To wonder if you are against private schools…

I would never use them because me and dh are both teachers so no need to as we can help dc with any work for school.

‘They should make private schools CHEAPER to reduce the burden on mainstream if they really wanted to make state education better.’

They being the businesses that run them? It does sound as if they probably should, sounds like not many are good value for money anymore, with the much higher than inflation rises in fees they’ve been charging for 20 years.
But that isn’t going to change anything for ‘mainstream’ schooling, there’s lots of room as the birth rate plummets, and I’m fairly certain that private schools do t really give a damn about what happens outside their own little privileged world.
Why would they?

This is the harsh truth that very few want to admit. That its parents ability and responsibility to improve their schools for their children.
More funding won't produce the huge improvements needed, until parents take responsibility for their child's behaviour nothing will change.
My youngest goes to an infants with comparatively very low funding due to being undersubscribed, but with a very engaged (and economically diverse) parent cohort and it's absolutely amazing, the behaviour and achievement is excellent. A couple of teachers have left for promotions in other schools, only to return a few months later back to our school on lower pay than their new job, because our school is a fantastic place to work. Higher pay wasn't worth it for the stress.
Oldest goes to juniors which takes from this infants plus some from another infants, in a similar demographic but very different attitude, and the disruption to their learning from the new children has been massive. They are higher funded due to higher intake, but the provision is much worse.

The single biggest factor in a child's educational experience is their own parents, followed by the behaviour of their classmates. People sending their children private are in most cases doing so to enable their child to study with children of parents with a similar level of commitment to their education. That is not wrong, and I am not unreasonable to want my child to share a classroom with children who are respectful and engaged in their learning. I do not care where they come from, what their parents do or how much they earn. But I do care that my child can learn from her teachers rather than being hit, shouted out and learning disrupted.

So yes, as much as i wholely disagree with the principle of it, we will tutor for the 11+ and we will take on extra work to pay for private if needed. And I will feel terrible for her best friend who is smart and respectful and can't afford either of these things and who is being let down by other parent not instilling good behaviour standards in their children.

The private sector is a business, and if they aren’t willingly to adapt or make changes according to a shifting marketing and/or the needs of their customers then some may fail.
I thought private parents supported capitalism and the free-market?

Most people aren’t concerned whether or not certain private schools exist, or not.

They should make private schools CHEAPER to reduce the burden on mainstream if they really wanted to make state education better.

Like they do with private healthcare, which in the UK system needs to be affordable to compete with NHS (the prices in US are eye watering, due to the private system)

Every child currently educated privately represents a mainstream school place the state doesn't need to budget for. MORE people should be given an incentive to use private.

But sure, everyone deserves to be in an over stretched system with too many children and not enough support for teachers.

I don't get how people can't see that abolishing private will punish the poor, not benefit them.

The state schools are not the independent parent’s responsibility. It lays on the government. Also, there are plenty of rich people in state schools like Keir Starmer. Why they do not make them better? Abolishing the independent schools by making them going broke is an ideological plan to educate kids with left leaning tendencies without parents control.

We are in very dangerous hands with this government.

Of the 6% quoted to be privately educated, a very small fraction of the private schools are those which set up for a lifetime of privilege. These are the likes of Eton, Harrow, Winchester etc. The fees for these schools are eye-wateringly expensive (more than double the £15-20k pa you quoted) and those who are sending their children are not going to be affected by VAT. Their social circles and opportunities will remain the same. Privilege will remain untouched.

Exactly. Around half of private schools have fewer than 300 pupils (source: ISC). These are the kinds of schools that the vast majority of people unhappy with the VAT are involved with. Small, local independents that fill the gaps that the state system leaves. These are the schools that are largely just breaking even, that don't have millions in surplus (some don't even have hundreds in surplus at the end of each year). If we cut out all the big name public schools from all of these discussions, it would give a much more accurate picture. There are private schools, and there are private schools. One does not equal the other.

These schools are the ones that are on a fine line of going bust - taking with them all their pupils who will need to find new schools, and equally importantly, all their staff who will then be without a job. VAT is one thing, but there is also the pressure that's not being talked about of having to find the business rates - the relief of which is being removed. Plus NMW increase, and NI increase. The combination of these, and the impact of pupils leaving because of VAT will put many schools into the red this year. A school with fewer than 200 pupils needs very few pupils to leave to become almost immediately unviable.

