In Defence of Private Schools

And no, I do not get what dolphins have to do with education - that was just a facetious play on words of yours, because you can also call them schools. And given that you were effectively just saying, "this is how the world works, get used to it," I still say it's sleazy. You could just as easily argue that there should be no state provision of healthcare , or education, or benefits system, because why should anyone inconvenience themselves for anyone else and why should the state ever intervene in the marketplace? What has all that got to do with pure capitalism? Why did we bail out the banks? Why are you wanting more money for state education? Why not turn all schools into private schools paid for directly out of individuals' personal income?

“@BertrandRussell never said there was no bullying at private school. We are going round in circles.”
You said you were forced to go private because your girl was bullied in a state achool. The inference is certainly there.
Which question?

*that state education is seriously underfunded

Oh, grow up TwoRedShoes and stop being so ludicrously black and white in your arguments, or you'll simply encourage others to be just as extreme and to actually go ahead and abolish private schools. I have not argued to abolish private schools at all, nor have I drunk Kool Aid... If you are too dim to see that giving Eton charitable status has fuck all to do with whether or not people are free to buy luxury goods, there is no point debating anything with you, anyway. And which part of my saying that state education indicating to you that I think state education is currently fit for purpose?

I honestly don’t get this “no bullying in private schools” thing. The worst case of bullying I have ever come across started in a very well known London prep and followed the child to public school. It was relentless, well hidden and largely ignored by the school- the classic “he needs to toughen up and stop being so sensitive” line was taken in both establishments. But that was the responsibility of the school, not the sector.

I work in an independent school (support services not teaching). My DC attend state schools (both Ofsted Outstanding for what Ofsted is worth).

Do I think the school I work in is a better school than my DC's? Yes.

Why? Quite simply because they have more £££ per child so teachers have more prep and planning time, more time to mark, support children, organise extra-curricular stuff. There are also far more support staff to help them.

The state system doesn't need another 600,000 pupils (or however many are in private sector). It needs its budget per child increasing by 50% + and that not to be taken up by management levels in academy chains or by delivering yet another politically mandated wholesale change to the curriculum / exam system / accountability framework.

Both

What is so obvious? That state education is inadequate, or that you think state education is inadequate?

in other words you think state education is inadequate to meet the country's needs.

I think that’s so obvious you hardly need me to state it.

@Sewingbea

I remember that that study was far more nuanced than the headlines implied. State school students with mediocre A level results did outperform privately educated students with similarly mediocre results, but the finding was not duplicated when it came to students with top results.

it's ironic that Finns often come to the UK to learn from what our best private schools are doing.

A group of Finnns came to my absolutely shit state school for that reason. They study every system in the world to see if any of it is useful. Doesn't make our schools better than theirs.

CendrillonSings - in other words you think state education is inadequate to meet the country's needs.

DoubleTweenQueen - I'm not sure how you think people's voting behaviour and actual behaviour are unrelated to the issue of education? They are all inextricably linked. That's why private schools would be at risk if people voted Labour, after all. And why Eton College has charitable status. And why people argue over why privately educated people predominate in positions of power and what could or should be done about this. It is 100% a political issue.

but Labour policy is now to abolish private schools, not to cap the number of privately educated people getting into UK universities.

Wrong, I’m afraid - both policies were passed at Labour conference! And of course the top UK private schools provide some of the best education in the world, which then gets channelled to Oxbridge, Imperial, etc., and helps to support their institutional excellence.

CendrillonSings - but Labour policy is now to abolish private schools, not to cap the number of privately educated people getting into UK universities. So I think you need to alter your argument, as the talent will still be getting into the universities, what with 100% being state educated. So I think you are really arguing that you think state education is inadequate for everyone?

I too am incensed by what is going on in this country regarding austerity, the facilitated utter greed of capitalism, and the black hole of Brexit. That is quite separate to the issue of education. Apologies, but I thought this thread was based on that single issue and Labour's proposed policy on it.

