In Defence of Private Schools

The 7% figure that is constantly trotted out is misleading to say the least,that is a %across all age groups, at A level the figure is about 15/16%,so when people talk about restricting Oxbridge places to 7% they know they are being a little economic with the actualite,or maybe not, considering the labour party think that someone who didn't manage a single gcse should be shadow education minister.

All the people I know in real life who have battled their way out of poverty and disadvantage are incredibly eager to help others do the same. Rather than say mean spirited things like “It was called get up and get on with it. Too many people expect to live on an equal footing, while doing sod all in comparison.“

Made the mistake last night of watching channel 4 news and one of the worst interviews Ive ever seen,Lady Chakrabarti-"John, call me Shami" waffling on about"posh boys",putting aside she looked and sounded like she'd had a very good lunch...".posh boys"..really...Shami your son tried to get into Eton, he failed and is now at Dulwich.."posh boys"..give me a break...The utter hypocrisy of these people..

Well said Mumto2two!

Can nobody see that these tactics by politicians are just for votes? Haven’t we seen the results of that before (Cameron & the Referendum)?
The percentage of privately educated children in this country stands at just 7%. That’s minuscule! And they are not all like Eton either! I agree that closing them would put an extra burden on the state education system and house prices in ‘good’ school areas will rocket (although doesn’t Corbyn want to get rid of Ofsted too)? Maybe his master plan is to ensure nobody knows how good any school is in the future!

Before you know it we will be limited to 2 children only and living in a state where freedom of choice is removed altogether! We all know that works well right? Maybe on paper but not in practice. Don’t be fooled into thinking it will be a fair system. You work hard in life and achieve your best, whatever your background/schooling etc Removing freedom of choice is wrong.

Too much socialist tripe on here. Yes we do work hard for our money, and yes it is our choice to spend it on sending our kids to schools where all the kids there have aspirations like we do. Not the local comp where exclusion rates are so high, they turnover 3 or 4 whole classes a year and barely half the kids get a decent grade. My parents lost everything during my teens. We were evicted from our bed-sit the night before my A level exams started. But we picked ourselves up and moved on. My parents were both dying from cancer and we were broke. I worked throughout my studies to support my family. Did A levels, degree at night school, professional exams for 3 years on top...yes I have worked bloody hard. And now I have chosen to not spend MY money on a big house or new car, like some people do, but on making sure my kids are surrounded by the same aspiration I once was. My mother would never have expected a penny from the state. It was called get up and get on with it. Too many people expect to live on an equal footing, while doing sod all in comparison. So yes, idle envy it is. Nothing more, nothing less. And with that..I’m off to work.

I love the comparison against schools in Finland. People there pay 40-50% tax if you include both income tax and compulsory municipality tax. They are PAYING for small class sizes and equality in education.

Here we seem to have the mentality of wanting the lowest possible taxes but best in class education and healthcare. The money has to come from somewhere.

Please can someone explain to me now getting rid of private schools will help state education so much when there is such a vast difference in state education now?

I went to a state school where the facilities were similar to private schools in the area, and the school had close sporting ties with them but it’s still state run.

The next school along had none of this.

Genuinely interested how this will help bridge these already massively unfair gaps?

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay, Yes - Great example.

His nearest state school had 67% of pupils on free school meals, versus GCHS only having 14%

Which one was he going to choose?

See also Michael Gove. GCHS is hardly your bog standard comp and I think was still using admissions criteria that didn’t meet with the admissions code when he applied for his eldest.

@noblegiraffe - Exactly.
The Camerons just sent their son to the best state school they could find.
Have you seen the house prices in Fulham? Just down the road from Kensington where the house prices are amongst the most expensive in the UK.
If you can't afford to live in that area, then you have no chance of getting into that school.

Getting rid of Independent schools still will not solve the issue of catchment areas for the 'best schools'.

Don't be fooled by the attention grabbing headlines.

The majority of the good state schools in my area of South London, are in the most affluent parts of the boroughs (Lambeth, Southwark, Wandsworth).
These areas are occupied by the 'well to do', who choose not to pay for their childrens education.

Sorry - Posted the previous message before I finished my rant.

I really think that there is a bigger issue here.
I know that I have only given a few examples in my area, and I'm fully aware of the 'London bubble' that I live in, but it's quite easy to see that Labour are playing on the emotions of people.
I'm used to be married to a teacher, and I have several members of my family who are in the teaching profession, and quite a few who have left the profession recently.

There are a lot of things that are wrong in our current education system, such as how recruitment agencies make obscene amounts of money from placing teachers in schools, and holding the schools 'hostage' with the contractual obligations attached to their employment.
This money could ultimately be helping to fund schools.

Hitting the Independent schools is just an easy target which will not really achieve much.

Disclaimer - I have not, nor can afford to send my child to an Independent school.

Rant over

David Cameron had to send his kid to a state school while PM but still allowed Gove free rein, pay freezes for teachers, cancelling new school building projects etc.

It kind of suggests that if they have to send their kid to a state school, they’ll still not give a fuck about education in general, they’ll just a) make sure their kid goes to the best state school and b) hire tutors and extra-curricular stuff to make up for it not coming through the school.

The results in Finland are beginning to fall, and I think there is a theory that the high results were actually more down to previous methods of teaching and the more relaxed styles now are now bringing down the results

Pretty much. They’ve managed to level off the reading scores but maths and science are still falling. I think the gender attainment gap and socio-economic attainment gap are increasing too.

It might be best not to encourage people to talk about Kingsdale. They’ve been known to take a ‘Queen Ethelburga’ approach to people posting comments about them on the internet.

