I'm sure some people will pat themselves on the back for it happening, but the top end independent schools that serve the very wealthy aren't going anywhere any time soon. All it does is remove choice for people in the middle (remembering that other people in the middle already pay through the nose for houses in the right catchment and spend a fortune in private tutors, coaches and enrichment opportunities).

I think people are kidding themselves if they think that reducing middle class parents in middle of the road jobs exercising parental choice is going to stop the pipeline of old boys networks from the most expensive independent schools.

I doubt very much that private schools will ever 'fizzle out'. There will always be parents who want something state schools don't offer.

I think the best approach would be for state schools to be well funded, with excellent facilities, extra curricular activities and plenty of support for all SEN, including SBD (social and behavioural difficulties)

In that case, private schools might fizzle out, as parents wouldn't perceive them to be worth while

But, it won't happen unless / until those in power care enough about equality

Agree with the Sen point. My son is in our “local” autism school which is a 20 mile round trip twice a day which the council pay me mileage for doing. We happen to have a small independent school about two miles away. It’s not suitable for my son as his needs are too high but there’s alot of autistic kids who go there as the class sizes are small and they can be more flexible. Most of these kids don’t have ehcps as parents have chosen to spend on school fees rather than time/effort and money of fighting the la for a suitable provision.

I agree with the previous post, although Mr and Mrs Smith's decision may obviously relate to wanting to avoid the situation Mr and Brown are in.

People seem to assume the customers of private schools all do so for social reasons and of course some do, but there's a significant customer group wanting provision that the state sector can't or won't provide, whether that be boarding, the arts, SEND support, particular types of academics or sports, small scale environments, reliable wraparound or simply an appropriate school place without buying a specific house.

I look at a lot of ISI inspection reports and it's not unusual to find 1/3rd SEND on roll in small independent schools.

Parents who are not rich deserve to have children who are educated at a high standard too. Especially today when income is less and less a reflection of hard work.
I never said otherwise. I was replying to a poster who was talking about values.

Would be better for climate change if children went to their most local school.
I agree, though all that will happen is that more house price inflation will happen around the in demand schools. It's already the case that you need to have access to a house in the right area to get the best schools in many areas. This fact is usually overlooked on threads about private/state education.

Based on my experience in the state sector, private schools aren't the big issue. Over a decade of deliberate austerity, cutting a huge range of services around children and families to the bone, and leaving schools to plug the gaps are the problems. Huge academy chains with multiple layers of central management, lots of executive principals and so on are a problem. Choosing to direct taxpayers' money to mates for various dodgy contracts in various areas instead of addressing many social issues that have a huge knock on effect on health and education is a problem.

The fact Mr and Mrs Smith send Daniel to a prep school isn't the reason Mr and Mrs Brown's child on the same street hasn't got a maths teacher or the local MAT has decided it's not going to offer GCSE art.

Has the OP answered about what would happen to children who need to board? State boarding schools?

CBA to scroll through the OPs gag paper guesses on school funding and total lack of understanding of human behaviour.

Parents who are not rich deserve to have children who are educated at a high standard too. Especially today when income is less and less a reflection of hard work.

Would be better for climate change if children went to their most local school.

And besides the logistical issues, why should everyone be forced to send their children to any type of establishment? Parents deserve to choose how to raise their children. If a private school aligns with their values, and there is no adequate state school, why should they?
That's my central reason for being wary of the attack on private education.

I have my own opinions about the questionable pipeline from a certain type of private school to top networks in society, old boys network and so on, but I don't think people can fairly compare the likes of Eton with their town's small prep school where most of the parents are no different to the parents sending their children to state in the town down the road. These parents are just making the right decision for their children.

In my own ideal world I'd have funds for independent education and I would choose to send my children to a school that has a play based early years, with formal schooling starting later. I'd want them to have much less testing than the state system currently does, and I'd want them to have a genuinely broad curriculum right through (not history/geography/science on rotation, art one half term and DT the next). If I had the funds and such a school existed I'd snap up some places.
It worries me that some people are so anti-independent education that they'd want to limit parental ability to choose an appropriate school.

Finland is a daft comparison. Tiny, culturally homogeneous country with a completely different history and culture.

The Finland being compared is usually also the one of a generation ago.

it works in Finland because they put more resources into education and less into their corrupt mates' hands.

And they pay more tax in Finland which a lot of people are allergic to in the UK, and those who ought to pay more will offshore more and hide more and still pay less than the bog standard worker.

Added to all the house price inflation that would happen near the good schools.

IMO there needs to be much much more targeted funding at schools, less of the standardised stuff, fewer academies and more heads having control over what is taught and where their budget goes. There need to be more teachers and they need to have paid time allocated for marking and preparation. All this (and more) needs to be in place before private schools are looked at.

My only beef with private schools is the charitable status which needs to go.

I changed job from an independent school to a state one a couple of years ago. Yes, the behaviours and problems are different, but the behaviour issues are easier to deal with because there's a proper system and SLT have your back. At the independent a lot of problems were ignored. They couldn't afford to upset parents and lose fees.

I don't think private school teachers would last very long in your average comp. Great teachers who are used to being able to teach rather than having to deal with behavioural issues wouldn't thrive in that environment.

You clearly don’t work in state schools. This wouldn’t happen. No extra funding would appear and no teachers would want to work in these schools.

You are sadly misguided

state schools do make such more efficient use of their teachers!

Private schools ask a lot more of teachers than state in terms of extra-curriculars, because they don't have serious poverty as a factor. I did qualify as a teacher, but never worked as one. I was not willing to work in a school that considered 10% bad behaviour as normal or acceptable, so my skills (and age) were insufficient to get me an interview in the private or grammar systems which can afford to be more selective of teachers. Scream me down, loud as you like, but schools which can sanction bad behaviour make space for learning to happen.

Denying people any choice in their children's education is morally wrong, imo, regardless of any perceived or planned benefit, the greater good, etc., even assuming it would work out as planned. (It wouldn't. It never, ever does.)

I worked in a private school for a while. I earned less than I would have in state - not an uncommon situation. And anyway, if your job goes and the equivalent pays less you still take it.

Locally, one of the well known private schools funds a state school and also runs a curriculum in another school. Close that private school and you lose 1.5 state schools.

Well said @Another76543. I agree, private school children should still get their state funding

Unsafe classrooms are closing all over the country, but somehow state schools can magically accommodate 12% more kids. They’ll just ‘cope’. They aren’t coping with the current population of state school kids. Where do we put them? In the already overcrowded, falling down classrooms?

Where are all these spare teachers going to teach? On the field?

And besides the logistical issues, why should everyone be forced to send their children to any type of establishment? Parents deserve to choose how to raise their children. If a private school aligns with their values, and there is no adequate state school, why should they?

We have one tiny local village school, and it is shite. DD is going private, tyvm!

The rich would flood areas with great schools pushing up the house prices. Teachers wouldn’t be able to afford local housing. This is already happening in Grammar school areas.

They don't directly pay for their child's place....

Why has no one mentioned that actually private school parents pay for state school places through taxes and additionally (through choice), for their children too. No private school parent is moaning about paying school taxes for a place they aren't even using. So if this is the case how about they seek reimbursement for the years most of the parents have paid for state school places they haven't taken, but someone not contributing to our taxes uses.?