Should private schools be abolished?

[JoshLymanIsHotterThanSam]

Link.

I found this an interesting article. I did not realise that we now have one of the worst social mobility records in developed countries. I find this concerning. I am a fan of the grammar school system having been educated in one myself and having a DC who attends one. I have little experience of private schools though. If I'm honest if I had the money I wouldn't hesitate to use a private school, but that is down to the fact that I realise that it gives a leg up to the students attending, however I realise that this should not be the case.

Should we abolish private schools in the interest of fairness?

“What about people who forego holidays etc to send their kids to a private school because their local ones aren't great? Does that count?”

This always comes up on threads about private school and it always makes me laugh. If all you have to do is give up holidays and a few other luxuries to afford private school you must still be fairly wealthy. People living in poverty have nothin extra to give up and certainly nothin that would go anywhere near being enough to pay for private schooling.

@Dontforgetyourbrolly

No of course not . I'd send ds to private school without hesitation if I could . The question you should be asking is should state schools be better ? YES

What a lot of people are suggesting is that state schooling would be better if the wealthy couldn’t opt out of it so easily.

@HoppingHamster

The 'top performers' had bloody well better be 'top' with the small classes and extra resources and money spent on them. 'Outperforming'? I wonder why

Resources aren’t the only reason. Where we are (SW London) most private schools have around 20 per class, state around 30. Yes it’s a difference but we aren’t taking 1:1 here. Likewise they typically have way less time in the classroom. They have around 8-10 weeks more holiday / less time in school, and do at least 4/5 sessions of sport a week, often around 10 periods.

What I’m saying is that these kids work hard, and as many pp say, their parents push them. The schools are also strategic about how they teach (granted exams are not the be all and end all), they teach kids to pass exams. It’s not simply a question of paying for better outcomes, they put a huge amount into them so perhaps what they’re also paying for is a competitive environment with strategic teaching where they have to work hard to achieve results. In private schools it’s not cool to do badly, it’s cool to be clever. I personally don’t think any of those things cost money. They are however, often attributes of people who have earned good money, and will generally go with these children into their own future.

I’m not saying that kids in state schools can’t do this, I’m saying the schools don’t have the same focus and resources are not the only reason for their success, personally I don’t even think they’re the main reason. I was a top state school performer at GCSE, then dropped out at a level due to personal problems, and not a single person from my school even noticed what was happening, let alone sat down and explained to me how important exams are. I don’t think that would have happened in the private system.

I agree with this (to a degree). I am a teacher in an international private school. My sister is a teacher in a local, no affluent state school. We both love our jobs and work very very hard.

There are two main differences. The resources that are available and the attitudes of the families. The approach of the families towards the child's education should not be underestimated.

In my school we don't test the children except an obligatory test aged 10 and then at 15, so I disagree with this part of your comment, but appreciate that is just specific to my particular pedagogy. We do teach according to the child's interests and make available to them, whatever their learning style.

YABU-private schools should not be abolished.

Cynically I think that’s true.

I really don’t think private education is such a thing on the continent. I hosted European language students for years mostly from Italy and Holland and they looked blank when I asked about private schools. There seem to be a few for very religious families but generally everyone seems to go to the state schools.

My first comment was about it being true state education would improve without the get out provision for the wealthy

Also (forgot to add) we are 1 teacher to 10-15 students. We also teach the children for a minimum of 3 years, so we can really build up a strong bond with the child and their family, and follow their development. I find this crucial for children in their formative years.

Should a child have a crisis of some sort, it is very quickly picked up on and we support these children whilst working closely with their families.

@MsTSwift

Cynically I think that’s true.

I really don’t think private education is such a thing on the continent. I hosted European language students for years mostly from Italy and Holland and they looked blank when I asked about private schools. There seem to be a few for very religious families but generally everyone seems to go to the state schools.

Erm.... that's not true. Private schools are everywhere.

How do you think it would improve state schools if well off parents used them? They do now surely and they are still not good enough. Do you think individual schools would bend to the whims of the rich?

@Hellotoallmyfans

Take away private schools and people will just use tutors. So then we'd have to abolish tutors as well and make it what, illegal? To try to better your child's life? To try to educate them? Lets just take away freedom of choice then - what you basically want is a communist state.

