To think private schools should be banned?

[BethanyBoobs]

Why should someone have a better education just because their parents have money? Why should someone have a better chance of getting into university because their parents paid for their education? It makes me feel uncomfortable that people can buy their kids an upper hand when it comes to education.

I feel the same way about private health care too.

IMO private schools should be banned. Everyone should have the same chances when it comes to their education.

Closing private schools and forcing little William to attend a state school with little adam will not improve Adams natural ability. It might have a negative impact on William because he will no longer have the benefit of smaller class sizes, but it will also have a negative impact on Adam because his class is even bigger then it was before and he gets even less assistance from the teacher than before.
Even worse, Adams little sister will have to go to a different school when she starts in reception because the school had a lot of applications this year with children from priority groups higher than the sibling rule and Williams sister took the last catchment place available under the sibling rule.
Not to worry though, because it won't affect future generations as all the people who live on Adams estate won't be able to get a place at that school at all in future because the catchment got smaller due to the influx of kids from the banned private school and now only those who can afford the hefty £500k house prices can live close enough to get a place at the school. Adam and his neighbours will just be resigned to the other school in the area which nobody would choose willingly.
Be careful what you wish for!

Happy birthday!
A few probably but with many if the houses costing 1m and the overwhelming majority of parents being highly successful professionals and 3% FSM then I think I'm save in saying it.
Oh and I'm very passionate about state ed too! Taught in inner city schools for many years despite the sheer emotional exhaustion of it. Spent lots of money over the years funding breakfasts, pens, Christmas treats, holes in Sch trip money etc. the difference between these schools and the ones local to me are huge.

I've taught with some fantastic staff but when you're faced with hungry children who haven't gone to bed before 2am and who look like they haven't washed in weeks. Who have never had any help of ever been heard read at home, all before you get started trying to teach and motivate them then it's a tough job compared to what it would be in an affluent area and results are bound to reflect this.

So build more school!!!

If those who have money for improved education give it up for improved education (ie pay more tax) then there will be enough school places for all who need it.

My LA has a shortage of places every year (relatively affluent area) Most of the schools are okay but there is one failing school with just 30 places available each year.

Instead of supplying new schools/places, the LA simply allocate 90 kids to those 30 places knowing that on allocation the majority will withdraw and send their kids to the abundance of local private schools instead. if at least 30 of those kids of affluent parents, each year sent their kids to that school and got involved it wouldn't BE failing.

I don't think money does equate to better parents across the board.
That's part of the point I'm trying to make and for which I gave a clear example earlier

I could send my kids private but I would choose state any day. I don't want a posh talking robot with the guts knocked out of them,

On what basis have you arrived at the conclusion that private schools and posh talking robots with the guts knocked out of them are interlinked?
Do you have any concrete evidence of this or is it just a judgement that you have made with no real evidence base?
Would it be okay for somebody to say 'I could choose state schools for my children, but I don't want a Pot smoking pregnant chav on my hands'. It's just as ridiculous and judgmental.

Many Parents of children in some state schools do not have the time or resources to compensate for their children's comparatively poor education

Time is something most people can give! If nothing else, they can spend time.

I have ds1 at grammar, ds2 in local comp and dd at the same state primary that her brothers went to.
Ds1 had 9 months of tutoring (50 mins a week) ds2 had a year before the 11+ and a year through yr6.
This year I have bought books and am trying to support ds2 with his subjects as we would like dd to start tutoring in September for her 11+ so need to save this yr. She would like to go to the same as ds1, but it is very difficult to qualify for. 120 places with no catchment.
We both earn just over minimum wage so hardly fit the stereotype grammar parents.
Ds2 will probably need tutoring to get through his gcses, he will work harder and overcome more obstacles than his siblings.
If I could afford private education for him, I would.
You can either waste your energy complaining about how unfair life is, or you roll up your sleeves and make the best of what you have.

How does buildling more schools help this?
It won't!

You will get a two-tier state system.

You will never be able to make this equal and forcing rich people to pay for it through taxes is ridiculous.

Little enclaves of home ed'ing will be started and you will have a different problem, but with similar outcomes.

Mad - just as I said - you see this as an issue where the rights of well off people to spend their money how they wish should take precedence over the right of all children to equality of opportunity in education.

Oh and RaRa, I very much consider state school provision when voting and always bring it up when it's local election time and the prospective councillor arrives on my doorstep.

