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?

@kofiday

Almost every single successful person has been to private school, it is the single most defining feature in a person's career. I'd love it if they were abolished.

Not my experience at all. What is your definition of ‘success’?

^ for grammar schools I mean

I'm defining success in capitalistic terms I.e who makes the most money

No.
I wouldn't send my kid to one, but due to my difficult and rather complicated childhood I ended up in the private system and the support I got there helped me a lot.

@kofiday

I'm defining success in capitalistic terms I.e who makes the most money

What sort of income level?

@kofiday

Name your favourite actress, actor, musician, mp, ceo of your favourite company. They've all been to private school, I bet.

No, actress and musicians state. The only MP I’ve met was state. I know people from comp in very senior management positions (not ceo but salaries towards a million). I could agree with you that a few occupations are dominated by privately educated people but actually they’re not necessarily the top earners. If you look at pop musicians and footballers they would be on higher salaries and not biased towards privately educated. I’d also argue that it only applies to the elite private schools and that the school they went to is reflective of their position in life and not causative.

No

But I don’t believe private schools should have charitable status that some of our most elite schools do is outrageous

More the problem is low wages and high rents

@kofiday

I'm defining success in capitalistic terms I.e who makes the most money

I get you. Look at Ewan McGregor and his brother Colin. Both educated at Morrison's Academy in Crieff 🤷

Both very successful in their adulthood.

@countrytown

This thread is quite eye opening. I though MNs was more leftie & into social mobility.

🙊😂🤣🤭🤣 seriously?!

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?

They learn they are better than everyone else - Michael Rosen

They pay for an education
that teaches them that they are
better than everyone else.
They live in enclaves
that separate them off from
everyone else.
They buy health treatment
so that they don't have to be
in waiting rooms and hospitals
with everyone else.
They are driven about in cars
so that they don't have to travel
with everyone else.
They arrive in Parliament
to rule over
everyone else.
They sit in rows baying and jeering
at PMQs
at the letters sent in by
everyone else.
They sit in rows baying and jeering
at PMQs
at the kinds of clothes worn

Who are "they" exactly"? Does he mean rich people? Tories? 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?

I know, let's just kill the wealthy people!!! That'll solve it!

What a load of generalised leftie nonsense!

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.

No.

State schools are very limited and can only do so much also many suffer from mixed aims and abilities.

I have a dd with sen and our local non selective private school is great for those with sen. I can't afford too but I'd send her there in a shot if I could.
. We need more variety in schools not less.

??

@KeflavikAirport

Yes. Send all the rich kids to state school, and suddenly they will be magically properly funded. The fact that Eton et al have charitable status is frankly a massive piss take.

This. Totally this.

Yes - the children haven't earnt the money, they have had the good fortune to be born into wealthier families. If those parents are that passionate about education, they could donate the fees to the state school their child goes to in order to improve the facilities for everyone.

Most people want to fix inequality.

No, they really don't. Let me ask a question. If everyone on this thread won 5 million on the lottery tomorrow (or inherited it from a long lost uncle or whatever), what would they do with it?

I've no doubt there are some very altruistic people on the thread, who would give a lot to charity (as would I). Some might even give the large majority. But how many people, hand on heart, could say that they would not use a sizeable amount to do at least one of the following:

1. Buy a bigger house.
2. Improve their lifestyle with nicer holidays, experiences etc.
3. Buy a house for their child.
4. Set up some sort of trust fund for their children to pay for university/ get on the housing ladder/ generally get set up in adult life.

All of these are about buying privilege and passing it on to the next generation. Yes, many people want to reduce inequality and improve the lot of poorer people, but the vast majority want to preserve the basic capitalist principle of people being able to use their money to improve their own lives and those of their children (which naturally means buying things that some other people don't have).

If you accept that, then private schools are just one of the countless ways that people can use money to improve their lives. Yes, you can make an argument that education is a special case. But you could also argue that the state already seeks to redress the educational balance by providing free education at all (go back a couple of hundred years, and it didn't). By all means campaign for abolishing private schools, but I think there needs to be a very clear-sighted rationale for why we are abolishing private schools but not all other forms of inequality where people with money are essentially allowed to spend it on what they like.

Also our local comp is 99.9% white British

Yes, because we are in Britain

@SpaceBethSmith

Private schools are a self fulfilling prophecy. They only take smart kids so they get the highest grades.

No this isn't true. Our first Indi took every one. They had a excellent SN and dyslexia department.

And no, private schools shouldn't be abolished.

The issue isn't Private schools its the lack of funding the Government give to Schools and deprived areas which go hand in hand.

So nothing to so with Private schools.

And you don't find equally by pulling people down. You raise people up. If the Government will not do this and the parents can not do this - its not on me.

There's a great book called "Engines of Privilege: Britain's Private School Problem" that I very much recommend. I was state educated but have taught at both

Yes, every aspiring Marxist should read this

'Engines of Privilege'? Blimey! And you have taught at schools? Scary

@user67542489

Most people want to fix inequality.

No, they really don't. Let me ask a question. If everyone on this thread won 5 million on the lottery tomorrow (or inherited it from a long lost uncle or whatever), what would they do with it?

I've no doubt there are some very altruistic people on the thread, who would give a lot to charity (as would I). Some might even give the large majority. But how many people, hand on heart, could say that they would not use a sizeable amount to do at least one of the following:

1. Buy a bigger house.
2. Improve their lifestyle with nicer holidays, experiences etc.
3. Buy a house for their child.
4. Set up some sort of trust fund for their children to pay for university/ get on the housing ladder/ generally get set up in adult life.

All of these are about buying privilege and passing it on to the next generation. Yes, many people want to reduce inequality and improve the lot of poorer people, but the vast majority want to preserve the basic capitalist principle of people being able to use their money to improve their own lives and those of their children (which naturally means buying things that some other people don't have).

If you accept that, then private schools are just one of the countless ways that people can use money to improve their lives. Yes, you can make an argument that education is a special case. But you could also argue that the state already seeks to redress the educational balance by providing free education at all (go back a couple of hundred years, and it didn't). By all means campaign for abolishing private schools, but I think there needs to be a very clear-sighted rationale for why we are abolishing private schools but not all other forms of inequality where people with money are essentially allowed to spend it on what they like.

Exactly this.

Funny how people expect to share everyone else's money

And you don't find equally by pulling people down. You raise people up

This

@Havehope21

Yes - the children haven't earnt the money, they have had the good fortune to be born into wealthier families. If those parents are that passionate about education, they could donate the fees to the state school their child goes to in order to improve the facilities for everyone.

State schools need massive funding reforms. A handful of wealthy parents making a contribution isn't going to fix that problem. Thing is, it's easy not to believe in private schools or grammar or whatever while childless or when DC are tiny, but in the real world when it comes to our own children most of us do everything we can to give them the very best opportunities so they can have a good life. Would I send my child to the local comp if I could afford a house in the area of an excellent one or if I could comfortably pay for private? Of course not, and most of us are the same. If I can I will also help my children by paying towards uni and giving them something towards a house deposit. I will also use some contacts to help them gain work experience if I can. It is disingenuous to shout 'abolish private schools' unless you are willing to give your own child less, even if you can afford more (in any area).

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