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?

@HereticFanjo

Yes they absolutely should be abolished and certainly the charitable status.

But why? All of them? Including those that cater to SEN kids or religious/ cultural needs? What about those that operate in inner city areas where the local schools already have 35 to a class? How about children that need to board?

@PostMenPatWithACat

In our London Borough no state school offered triple science, Latin or a range of MFLs.

Dipping back in to this thread after missing the last days worth of posts…. But this post struck me as being quite important. And I’m stunned (although I’m not really ). This is a major problem with state education in the UK, it’s so bloody random. My DDs state school offers triple science alongside trilogy science, for those that will benefit from it. And that’s the point, they judge who does which block of science based on what’s better for the individual student and not what they think will get the better overall result for the school. The way state schools are judged/ranked is a real problem in terms of what they feel they then can offer students. IE the DfE focus on the results in a small set of subjects determining how a school is ranked and judged, means many (particularly Academies) are moving away from the wider curriculum, that would be or could be so beneficial to so many students, because it doesn’t improve their standing in the way they are judged, so they don’t/can’t invest TE and M in subjects like Art, Drama and Music. Something that independent schools don’t have to worry about. My DDs state school offers Spanish, French, German, Mandarin and Russian. And Latin. And The Classics. It also places as much importance on Music and Art as it does on Science. And that’s probably because they can, because they’re a selective school and so their results are always going to be very good academically so they (and independent schools) can afford to offer a more rounded selection of subjects to their students than non selective state schools. This is bloody ridiculous and completely inequitable. And the isn’t to abolish independent and selective schools, the answer is to make all state schools a place of more rounded and wide ranging education for all pupils from all walks of life.

I don't think anybody has yet addressed the questions about private housing, private healthcare etc. If you're in favour of abolishing private schools, do you think it's OK for somebody to spend their money on a much nicer than average house (let's say a lovely four bed detached with a big garden, which would cost well over a million in many affluent areas now)? If so - why is it OK to buy one kind of privilege but not another? Why are you not criticising people with nice houses as 'part of the inequality problem'? Is it OK for someone who lives in such a house to be housing minister, or does it have to be someone who's lived in social housing?

I think the real issue is that you can't compare students from state schools and students from private schools with the same measuring stick. I've worked and taught at several universities, and students from state schools typically do better than students from private schools with the same entry grades. Probably because state school kids have needed a lot more of their own steam to get where they are.

This means that you can't judge a student on grades alone, the school needs to be taken into account.

No I don’t think they should be abolished. Nor should piano lessons, detached homes, foreign holidays or language lessons. But I do think the level of inequality in Britain is abhorrent and the Tory Party/FPTP is largely to blame. The raisin d’etre of the Tories is servicing the wants of the British and global elite within the UK environment. If you earn six figures like I do, they might govern in your own selfish short term interest.

@Nokitchenmary
religious/ cultural needs
We shouldn’t have schools specifically catering for parental delusion.

@Andante57

How can someone like Jacob Rees Mogg represent the poorest in his constituency?

Travellinglighter how do you plan to stop his constituents from voting for him? There were other candidates in his constituency to choose from if the voters so wished.

Can’t stop them from picking him, I’m just amazed that in the 21st century that someone who so obviously is contemptuous of the poor and even the middle classes can be considered a serious candidate. It’s only in a system that weighs so heavily on bought privilege that he would get away with being so horribly old fashioned.

@user67542489

I don't think anybody has yet addressed the questions about private housing, private healthcare etc. If you're in favour of abolishing private schools, do you think it's OK for somebody to spend their money on a much nicer than average house (let's say a lovely four bed detached with a big garden, which would cost well over a million in many affluent areas now)? If so - why is it OK to buy one kind of privilege but not another? Why are you not criticising people with nice houses as 'part of the inequality problem'? Is it OK for someone who lives in such a house to be housing minister, or does it have to be someone who's lived in social housing?