This. All day long.

It’s not the school though is it its the intake. That’s the unpalatable truth and why you can’t just “make all schools like private schools” or like the better states and grammars.

Schools aren’t magic they can only deal with the raw materials that walk through the door. If you have a barrier to entry ie money or an exam you get a certain demographic. The challenging children from “unengaged with education” type families (trying to be right on here) have to go somewhere. The rest of us just don’t want those children disrupting our own children’s educations and frankly people will use any means at their disposal to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Saw friends last night he is training to be a teacher at an ok mixed state about a third of his classes are utter nightmare disruptive kids - the majority nice kids who want to learn look on in horror. A family member who teaches in a state in a deprived area says the same.

I have nothing against private schools and I was privately educated.

But I think the government is right to plan to charge VAT on fees and I want to see this use to improve general education for everyone.

93% of kids in England are not privately educated, so the welfare of the majority comes first.

I also find it dodgy that so many politicians were privately educated and therefore don't represent or understand the majority of the population's experience.

Make all of the private schools accept any children they have space for.
Adequately fund state schools.
Make teaching attractive again so that maths and science graduates train to teach.

Make all schools like private schools.

@TrumpIsACuntWaffle
@SwordToFlamethrower
@ChannelFiveDrama
Your (latest) statements are true but the reality is that a relatively small proportion of the population are lucky enough to be allocated a place at an excellent state school. There is no equality or fairness within the state systen and plenty of opportunities for the wealthy to buy advantage within the state system. I see no ethical difference between parents soending on school fees vs spending on living in a privileged catchment area or supplementing a nediocre state offering with extra tuition. There is no rationale to blame the existence of private schools for the inequalities when inequalities are baked in throughout the state system and it's not reasonable to expect parents with the means to do so to not spend their resources on improving their children's education if their state option is mediocre.

There is no other circumstance under which a parent has the option to spend their money on improving their child's life and is expected (by some) to refrain from doing so because not everyone can afford it.

How does one cause the other?

Agreed, and no I'm not bloody campaigning for anything. I have a full time job and my spare time is very precious.

I used to agree with private schools, but honestly, the endless moaning is putting me off!

This is always brought up in threads like this and it is untrue!

I've said time and again on different threads (under different usernames), that both my children went/go to grammar schools 18 years apart (so the exam has altered drastically and I am considered poor.

Neither of my children were tutored - I was a single mum on benefits with DC1 and on tax credits with DC2. I couldn't afford it. I also have no idea at all how to do the tests, so I couldn't help them either.

We live in a 100% selective county, there are no comprehensive schools.

I live in a social housing home and the nearest secondary l, if they'd failed, is shit. So they've got the opportunity they wouldn't have had if there wasn't any grammars here.

Sure there are more affluent children there, but I don't put it down purely to money, it's also the love of education and desire to achieve, that is lacking from a lot of the parents at the secondaries.

DC2 went to a primary that went into special measures whilst she was there. The school still requires improvement, several years later. The reason? Indifferent and unsupportive parents. DC2 was often chosen to sit on a table with the badly behaved, disruptive kids. I used to question the teachers and they said they may be a good influence.

They also used to get DC2 to help slower children with their work.

DC2 used to get upset when her work was written over, when others wouldn't let her get on in peace.

I won't apologise for being glad that she's not in a school with them now.

Are you campaigning for this within the state sector given that it isn't currently the case (and Labour has not proposed any plans to abolish catchment areas, grammar schools, faith schools, other selective state schools)

My ethos is that it's a fundamental right for children to have equality of opportunity regardless of their parents' ability to pay.

I'm against having to pay, for a decent education, or for an alternative provision. All schooling should be funded by the state and the choices should be available to everyone, regardless of wealth or background.

School should be like that for all children not just privileged few

Of the 6% quoted to be privately educated, a very small fraction of the private schools are those which set up for a lifetime of privilege. These are the likes of Eton, Harrow, Winchester etc. The fees for these schools are eye-wateringly expensive (more than double the £15-20k pa you quoted) and those who are sending their children are not going to be affected by VAT. Their social circles and opportunities will remain the same. Privilege will remain untouched.

If private schools eliminated … those who could afford would hire tutors to strive to improve results on entry or whatever exams.

Like families do in Finland, they pay Private tutors to improve results for highly competitive further education exams.

The money Finns are not paying in private school tuition, they are paying to private tutors.