DH pays a huge amount of tax and it's right that he does so as we are fortunate financially. We are both very keen that state provision is improved despite not using it for our own children. From an objective pov, it benefits the whole of society and from a more personal pov, I think every child should be entitled to a good standard of education regardless of their background. That may not include the extras that my fees pay for such as rugby, lamda or climbing club but it should include decent teachers and facilities. The state system is awash with excellent teachers but what these schools need is financial support to ensure they are able to teach rather than police. That there is enough staff to engage the motivated and to motivate the disengaged.

You can either waste your energy complaining about how unfair life is, or you roll up your sleeves and make the best of what you have

^

THIS is exactly the attitude we need, not to shut down a load of private schools and make rich people pay.

Agreed OP. Never going to happen under capitalism though. Capitalism is rooted in the idea of constantly reinforcing inequality through measures like private schooling.

Who is mad? Who is your point to minifingers?

I think the idea that forcing rich people to pay more than they already do (which is the lion's share anyway) through taxes is deeply flawed and will not improve state ed standards overall.

Damn - Or we can organise politically to change things for the better.

Money most certainly doesn't equate to better parenting!

Some of the parents at our school frankly expect school to bring up their children for them. They stupidly think that's what they are paying for. They are idiots!

Likewise, whilst I've seen a huge amount of disinterest from poorer parents, I have also seen parents on the bones of their bums, catch buses late at night to manage to attend parents evenings or award evenings. Who can't afford the £7 for the school trip but risk indignity by coming in and explaining that and offering £1!
Shit parenting knows no class bounds. It just manifests itself differently in different circumstances.

noddy - so no generalising there then? Out of the 800 boys I teach at a private secondary we have no 'robots' and they talk with straightforward southern accents. The school is a business in the sense that it has to balance the books but the "profits" go into providing facilities, staff and experiences for the students, most of whose parents make big sacrifices to meet the fees. Oh and to provide scholarships and bursaries also. They have huge personalities and have a great time at school. I hate that people with no actual experience of the sector assume all private schools are Harrow and Eton with millions to spare every year.

Yes, but why do you think that shutting down private schools is the way to do that?

How is having bright Andrew who has moved from private schools, and less bright Jack who has always been in that school, in the same but now much larger class, going to help either of them.

It's a very 'western attitude' to lay responsibility of this at the government's door and say 'make it better'

Primary kids spends 6.5 hours per day in school, approximately 4 of which is in education. Do you really think that this is more important than familial influence.

Target the parents and carers, get a motivated parent body. You don't need money to do that - you need good governors, a parents that give a shit.

Oh and as to "charitable status" we have an extensive programme of partnerships with local state schools and other organsiations such as Care Homes. Local residents use our sporting facilities for a fraction of the cost of a private gym and if we did have to pay business rate taxes the fess WOULD have to rise beyond the point of being remotely within reach of virtually anyone.

Influence from home is definitely the biggest factor in predicting outcomes for children. However, where positive influence is sadly lacking, we do need to better financially support the schools teaching these children as that's often the only chance they've got!

Good reason to introduce business rates then.

What I meant to say is, you don't need vast amount of money to do this.

. However, where positive influence is sadly lacking, we do need to better financially support the schools teaching these children as that's often the only chance they've got!

But as numerous posters have pointed out, closing private schools won't necessarily result in state schools being financially supported better. The most likely outcome is that we create a bigger problem with lack of available places. The govt isn't going to suddenly find extra money to support state schools if it decides to close and ban all private schools. The govt already make Extra money available for children on FSM at state schools. In some areas a huge percentage of children are entitled to free school meals but those schools are often still the most poorly performing despite all the additional money.
Money alone will not improve poor schools. It will not improve parental attitude. It will not improve natural aptitude. It will not improve external influences. It might, however, make the kids from low income backgrounds feel more deprived when they compare themselves with the child who has come from a recently closed private school.

No, you don't. It just needs to be targeted correctly. You could always save money by not having 3 people of the job of one person at the LEA though. Then you'd just have one person refusing to answer the phone or open their kiosk until the big hand strikes 12 at 8.30 precisely. Then ignoring it as it's 1minute past 4pm and they finish work at 4pm.

impatient, I will have 4 in the private sector. I annoy an advocate of abolishing private schools. But many state schools need better targeted resources in order to allow all the kids there to reach their potential. I know thus because I've taught in the thick if it!

I am not an advocate