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.

What often happens is some bright young spark in Whitehall decides he's 'got it' the answer to failing or poorly performing state schools is XYZ! So government nod and spend a fortune rolling out some bollocks initiative which has little or zero impact on the ground despite being a headline grabber.
They need bodies in classrooms. They need financial support to allow and properly develop branching at 14 into a more vocational route for kids who are not academic and are bored rigid by science and a mfl. Keep them engaged and appreciating what school has to offer them. Allow them to come out at 16 with something they see as worthwhile and they are more likely to stick it out and conform.

Poorer people do NOT have time. They have long shifts, multiple jobs, cannot afford convenience shopping like online, supermarket etc and have to use markets. Travel times on buses are longer than cars/parking. No cleaner, no takeaways. Have to peel veg instead of buy peeled etc etc.

'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.'

I think you mean financially better off Andrew from private and less well off Jack really, don't you?

YABVU. My DD went to a crap primary school, so she needed to go to private so she could catch and get to her average in her year level. If it wasn't for that she still would be struggling today. A lot of the schools where I live aren't great I wanted to give my DD the best opportunity possible. But it probably helps that her fees are only $500 a term.

What else do you want to ban?

DD1 is a very talented singer. I pay for her to have lessons and to join in national singing events. I'm sad that other parents might not be able to afford to do that for their equally gifted children. But does that mean I shouldn't give my DD1 the opportunity?

Swimming lessons? Riding? Ballet? Ban those too as not everyone can afford them?

We chose to pay for a small (no frills and relatively inexpensive compared to many) independent school for DD1 and DD2 as the schools in our area were quite a poor standard. The alternative would have been to move to a better area. We could afford one or the other but not both. We chose to stay where we were in a modest house and pay for an independent school. We made sacrifices to do do. Others would have chosen differently. And I acknowledge some wouldn't have the choice at all. But why shouldn't we be allowed to make that choice? My close friend who lives in a similar area couldn't afford either to move or pay for an independent school. She elected to home educate both her children. Would you ban that too as not everyone has the resources to do it?

YABVU and very silly.

Rara - lots of wealthier people don't have the time either, because they are busy working 50+ hours ever week to pay the school fees. They can't all afford cleaners and frequent takeaways or convenience foods.
Some poorer people do have the time, not all poor people work long shifts and multiple jobs. Some have a stay home parent or no working parents at all.
Time is an issue on both sides of the fence. Some people have time and some don't, regardless of income and wealth levels.

' 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.'

Ha ha! I worked in LAs for 10 years and that is so how it is. Not all have that attitude but a good many are very busy doing nothing that ever leads to an outcome. Feasibility studies of feasibility studies galore!!!!

'Rara - lots of wealthier people don't have the time either, because they are busy working 50+ hours ever week to pay the school fee'

But they have a choice. They could work less hours. They can afford to and still eat. It is a matter of priorities. And choosing money over time spent with kids is a luxury choice.

In an ideal world, where all things are equal, we wouldn't need fee paying independent schools. But we don't live in that world and it's unlikely that we ever will. It shouldn't stop us trying though, I appreciate that.

Both my children are at fee paying schools for a number of reasons. The primary reason is to give them a continuity of education. We move around every 18 months or so which would necessitate the children moving schools, sometimes twice in an academic year, if they were state educated (granted, there are state boarding schools but not enough to take all the children who need a place). That wouldn't be too bad if the standard of education and the syllabus was the same absolutely everywhere but it's not and the kids would be thoroughly disadvantaged by moving school so often.

And the OPs sister who thinks if she takes the private route her child won't come into contact with gay teachers, parents, children, SEN children is so far off mark it's laughable and she's in for a massive shock. My son spends most of his time in LSU and my daughter's favourite (and bloody fabulous) teacher is gay.

I would point out that people who move house for catchment are paying far, far more money than people who are in private education...

