In Defence of Private Schools

Research in 2015 found that if state and private school pupils went to university with the same grades then the state school pupils tended to get a higher degree result. So I also don't see why universities would "crash down the world rankings" . www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/state-school-students-get-better-degrees-than-private-school-pupils-with-same-a-levels-10504225.html

“It would also cause a few minor problems for our world-class universities as they crash down the world rankings. But who cares about that when you’ve got socialist dogma to implement?”

Why would universities crash down the ratings? What’s so special about private school pupils? Entry grade requirements won’t change.....

the on-average one grade point uplift that private brings

It sounds like you’re saying ‘it’s the school, not the pupil’. So should universities also penalise students who go to state schools with progress 8 of 1 or above? Bring all students down to the level they should be at?

Independent schools have an advantage in that they.are independent of the state and it's regularly changing demands. They are able to develop and maintain a highly competitive method of education, led by educators, which aims to provide an all-round student development, where exam grades are part but not all. I am talking about the more academic independents in particular. The state system is hampered by their requirement to follow state guidance and frequent interventions - currently with the emphasis on all-consuming focus on academic achievement for all, at the expense of those students for whom creative/technical/vocational education would be better suited. Also the updated GCSE studies which places more emphasis on final exams again not suiting many students. A good education for all students would provide an environment where all would have the opportunity to have the broadest experience with the aim of finding their personal strengths with which to move forward into adulthood, to achieve a fulfilling life. The state system is geared to pushing all through the same process to the same endpoint. This does not serve many of our young people. The increasing Draconian behaviour policies of zero tolerance in many state schools are also not serving our young people but adding stress and alienation. Bad behaviour is not dealt with. Bullying is not addressed effectively. I also was forced to remove a daughter from state school due to her gradual mental and emotional breakdown. She's now recovering in a smaller and very different environment - independent. Her self-esteem, independance, engagement have improved as I could never have hoped. The state school I wanted to move her to was full and out of catchment so they would not make any wiggle room to allow her a place. Perhaps we should have left her where she was, although it had got to the stage of full in refusal and all the school could offer was very cold threats to prosecute. So you can keep your state system, which is a massive postcode lottery with many generic and fundamental flaws which only seem to be getting worse. Very good education is good for all society.

a few would still be needed for international students who's parents are only in the uk temporarily. suddenly all dual citizens will have a leg up.

Answer is simple: Unis have to offer places in the same proportion, state: private, as the general population.

It would also cause a few minor problems for our world-class universities as they crash down the world rankings. But who cares about that when you’ve got socialist dogma to implement?

Answer is simple: Unis have to offer places in the same proportion, state: private, as the general population.

This would cause unreasonable outrage among some private parents, but, since they send their DC private for 'the art/drama/sport/public speaking'; not the on-average one grade point uplift that private brings, "oh no!" so they don't have a leg to stand on.

Private pods?! That all sounds a bit sleazy, TwoRedShoes .

One thing that strikes me from reading all this is how times have changed - the pro private posters are all talking about giving a child advantages in terms of exceptional teaching. In the old days, it would have been pretty openly about ensuring your child spoke nicely, met others from the same background and had good manners! I wonder if that still figures into people’s reasonings just they don’t say it these days!

The State sector needs more investment. We don’t need more grammar schools - not unless the 11+ is overhauled and un-tutored children have a genuine chance of passing it (no-one from the DD’s old Primary in our area in Kent has passed in the last couple of years has passed without either private or parental coaching), That’s wrong. I’m not pro private (but was privately educated) and in theory, I like the new Labour policy. But in the real world, each of us does what we have to do for our own children to give them a leg up. If that’s going private, or coaching children for 2 years before a grammar exam then who are we to criticise what someone else identifies as doing the best by their child?

TwoRedShoes - try only paying your children's private schools £4-£6k per year per child and see what level of service they provide for your children, then. Stop your ridiculous, uneducated and offensive comments about thick teachers, jobs for life, only being a teacher because you don't know what else to do, and state schools not having to work to attract children (even though funding is per child...) if you want anyone to buy into your defence of private education. Because so far on this thread, you have been more successful than anyone else in making me think that maybe the notion of abolishing private schools is not such a ridiculous idea, if their existence goes hand in hand with attitudes as horrendous as yours.