It’s not about the money, I’d have no issue with parents paying extra for the really good things that private schools bring to the table and if private schools were willing to do more for the poor and needy then I’d have no issue with them. What I don’t like is quite simply the fact that if you want to be a CEO, a successful politician, journalist or actor then attend the right school and doors will open for you.

You can go to a comprehensive and do all that but it’s much more difficult. How many QC’s have a scouse accent? How many senior judges came from a council estate. It’s not because the poor are thicker, it’s because at some point you are going to go into an interview and if you don’t look and sound like those doing the interview, they are going to think you don’t fit the profile. The way to get more people from a poorer backgrounds into those jobs is to start making the system fairer.

If you transfer private school kids into a local comp, they will dominate all the top sets and you will again complain about inequity.

Also, what stops you from applying for a bursary at a private school? My son’s school boasts 75% of children getting some sort of assistance and quite a few are on 100% bursaries. Maybe if you can’t beat them, join them? Instead of sitting around and waiting for things to drop into your lap, become proactive and actually invest time and effort in your own child.

Yes yes yes.

@Summerishere12

If you transfer private school kids into a local comp, they will dominate all the top sets and you will again complain about inequity.

When I think of fellow course mates from university, I highly doubt that.

@Summerishere12,

Private schools are not only for the bright. Anyone who wants to find a private school to take their child, and can afford the fees, can do so.

The actual evidence suggests that private school pupils have an IQ (cognitive scores these days 8-10 points higher than the national average). An IQ of 110 will very rarely get you access to a top university.

So, no, although a slightly higher proportion of private school pupils may end up in the top sets, due to private school pupils being about 7% of the population, the top sets will still be very much dominated by state school pupils.

Private school pupils are often surprised and taken aback by how strong the best of state school pupils are when they attend Oxbridge stretch and challenge classes, for instance, as they make the same erroneous assumptions that you have.

@MsTSwift

My parents attend many dinner parties where the parents who paid for private bemoan what a waste of money it was as all of us now adults and there is no discernible difference in achievement or happiness in fact weirdly the state “children” now late 40s have done “better” career wise

Are you arguing for or against abolishing private schools here? It's not clear

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@Bryonyshcmyony,

Why do you think double vs triple science IS a big deal?

Which aspects of the course that are missed out do you think are critical to good progression to A level?[/quote]
I did combined science at GCSE level. Got an A*.

Went to the main Grammar in the area to do my A-Levels where they did triple science from year 7. I was HUGELY out of my depth. Completely.

@MasterGland

Triple science is difficult to timetable. Some comps offer it as an options choice, whilst others have compulsory triple in the top sets, teaching the content at a faster pace. It can be very difficult to secure appropriate timetable time for science. We are the poor relation in the core subjects, always secondary to Maths and English.

Astounding. I wonder why. Science is the most interesting and engaging subject schools teach! (In my opinion)

@torchh,

Combined Science is not double award Science! And this is the problem with many parents who confuse double award Science with ‘foundation science’ or ‘combined science’.

Double award Science is EXACTLY the same course as triple award minus about 20% of the content. And double award scientists do go on to study science at A level and do excellently.

Of course, for A levels, the more science you have already done, the better, do triple award is ideal, but double award is not a big handicap for the talented.

Our local comprehensive school offers double and triple science at GCSE. Ds1 did double, Ds 2 did triple. Both covered a lot of science.

Our neighbours dd did double science despite planning to do science A levels as she really wanted to do some other subjects at GCSE and would have had to drop one of them to accommodate triple science. She went on to get brilliant science A levels, went to Oxford Uni to do her degree, did a PhD at Oxford and is now doing postdoc work at Cambridge. Her dad is a Professor in Boochrnistry at Cambridge and he saw no problem with her doing double science not triple.

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@torchh,

Combined Science is not double award Science! And this is the problem with many parents who confuse double award Science with ‘foundation science’ or ‘combined science’.