The short, short version

1. My child is at private school
2. It doesn't hold charitable status
3. It isn't better because it is a private school. It is the best primary in the area. All private schools are not better than all state schools - it is simply a comparison of those in your area.
4. There is an openly gay teacher, he brings his husband to school events, just like the other members of staff do.
5. The school has a thriving special needs department.

I think that's covered everything

Had we had more choice state system wise we probably wouldn't have gone private.

Nancy Jones - look at Hulme in Manchester as an example for funding not being the complete answer (I'm not disagreeing with you BTW, just selecting an example). Webster primary is an inner city manchester school receiving £5300 per pupil each year. 74% of the pupils get FSM funding. The school is performing below the national average and below the Manchester average.
St bedes college which is around a mile away charges £6360 pa and whilst I am unsure of its ks2 results I am led to believe that they are well above the factional average.
Clarendon cottage prep school (around 4 miles away) charges £4250 pa and whilst it doesn't publish ks2 results it is very successful at getting children into selective senior schools.
Both st bedes and Clarendon cottage have much smaller classes than Webster, but the funding is not significantly different (one being more and the other being less). So clearly funding is not the whole issue. Throwing money at schools is not the answer. Closing private schools is not the answer. Some financial management training for the schools might be part of the answer. A lot of the proposed ideas mentioned on this thread are no more than a very low adhesive sticking plaster.

I forgot the link to webster primary school

www.eduinfo.co.uk/school/webster-primary-school-manchester-2/

I know Hulme and it's issues very well. I don't think it's just about throwing money but about correctly targeting that money.

Rara see my post 1051

We were working 80+ hours a week when ds1 started with his education.

We made time because we believe that education is important and that our dcs deserved the best chance that we could give them.

I now work less hours so that I can plan and prepare work for ds2 and dd.

But who is going to target it appropriately? I know of pupil premium being spent on horse riding and tennis lessons when the children cannot read and write to the expected level. It's quite fanciful for people (not yourself) to think that charging higher taxes for those who can afford independent school fees and forcing them to use state schools is suddenly going to mean that funds will be spent better and that the education of children from deprived backgrounds will magically improve.

I no longer live in the NW but I also know that Manchester are a fairly rubbish LEA who have had their head in the sand for many years about many issues including the acute shortage of primary school places in didsbury.

I think it's too crude a comparison to just compare the fees at a Catholic independent school with a wide geographical intake to the money per head given to a struggling state primary and say they're largely the same therefore outcome should be broadly similar.

Likewise would people with disabilities and learning disabilities be admitted to private school? Highly unlikely.

Sorry, this is bullshit. My neighbour has chosen a private school for her son because he has autism, not in spite of it.

Ineed. I don't disagree.

In many cases I think state SEN schools are better than the majority of private, because the private LOOK impressive with their ball pits, swimming pool and adventure playgrounds but the state schools with just pencils and paper have no choice but to crack on and teach reading and writing the best they can.

Well that's an important question. I don't have the answer but still believe that's where the solution lies.
I have seen pupil premium used very effectively and also seen it used appallingly! Some schools have excellent teachers on the ground but literally no-one with any clue how to run or keep to a budget. Likewise, I've seen schools run a very tight ship but have little flare or intuition with regards vibrant teaching.

The comparison could have been a wide number of state schools around Manchester vs any of the independent schools as Manchester receives a good level of funding per pupil yet has very poor results when compared with the national average. Similarly most of the independent schools in Greater Manchester charge lower fees than many other regions.
Stockport schools are very badly funded in comparison with Manchester yet on average they achieve better results. There are excellent and terrible examples in both areas though.
Do you not think that regardless of how much money a school has and how well it is spent there are some things that will not be changed?
A school could get £10,000 per pupil, but if the parents can't be arsed to get out of bed and take the child to school regularly then it isn't much use.
If the child is constantly told that he doesn't need an education because he can just get the dole when he grows up......
If the child is mocked and ridiculed at home because he shows an interest in learning......
If the child is facing other issues at home that impact on his ability to learn.......
School funding and even wise spending of school funds doesn't change those additional factors. Likewise grouping children from different family income brackets together doesn't change those things.