Maybe we should all just stop wanting what's best for our kids? That's what you are basically saying? Don't you give your child the best food you can afford? House them in the best house you can afford? It's all relative isn't it? Take away peoples reasons for striving to succeed and what will you be left with?

We're from poor working class families and have worked damn hard to try to give our dc's a good life and the best possible chances. You do know most people who go to private school don't end up in government? There's no guarantee they'll be any more successful in life than someone who goes to state school.

Focus on giving your own children the best chance you can, whatever your financial situation - read to them, teach them things. Or should that not be allowed either? After all it wouldn't be fair on the kids who've got shit parents would it, why should kids with good parents who take an interest in their education have more chance of getting ahead?

Where would it end?

Exactly. Bitterness, jealousy and resentment is overwhelming on this thread.

How do you think it would improve state schools if well off parents used them? They do now surely and they are still not good enough.

Well off parents do use state schools & they are excellent state schools? Why are people acting like only those who can pay are invested in education & state schools are all awful!

Exactly. Bitterness, jealousy and resentment is overwhelming on this thread.

critiquing a system that promotes inequality when we already have a lot of that doesn't have to come from resentment. Inequality isn't good for society.

@countrytown

How do you think it would improve state schools if well off parents used them? They do now surely and they are still not good enough.

Well off parents do use state schools & they are excellent state schools? Why are people acting like only those who can pay are invested in education & state schools are all awful!

Well yes They use state schools but not all state schools are good, some of them are and those are the ones people want to use. Lots of crap ones still

But state education isn't all or even mostly 'shit'. Resources have been poured into some parts of it (not the grammars! It's lucky they have got affluent parents because they get little money from the state).

For example, state schools have improved hugely in London in recent memory - London is funded more generously - that suggests money is definitely a factor. Plus London educates many DC from immigrant families where there is a strong focus on education and jobs to aspire to when you come out the other end.

London has also got a fair few newish state superselectives/schools with a strong focus on getting students into Oxbridge etc. I'm not going to name them but they are there.

Plus if you are a genuinely poor family with bright DC, there are a lot of bursary places around at privates.

As usual it is a bit more complicated than private versus state. There's also a gigantic postcode lottery and a bunch of politicians' pet projects.

Anyone who thinks that just using private tutors for an hour after school each night will magically tip such kids into the echelons of the elite on a par with full-time attendance at a glossy institution that ghettoises society socially and ensures that its pupils don't have to mix with 'everyone else' is disingenuous at best and damn ignorant at worst.

Lots of misconceptions on this thread. Firstly, yes, some independent schools are academically selective. A lot are not. I teach at an independent school (have also taught at state) and if you pay the fees, you have a place. I had quite a lot of bottom sets last year, and, on the whole, they were much weaker academically than the bottom sets I had taught in state.
The children get to play lots of sport, have music lessons, and their are countless plays every year.
State schools have improved massively, in terms of academic attainment, over the past few years. A lot of this is down to a rejection of progressive teaching and a focus on cognitive science in the classroom. This is essentially teaching to the test and many state schools, like Micheala, are using these methods to drive academic attainment, often in deprived areas. All good news.
In answer to this academic drive in state, many independent schools are increasingly offering a more "rounded" experience. Some are even calling outright for the abolition of exams.
These new directions of both sectors leave the situation much more difficult than many of you are assuming. If success can be measured, and assured, by academic attainment alone, then state schools are fast becoming these "engines of privilege". With performance management of teachers in state, and ofsted judgements making or breaking the careers of HTs, this trend will continue at pace.
Most independent schools are going to HAVE to become something else. This has opened up a new front in the battle; what is education actually for? The government dictates the answer to this question for ALL state schools. They have decided that education is to get the best job you possibly can, by achieving as many high grades in as many subjects as you possibly can.
Independent schools can answer the question in as many myriad ways as they like. Capitalism is an imperfect system, but it is the best of a bad bunch. It is dependent upon choice.

They use state schools but not all state schools are good, some of them are and those are the ones people want to use. Lots of crap ones still

Yes, there are bad ones but some posters are acting like they are all awful. There are crap private schools too.

Anyone who thinks that just using private tutors for an hour after school each night will magically tip such kids into the echelons of the elite on a par with full-time attendance at a glossy institution that ghettoises society socially and ensures that its pupils don't have to mix with 'everyone else' is disingenuous at best and damn ignorant at worst.