Double award Science is EXACTLY the same course as triple award minus about 20% of the content. And double award scientists do go on to study science at A level and do excellently.

Of course, for A levels, the more science you have already done, the better, do triple award is ideal, but double award is not a big handicap for the talented.[/quote]
I did double award science and got AA*.
Apologies for confusing the two.

Triple science was still so much harder

How are you saying it's EXACTLY the same while acknowledging it's missing 20% of content?

No

25% of children in this city attend private school and the state ones are all bursting at the seams with cabins in playgrounds for extra classrooms, others being set up in hallways etc. They'd better start printing money and building if it's to be the case

It’s not about the money, I’d have no issue with parents paying extra for the really good things that private schools bring to the table and if private schools were willing to do more for the poor and needy

What exactly do you want them to do? Do BUPA give bursaries? Do companies loan their staff out for free in disadvantaged communities? Does David Lloyd let groups on low incomes use their facilities? Do Amazon and Google and Facebook pay their workers more and management less to protect people from poverty in the first place…do they even pay their TAXES in order to put something back into society? Have charities always spent a fair proportion of their income on charitable activities? Are the charitable foundations of large firms set up with purely philanthropist practises at their core?

No. Private schools do more for “the poor and needy” than many other organisations already. Bursaries are in some cases quite widely available. Many schools already share their resources (staff and facilities) with state schools in the community. Is it enough to earn their charitable status, I don’t know, I’m no expert. But if you take that away and increase fees by 20% you’ll have a huge number of families wanting places in the state system that aren’t available.

You don’t seem to be as worried about this though as the extent to which people make connections through schools, I have built a successful career from a state school background and don’t feel that it disadvantaged me when it came to forming relationships. People have been far more interested in choices and networks I’ve made since then, the way I’ve overcome challenges and different situations.

The way to get more people from a poorer backgrounds into those jobs is to start making the system fairer

Again, the people at fault here are the employers. How do you expect private schools to influence this? What I really despair of is the idea that the best way to make a system fair is to dumb down achievements at the top end in order to make achievements at the bottom end look “less bad”.

It’s easy to attack private schools, the elite, etc etc. To really make a difference you have to focus on raising the achievements and opportunities of those at the bottom. That’s the job of the state, communities, families together. Not just private schools.

Sorry - I've bit rtft to this may have been covered. As an SEN practitioner I've seen lots of kids whose MH has been trashed by their state school being a bad fit for them. This is particularly the case for very bright students with ASD, SpLDs and those who become school-phobic due to bullying etc. SOME (note that word) private schools can do a fantastic job with these kids if they have a high quota of nerdy kids and small classes and I wish the LA would support those families more in securing a place. I've known a few more potentially vulnerable children flourish in these settings and also destroyed kids arriving to us from state who do not fit into our special school either. Schools can tend to be sausage factories and there needs to be more good-quality options for many children who are bright "square pegs". I could honestly cry when I think about some of the stories students have told me. My school may not be completely right for them academically but they feel safe. There's a place for other options but obviously I wish these were open to all. The system's a mess.

I don't much like the idea of private schools, but I certainly don't feel strongly enough to ban them. In most cases, I think they're a colossal waste of money anyway, as most of the kids would do just as well in the state system. A lot of the advantages that these schools appear to confer are actually as much about class privilege as the actual schools themselves. Most middle class children attending state schools will have high aspirations and plenty of opportunities, and there really isn't a huge difference in outcomes for these groups.

The real problem that we have with social mobility is that many children from poorer families are already behind their peers when they start school, and then the school system seems to perpetuate and exacerbate that gap. I think schools do what they can to try and bring those children up to the same level but we need to do something much more radical to make this work. I also think that we need to invest more heavily in the early years as the gap is already there before these children even get near a school.

If you ban private schools, the children of aspirational middle class parents will still continue to get better results and dominate certain careers. It won't solve the problem. We need to target support at the kids who really need it.