@TwoRedShoes

China is full of private schools - many of which are branches of UK public schools. And Chinese parents - including senior party members - send their children to UK private schools.

Still didn't get an answer from noble and betrand

There was a question among all the shit you were spouting about state education and state school teachers?

Tell you what, I’ll bother answering your question when you bother admitting you were wrong.

“Should all tutoring be banned then too?”
No- why should it be? We’re talking about compulsory education.

@Spinderellacutituponetime,
'Are private school educators horrified their kids might have to rub shoulders with the hoi polloi?!!'.
I am a private school educator now and the answer is absolutely not. My DD was in a state primary for 7 years, so no issues here and I am 'diversity' myself being not from this country. In fact 50% of her class went to local secondary so the same mix as before, but we decided against due to school budget cuts, high turnover of teachers and based on the fact that she did manage to get into one of the top performing schools in London from a state school, which means she has potential and we wanted to give her an opportunity to develop it.
What I am not understanding is if it is not about equality but improving state education, how moving 7% to state school will help with it. I am an accountant so need to see the business case. Currently average budget for pupil in primary school in London is c.£6,500. Say you increase pupils by 7%, the average spend will go down to £6,045. Also schools are at full capacity in many parts of London, so we can be talking about increasing class sizes above 30 in addition to having less money to spend per pupil. How is this helpful? If the idea is that suddenly I will give money I pay for the private school now to the state school to benefit my DD and other children in school is not realistic I am afraid, instead I will be spending money which were freed up on tutoring and extra activities for my DD.
To improve the state school education you need to put more money into it, if this is an option and the idea, why not do it now without waiting to move private kids to state schools. There will be more benefit if you have less kids to spread education pot around, so average spent per pupil in the state sector will increase.
Regarding old boys network, there are plenty of employment opportunities now where this does not matter. I work for an international professional services firm and we abolished the requirement to have certain degree when you apply 2 years ago, so this is really does not matter. Majority of graduates come from state schools (as expected) and we also take school leavers who have the same prospects in future of becoming directors/partners in the firm. So businesses should do more , not government closing excellent schools. If a former student from a private school develops a drug which would make any cancer a history, would you be upset about because that person is 'entitled' and 'privileged'?

@tworedshoes I actually laughed out loud when I read your post about state school teachers. I have extensive experience in both sectors and believe me the teachers that I know who work in private schools have come in to teaching via many routes. Example: my friend who had his own travel company and at the grand age of 40 realised it wasn't making money so decided to teach at his old school and become a house tutor. There are a various ways to get in to teaching at private schools and many people there didn't emerge into adult life with a passion to teach. Neither are they without fault, I could tell you some stories about the teachers at my own private senior school that would make your hair stand on end. Private schools and state schools are institutions and therefore are filled with a variety pack of individuals some motivated by genuine love for their job, others by a quest for more money/ seniority, some who stay because they don't mind the job too much and like their pension and don't know what else to do. What I hope that a teacher in either sector of education is able to do is to teach children to introduce some nuance to their arguments and to do their research properly before making laugh out loud claims on social media. I do not agree with banning private schools, I think the way to even out the prospects of all children is via contextual offers at University and I follow those developments closely. And if VAT is not to be added to fees then I would like to see some sort of regulated checking system (eg charitable 'check' officers) who do annual reviews of how each private school with charitable status actually operates their charity (significant numbers - as opposed to paltry numbers- of bursaries, sports facilities etc) and I would like these reviews to be published.

“I know people who screech about injustice of private edication, who live in far nicer houses than me, and spend £££ on extensions and kitchens.“
Do you drive a beaten up old Volvo by any chance? To escape their “screeching” on your annual camping holiday to Cornwall?

