to hate it when people talk about "indie" schools

[gobehindabushfgs]

in an attempt to make it sound cool, edgy and alternative? it isn't. it's private education. it's a right-wing, ultimately selfish decision.

"indie"

Well I don't think anyone would say 'I want my child to mix with poor kids'. Possibly they might say they wanted them to mix with children of varied backgrounds?

Even if all private schools were abolished tomorrow does anyone really think it would impact on those kids whom state education is failing?

It would just push house prices up even more in catchments such as the one we've just moved from. Their would be no social mixing.

Does anyone honestly think that my Dcs would have gained a better social mix at my (then)local state primary where houses cost upwards of 500k and every other car on the school run was a range rover or X5? Honestly?

OK - doea anyone know how much extra tax we'd each have to pay if another 620,000 children joined the state system?

Most of us - nothing at all, because obviously if you abolished private schools you'd pay for the extra kids in the state system by raising the higher tax rates. Surely that's what you'd do, seeker?

I've seen it said on several threads on this subject that people want their children to grow up knowing other children are less fortunate than them. Don't ask me where because I'm not going to go trawling through old threads.

As I've already said, I find that really patronising.

I just said that I didn't. My argument isn't that state education would improve if private schools didn't exist (and I don't think I'd actually ban them if I ruled the world). It's not actually all about schools for me. Which is odd, given my profession.

My question about social mix was genuine btw.

There has been lots of talk on here about avoiding social mix and getting more of a social mix. Personally, I just can't see that that would have happened.

That's got to be a really hard figure to calculate. For one thing, all that money currently going on fees. What would people do with it? Would they spend it (increasing VAT revenue)? Save it? Not bother earning it in the first place?

Oh I see!
Well I've seen lots of posts on lots of threads that I can't find and won't look for where people have said they pay for private cos they don't want their children near any poor people at all, so I suppose it all evens out!

The most radical left-wing government the UK has ever had decided not to nationalise the independent schools (Attlee government). They thought about it, I believe, but settled in the end for creating the direct grant system which involved a lot of academically selective day schools taking state school children at 11 on free places or heavily subsidised places. I was one such. Labour abolished it in 76. The assisted places scheme was a pale shadow of the direct grant.

Now if even the Attlee government didn't nationalise independent schools, leaving all points of principle aside, what are the chances of any government in the near future, whether Labour or Tory or LibDem, deciding to take that step? Can anyone really see it happening?

Well, yes, Jenai. I was only working to pay fees.
We've moved and they are currently in the local primary as we're about to move again but that was my main reason for going back to work.

I'm not sure why you find it patronising. I think awareness of other people's lives is pretty important. I think it's less patronising to gain it through daily shared experiences than it is through some kind of charity or outreach activity, which I have seen mooted as an alternative.

LondonM, I don't think it will ever happen, no. It would if I were in power, though.

You are so funny JoanofArgos.

Is anyone going to answer my question about social mix?
I'm asking because that is one of the fundamental arguments put forward in these debates yet it simply does not appy in all cases.

"Where I grew up there was a feeling that you stick to your own, not get to big for your boots and certainly never try to be sucessful or (whisper) rich."

I think that's a very good point Joni. I was brought up around people like that (though my parents esp. my mum were more aspirational).

There is an element of that in selecting a private school though I think too, that you want your kids to mix with only the wealthy.

I also freely admit that I feel intimidated and annoyed by some of the local parents with kids at private school who zoom around in their overly massive shiny vehicles, always look immaculate themselves and go home to their massive immaculate houses. People who are motivated by status and money above all else, seemingly, and think they are superior beings. I don't actually want to mix with people like that myself if I can avoid it but of course not everyone is like that and I recognise there is a lot of inverted snobbery on my part there!

So it's not just the kids, it's the parents. I must admit I feel a lot more similar to and comfortable with the other parents at my daughter's state school.

If all the private schools were abolished, there would still be unfairness in the educational system. The "best" schools would tend to be in middle class areas (I know there are exceptions, but the trend is undeniable) and the worst schools in areas of social deprivation. Would we then start "bus-ing" kids in from different neighbourhoods to achieve the desired social mix?

Also, the argument that putting kids who would have been privately-educated into state schools will raise standards does not hold water if, as some on this thread have claimed, private schools are used to insulate thick rich kids from the hoi polloi.

Private schools are a red herring imo. Abolishing them would achieve nothing, except give a momentary glow to socialist ideologists. A new educational pecking order would emerge, based on post codes and, indirectly, income.

Spend some of it on extra activities for their kids which now weren't being provided by the school. Spend some of it on wrap-around-daycare. Spend some on tutoring.

Save quite a bit of it for university fees/living expenses/deposit on first house.

All state schools may be equal, but some are more equal than others.

If a parent has sent his/her child to the nearest state school regardless of the facilities, results, Ofsted, behaviour of pupils, faith of school or any other factor, then IMO that parent has made a strong political statement and has every right to hold strong opinions against private schools.

If a parent has actually selected a specific state school, possibly changing house or even faith to do so, then I personally don't see that as a political statement supporting state education.

Primary schools will always be smaller scale, and should be community-based IMO, but a lottery system would perhaps have an effect on catchments for secondaries.

If we weren't paying fees, we'd be saving for our retirement and spending it on the house, clothes, meals out, days out, going to the cinema/theatre/concerts/books and taking more foreign holidays (my guess is we'd be doing very little positive for the balance of trade).

Attempts at increasing tax on the very rich are usually counter-productive because they either move abroad or they employ accountants to work out legal ways of avoiding tax. Better to have a tax system that feels fairer, because people spend a lot less time trying to get out of it and you raise a lot more for lower collection and assessment costs.

i can't stand it when people - eg OP - talk about local schools meaning state schools.

your most local school might be an independent school

The retort to those who think private education is iniquitous and wrong and perpetuates inequality always seems to be to pretend those people are actually communists and will not rest until everything is exactly equal, and that they will be silenced when it is pointed out that things will never be thus.

Of course there will always be more and less affluent areas, of course some schools will always have a more middle class intake than others.

I still think private education is wrong.

TheFallenMadonna.

I have probably been judged my entire life because of where I'm from and my accent and I hate the idea of posh parents wanting their kids mixing with the likes of me for some kind of 'experience.'

Does that explain it?

why don't people focus on educating their own kids and stop worrying how others do it?

I don't see the home ed lot lobbying to abolish state schools

similarly I don't give a rats arse if jonny welbeck-brown down the road goes to eton

instead of blathering about inequality why don't you use those loud voices to insist on your children getting a decent education in the state sector?

"If all the private schools were abolished, there would still be unfairness in the educational system."

Probably so, but I don't think unfairness/inequality still existing after you have done something positive to reduce it is an argument for not at least trying to make things more fair/better.