Don't forget a holiday or reading to them at bed! 😆

@Lanique

Anyone who thinks that just using private tutors for an hour after school each night will magically tip such kids into the echelons of the elite on a par with full-time attendance at a glossy institution that ghettoises society socially and ensures that its pupils don't have to mix with 'everyone else' is disingenuous at best and damn ignorant at worst.

This.

Think it all depends on whether you want to focus on levelling up (so that all schools are excellent) or creating equality - whether that improves children’s life chances or not. And if you did abolish private schools so there was no element of choice to take positive action - by paying - to choose your school , that ideology would also mean that any state selective school should also not be allowed to do so, and also any schools that have entry linked with religion. It would be such a massive overhaul that I think it would take decades to do. And presumably the same approaches would be needed for private healthcare and nursing homes etc. These are all part of the same state provided essentials that schools are. I am not in favour personally, my DC are at private schools, so I probably would not be! But if this argument was made, it has much more far reaching implications than just education.

@MasterGland you make some good points.

@MasterGland

Lots of misconceptions on this thread. Firstly, yes, some independent schools are academically selective. A lot are not. I teach at an independent school (have also taught at state) and if you pay the fees, you have a place. I had quite a lot of bottom sets last year, and, on the whole, they were much weaker academically than the bottom sets I had taught in state. The children get to play lots of sport, have music lessons, and their are countless plays every year. State schools have improved massively, in terms of academic attainment, over the past few years. A lot of this is down to a rejection of progressive teaching and a focus on cognitive science in the classroom. This is essentially teaching to the test and many state schools, like Micheala, are using these methods to drive academic attainment, often in deprived areas. All good news. In answer to this academic drive in state, many independent schools are increasingly offering a more "rounded" experience. Some are even calling outright for the abolition of exams. These new directions of both sectors leave the situation much more difficult than many of you are assuming. If success can be measured, and assured, by academic attainment alone, then state schools are fast becoming these "engines of privilege". With performance management of teachers in state, and ofsted judgements making or breaking the careers of HTs, this trend will continue at pace. Most independent schools are going to HAVE to become something else. This has opened up a new front in the battle; what is education actually for? The government dictates the answer to this question for ALL state schools. They have decided that education is to get the best job you possibly can, by achieving as many high grades in as many subjects as you possibly can. Independent schools can answer the question in as many myriad ways as they like. Capitalism is an imperfect system, but it is the best of a bad bunch. It is dependent upon choice.

Interesting post. This is exactly why we chose private over grammar: curricular freedom, lack of continual assessment and 'flightpaths', more non-academic opportunities. I'm sure exam results and university destination would have been just as good in state.

I'm voting YABU and I had a state school education. When I met my husband at uni, I had better grades from my grammar school than he had from his private school. (We may or may not still argue about his D in AS French being a negative.) That said, there was a different set of aspirations at our schools. My subject teacher told me she thought I wouldn't get into Durham (despite getting all As at GCSE and A level). It still slightly rankles...

My kids go to private school principally because the sports facilities and number of fixtures are great. Our local state schools also achieve excellent exam results. The private school kids I know are very aware of their opportunities and wouldn't look down on anyone at a state school or call them a pleb. That's unforgivable. The local sports clubs and state schools use our facilities every evening and through the weekend. There are extensive bursaries. Our Oxbridge numbers have declined substantially as unis seek to take from a wider background (which is understandable).

In a capitalist society, all kinds of advantage stems from wage and wealth inequality. I don't believe in abolishing choice, particularly when it would mean thousands more kids to fund in schools. Our local state schools do well because they have parents who encourage their kids to work hard rather than take the more tempting option of gaming all day or whatever. House prices are correlated to good state schools, thereby bringing it back to household income again. I don't feel that removing private schools would remove all the other benefits that money brings but it would increase the cost of education for the state.

Sorry, just noticed it wasn't in AIBU. Perhaps my geography teacher had a point about my lack of care in reading the question before I answer...

@countrytown

They use state schools but not all state schools are good, some of them are and those are the ones people want to use. Lots of crap ones still

Yes, there are bad ones but some posters are acting like they are all awful. There are crap private schools too.

Yes, a few - but you have the choice not to use those.

Haven’t rtft but no