I have not at any point proposed abolishing all private schools. Nor have I at any point said that I think parents want the current inequalities in society - although if nobody thinks they can afford to pay more tax, those who can afford it opt out of state provision, and enough people agreed with an extended period of austerity and prioritisng Brexit over anything else that their cotes won the day, then it is the People who gave Government a democratic mandate to focus on increasing inequality and making massive constitutional change that was always guaranteed to create several years' woth of increased uncertainty and instability and a loss of attention on the country's more immediate needs (even if everything had gone smoothly, which it was always obvious it wouldn't). So it's not as if lack of funding is all being done entirely against the will of the People.

Why would universities crash down the ratings? What’s so special about private school pupils?

You really have to ask? Private school pupils achieve around 45% of all the top A-level grades, vastly out of proportion to the share of the population they represent. So Labour’s mindless policy of capping their representation at universities to 7% would block a huge percentage of the pupils achieving top grades from entering top universities, thus depriving the latter of their talents.

I don't believe that a generalised political ideology based on perpetuating a virtuous, and much put upon, 'have nots' Vs an evil and selfish 'haves' position is credible. While we do have a comprehensive free education system in this country, it is essential it is funded fully to provide a meaningful education for all.
How do you propose to reach those many young people who don't or cannot engage with that and leave school with no qualifications and no direction? That is an absolute scandal, but I imagine abolishing private education would sort it.

I don't know how to cut and paste - but your question as to the belief that very good funding is not thought to be necessary for any but the wealthy is the position of the state, not most parents! Looking around schools, state and independents would make most people's blood boil at the inequity. All parents would want all schools to be funded well. That is the role of government. I repeat that in my own view, from personal experience, abolishing independent schools as a first priority is not the answer. I know no parent, be they very wealthy or well-off middle or working class with children at our independent schools who are interested in an agenda of maintaining an 'elite' to the detriment or superiority over the general population! They all value education, in it's holistic meaning of the word, and feel their children are in the right school for them to achieve that. Many went to state primary schools, some to prep. It is a very mixed bag of experience and wealth. Both me and my husband went through state school and made the most of it because we grew up with absolutely nothing.

It's odd that most of the discussion seems to be based on the archaeic dominance of Eton etc, and aloof political generalities.
My point of view is that there is a great deal of very good privately funded education out there which serves an essential role in those areas where the state provision is not good enough and not serving it's students. The state system is not fit to serve all young people at the current time and is a postcode lottery. I wonder what the stats will be like 10 years from now, particularly based on region so a more detailed picture can be seen. I am talking from a personal in the ground position and experience. I see the contrast in mine and other children at both types of school in my local area. We are very grateful to have excellent private education local to us.
It is a scandal how state education has been and is being led. I agree 120 percent that better funding is essential to improve the state system; also better leadership; more support and options for our young people; making all state provision equally enriched. That would take years to turn around. I and most parents I know in both sectors would love to see and be a part of that. Until then, private schools play an important role and getting rid of them as a first priority seems very much a political expedient only.
There is much talk if grades, but an education should be more than grades - for me it is much more. Our schools focus is on the healthy growth and development of the young person as a whole.

DoubleTween Queen - such a shame that whilst very good education is good for all society, very good funding is not considered necessary for any but the most wealthy, don't you think? There are also pros and cons to not being "hampered" by State guidance.

What it really boils down to is that the majority of human beings are pretty accepting of this being an unequal world, but there comes a point when the levels of inequality are so obscene, it looks pretty disgusting to endorse them. There is no educational need or justification for schools as expensive as Eton, so no point arguing that there is. Their advantage is in the contacts and relationships you can make with influential people from around the world, and everyone knows it, because you can get an excellent education, if that's all you are after, at considerably less cost. However many token poor people they let in, they are still just ostentatious displays of wealth and privilege. As for less expensive private schools - most countries have some schools that are more free from state interference than others and that require some level of fee payment, but it is a specialism of the UK to have an aristocracy of schools specifically aimed at grooming wealthy elites. If the elites being sent out from those schools do not seem to be doing much good for the world, it is legitimate to question their value to society.