I agree with Labour on this. We should just get rid and concentrate on providing a good and fair education system for everyone.

I'm still not voting for them though, mainly because of Brexit. I don't think they really want to be elected right now anyway, only a nutter would want to be in charge right now.

Academies were bought in by the Labour government.
I would like to know if people think that the academy system has worked?
I live in South London about a mile away from Dulwich College, whose fees are over £21K per year for day pupils.
About half a mile from Dulwich college is a state secondary called Kingsdale Foundation school.
Last year, this school produced what they say, was the country's top performer in terms of GCSE result, and they reckon they have done so for the 5th year in the row.
www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/results-day-has-kingsdale-school-produced-the-countrys-top-performing-gcse-student-for-the-fifth-year-in-a-row/
I don't have a child who attends this school, but I have been to one of their open days and I must say that I was very impressed.

I have no idea what their secret is, but what I do know is that the head is aware of the private schools in his surrounding are (Dulwich College, Alleyn's, JAGs), and has therefore 'upped his game' and is giving those schools a run for their money,
Other Academy chains are shutting down their drama and music departments but schools like Kingsdale are thriving in this area.
Why would you choose Dulwich College or Jags over this school?

All academies/foundation schools are not equal and neither are all Independent schools.
Can you honestly compare Eton (£14K per half term) to a school like The Ceders (Independent just outside Croydon whose fees are £14460 per year)?

I don't think that the solution is to abolish Independent schools.
We need to understand why some academies are run better than others.
Why are these Academy CEO's getting paid so much money? Is it worth it?

Looking at the financial statements which are publicly available and show the salary ranges of teaching staff at these schools, I'm making an educated guess that the Heads at both Dulwich College and Kingsdale are paid relatively the same (around £200K).

The head of Brampton Manor in East London where his pupils attained 41 Oxbridge offers, is also on over £220k.
What is his secret?

The head of Holland Park school is on over £260K. Is that too much to pay for a head?

schoolsweek.co.uk/investigation-meet-the-head-paid-260k-to-run-one-school/

There is a bigger issue in our education system than Independent schools. Let the rich spend their money there.
There are obvious disparities between state/academy institution

Iirc Kingsdale operates entry by lottery right?

If MPs were compelled to send their kids to state schools, state education would improve immeasurably. Full Stop.

I think that MPs would join the race for grammar school places or buy in the catchment of the best comprehensives. They would be pushing out children who might have benefitted more from the place. If their child has a hobby taught at private and not at state then MPs could pay for their kids to join the right clubs and have tutors so that their child gets the grades for top universities.

I’m never quite sure why people seem to think abolishing private schools so I can’t spend my money on them will magically improve state schools. If I can no longer decide how to spend my money on their education and that all must go to state schools I will reduce my working hours to academically support them at home (paying less tax) and will put any additional money I would have spent on their education into buying them a house. I won’t be going in to schools to raise the standards for all (not sure how really as surely that is down to the school and teachers, not me) and nor will I be devoting time to the pta - I will be focusing on my children, not the children of others who have supported my choices being restricted. So I can’t see how anyone benefits from this. Compared to the fact I wholeheartedly currently believe private schools should share their facilities etc with the communities generally /bursaries etc

I know a child who's in private residential school paid for by the LEA because the state doesn't provide this sort of education. I assume that it would be exempt from this policy which imo would never happen as it would be far too costly.

I think we would see an explosion in home educated children taught in groups by ex private school teachers who may not have the teaching degree required by state schools. They would bill themselves like tutors or clubs like Kip McGrath and avoid the word school.

This policy would disadvantage those at state schools. Catchments would shrink and house prices near the best schools would rise even more. There is only so much physical room in schools.

If Labour were serious about educational inequality they'd sort out faith schools (why should taxpayers be unable to get a place!) , grammar schools or the inequalities between schools. State schools range from excellent to dire. Investing in the worst will surely help inequality more.

But it is about choices Sharon, choices that everyone makes throughout their lives. Your choices determine the outcome of your life. I chose to ensure whatever happened in my upbringing wasn't going to hold me back. I made a conscious choice to not indulge in the negatives that could of easily destroyed me and make my life into something positive. I have achieved that, I barely passed school, flunked college and didn't go to uni, but that didn't stop me starting up several businesses over the years and making my life a success. I have complete financial security and I choose to put that into my children's education because that's what's important to me. Why anyone thinks they have a right to tell me what to spend my money on is beyond me.
I absolutely agree the state education system needs a complete overhaul but abolishing private schools is not the way to do it. This should not be a race to the bottom, but aspiring to be better, to do better, to make better choices.

I agree that fewer people would choose private education if state schools were better funded, but they also choose it to get the type of education for their children that is not available through the state in their area.

I wanted a single sex selective education for my children. The state provides that free in some parts of the country. I didn't want to move, so I had to pay for it.

When I’m in charge, one of the conditions of being an MP will be that you would not be able to use private education or private health care.

If MPs were compelled to send their kids to state schools, state education would improve immeasurably. Full Stop.

Much is made of Labour politicians who privately educate their children but it’s always the same two names - Shami Chakrabarti and Diane Abbott. If there were others from Labour or Lib Dems who did so then I’m sure we’d hear about it.
Therefore I assume that the vast majority of Labour and Lib Dem MPs do send their children to state schools. Why aren’t they insisting that the schools improve?

The results in Finland are beginning to fall, and I think there is a theory that the high results were actually more down to previous methods of teaching and the more relaxed styles now are now bringing down the results. Also there are some private schools in Finland.