Adding VAT to school fees would only ensure that they are out of the reach of even more people except the extremely rich. Why not subsidise the school instead? Why demolish things that are perceived to be 'entitled' because they give such favourable results? Why not widen access to them? In all other aspects of life we try to raise the game not lower it. Why is academia such a target? It always fascinates me. I know people who screech about injustice of private edication, who live in far nicer houses than me, and spend £££ on extensions and kitchens. Our house is crumbling and our kids go to a brilliant school. Of course I;d prefer not to have had to pay for it.

If we get rid of schools of academic excellence, should we also get rid of all training clubs for excellence in sport? And nice houses in safe areas. Should we demolish those and make sure everyone lives in a dodgily clad high rise to even out the stakes in life?

Why is the hatred always directed against academia alone? No one has ever managed to answer that question on these threads, and I suspect it is because they don;t want to lose what they have: nice homes, after school clubs, county sports teams etc. They only want to destroy what they don't have. Even the playing field above them but not below them.

It’s not about trying to make everything equal for all as that is clearly an unobtainable idea but about trying to level the playing field and improve state schools...allowing children that are from disadvantaged backgrounds or lower income families at least a shot at having a decent education. Are private school educators horrified their kids might have to rub shoulders with the hoi polloi?!!

I can not agree more that more things would need to be banned, like tutoring, music lessons, sports, intellectually stimulating conversations around the family dinner table, reading bedtime stories at night …. what else would need to be banned to ensure 'equality'? And would you really like to live in such society? I grew up in the Soviet Union so have first hand experience of it. Labour's polices really scare me now, not just about private schools but about general trends to nationalise everything. Been there, seen that, ran away from it just to find it here now. My DD was in a very good state primary and it was great. She also benefited from private music, ballet, swimming lessons as the school was not providing this of course. Unfortunately the situation with the secondary schools is not so great in our area so she went private. Have not noticed any tofts there, many parents have similar background to mine (children of emigrants, working parents etc). If labour add VAT to the school fee, I would need to take her our as won't be able to afford. She will go to a local school so will be funded by the taxpayers (vs now when she is funded by me from my after tax earnings). I will not be demanding more from the local school because I know they can not give anything extra. This is based on her primary school experience. So the local school will not 'improve' from my daughter being there and me demanding more. I will instead continue with private lessons for her and probably will need to do a lot of private tutoring. So at the end she will still get results she would get in a private school. And I can not see any benefit from this move to other children or general public. In fact I can see 3 disadvantages : a) you will pay for my daughter from your taxes instead of now me paying for her out of my own pocket, b) with higher demand on tutoring, I am sure more teachers from state schools will leave to do tutoring only as they will be better off (in fact this is already happening, with increased demand from all former private pupils this will surely be the case, b) the idea is to make all children equal will not work because I am afraid I will still be investing in her education via private tutors, music lessons etc.
So is this really a solution on how to improve state education for everyone?

There was a thing on the radio today saying that 25% of all state school pupils have had private tuition at some point, and a whopping 41% in London. It was certainly rife at my kids' primary. I wonder how many of those parents are among those who complain about private school parents 'buying advantage'? Surely it's inescapable that if you get rid of private schools, the wealthier parents will continue to 'buy advantage' by a combination of pricing others out of the housing areas near to the best schools, and privately tutoring? To create a genuinely level playing field, you'd really have to ban an awful lot of things. I'm in a grammar school area, and the grammars have a massive over-representation of prep school pupils. Sure, that's partly because they're academically selective and therefore can be tutored for, but I'm sure the effect would be similar even without that, through house price manipulation. If you close the private schools you are likely to end up with fewer poor children in the best state schools, not more.

I think if we didn’t have private schools state education would be much improved. Private schools promote inequality and a sense of entitlement and I would be happy to see the back of them.

I like that so much I reprint it.
I struggle to have an opinion, but I'll go with above if I must.

I don't see how that translates into better results for children?

You do realise that state schools are heavily judged on their results? That teachers are judged on their results? That they have performance management targets based around improving results?

Maybe you don’t know and you genuinely think that head of department is just a hat to be worn, an admin role? Not accountable?

You are so wrong.