Likewise would people with disabilities and learning disabilities be admitted to private school? Highly unlikely.

They most definitely will. So long as they have the facilities/expertise to be able to benefit the child.

Independent schools depend on income and reputation so they're not going to turn away a fee paying customer just because they can't be arsed to build a ramp or re-jig a time table to include LSU.

I send my dd to private school because the only ones in my area are either in special measures or poor, believe me if there was one that was good or outstanding I would love to save the money and send her there, but all the time we have total inequality in education I will choose to spend my money that I work hard for on my daughters education.

I should say my dyslexic daughter, her private school has a dyslexic/dyspraxic/discalculia unit. It takes disabled children, it takes children with gay parents. It is a totally non selective school and my dd is doing well there. Not all private schools are the same just as not al state schools are the same but I put the time and effort in to find one that would totally suit my dd.

And I have not seen any snobbishness at the school, a lot of the parents are like me and my husband, both working hard to be able to afford to send their children their.

Everyone seems to be ignoring YoDiggity's excellent post on page 9.

The educational divide between the poorest and the richest in our society is massive and unimaginably complex. Banning private schools would be a political knee-jerk sop to the lower-middle classes which would achieve, ultimately, bugger all.

The problems do not necessarily lie with the schools, how good they are, how much money they have or what facilities they have (or lack) access to. There is also a problem with the social makeup of the pupils and their backgrounds. You could take a child from the poorest background and put them in the best school in the country, but it will mean nothing unless that child has had the value of education and the respect for it instilled in him, and it is this ethos that is missing in the poorer parts of the community. As Yo said, there is a reason schools in expensive leafy suburbs are generally good, and why those in poorer, inner city areas are generally worse.

Now this is not to say that those from low socio-economic backgrounds are thick or lazy - they merely have no incentive because you have generational lack of rewards, motivations and opportunities. If their parents are uneducated or have a palpable lack of respect for education (often lumped in with "authority") then the kids will pick up on that and simply won't care about school. It is easier to stay in your comfort zone of what you know rather than push for something that noone else you know has ever done, something that seems so out of reach you may as well try to go to the moon.

My brother and I were the first generation on my mothers side to go to university (dad was the first ever in his family to go to uni), and the first ones ever in both sides of our families to be privately educated. My mum's family is solid Yorkshire mining stock, my dad's family is slightly higher on the ladder, though not by much - nurses and army navvies. I see some of my cousins, of an age with me and my brother, on my mums side suffer from this same "don't care" attitude, which they are now passing onto their children. And so the cycle perpetuates. I see some of my cousins who have had a good ethos instilled into them from a good age, and they're now in fairly solid white-collar, middle-class jobs. Our side of the family is openly mocked by the ones who aren't doing so well because we've broken ranks and now we're "posh" (i.e. educated - I can confirm we are neither rolling in cash nor posh, unless having an old Fiesta and owning a labrador makes you posh?). Imagine a child trying to break out of that quagmire against their parents and siblings judgement?

There IS a way out, but it will not be found by banning private education. There needs to be a huge cultural shift in attitude to get people to use the opportunities that they have.

The thing that cracks me up about these threads, when they are piled on by people who would, in one poster's words "fight to the death" to protect the privilege that affluence can buy them, is that these posters are desperate to appeal to the virtues of unfairness!

"It's the politics of envy! Life's just unfair! Some people are just richer than others. [Wealth is nothing but a sign of well deserved reward/virtue/excellence grace. Poor people are poor because they are deserve to be poor!] Life is unfair so shut up and cope with it."

But if anyone suggests a means of making something, anything, a bit - well - fairer, the very same posters are up in arms against it because.....it wouldn't be fair!

Does nobody see any irony here? You can't defend your advantages on the basis that unfairness is acceptable (and even good!) and then get apoplectic about any perceived unfairness threatening your advantages.

Am also aghast that one poster went on a lengthy rant arguing that the only really effective strategy for improving educational attainment would be...eugenics. And really nobody commented on this, other than a one or two posters who said it was a great post!