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.

Whatever the study says, I know this much is true: the schools employ people, who then go on to spend their salary. Are you suggesting that Eton, for example, is able to absorb these foreign students without any significant marginal expenditure?

Also, with regard to "just fees" - It doesn't make any sense that these super-wealthy families are sending their children to the board in the UK with "just fees". They're obviously sending along significant spending money as well.

Some of the Russian kids at my daughter's school spend the equivalent of the GDP of a small African country in the local shops round her way! A completely useless response, I know, but thought I'd share it anyway.

Well the documents sparechange posted to support her/his argument don't suggest that the incidental spending of overseas students at private schools is in any way nationally significant.

On one hand posters are saying that private schools need overseas students just to be financially viable, on the other hand these almost non-viable schools are creating shedloads of wealth and employment.

Anyway, it's irrelevant to the average tax payer, parent and student. And to the debate in general.

Really resent this idea that those of us who happen to live in 'middle-class areas' and send our children to state schools are somehow morally on par with those who pay for private education. We live in this area because we like it and it's close to work, not for the schools. My kids would go to the local state school where ever we lived. We are very involved in the school and in other local schools which need all the help they can get. If all the people who genuinely cared about education for all dropped out of state schools, such middle-class areas and schools would largely cease to exist and education provision would be even more ghettoised than it is now. There are very few entirely fully middle-class areas in any case, and certainly very few which are as socially segregated as most private schools (look at FSM figures for a clue).

We could afford to go private, but wouldn't for all the good reasons that others have outlined in this thread. Because of my job I am more aware than most of the privileges private education can and does confer but I still wouldn't have my children in that system. For me, there's no question that academically selective private schools offer a better academic education than almost all state schools, even the best ones, but they are able to provide this because they take the richest and the most able (and a very few on usually partial scholarships) not because they have discovered a great secret about good education. Money means smaller classes, amazing facilities that my kids can only dream of, great teachers, extra curricula etc... They are not great because they are private, they are great because they are expensive and selective.

We value the idea of society and community and the idea that everyone should have as equal a chance as possible. Obviously, what we can do to equalise home situations is very limited, but we can influence the educational outcomes of children and we should. Private education does not help those who need the most help. It gives the already most advantaged further advantages. If fee paying parents at least admitted that they are in effect buying advantage, this wouldn't bother me so much. But all the talk of choice and poor local schools and the nasty middle-class parents who buy into good state school areas is utterly unconvincing.

Roedean is now 50% foreign girls. The school would have closed without them. That's over 100 teaching jobs before we start counting groundsmen, caterers, matrons, admin staff.

The foreign students buy British uniforms, hockey sticks etc. The food they eat is sourced in the UK. etc etc

Odaat may also being getting confused with state boarding schools and assuming that they are somehow 'private' because they are boarding schools and there are fees payable. But the fees are for the boarding element only - the education and the school itself is state owned and funded by the tax payer. And they may or may not offer a better educational experience than any other state school.

quiet day on the media studies course, OP?

Really resent this idea that those of us who happen to live in 'middle-class areas' and send our children to state schools are somehow morally on par with those who pay for private education.

That must sting!

Happyon - people who DELIBERATELY move to get a better catchment school are also paying for their child's education.

TruffleOil - I'm sniggering at the implication that parents who go private are somehow morally wanting

They are not great because they are private, they are great because they are expensive and selective.

That's true, happyon.

Fleta, you probably don't even recycle.

Feta They might well, but it's also true that the kinds of people who can buy into these great catchment areas can probably also afford to send their kids to private schools and don't. That's a good thing as far as I'm concerned, or at least better than opting out. I also think that unless pro-state education parents moved into the worst performing school catchments in the country, they'd always be criticised.

However, if it takes a lottery system to truly mix schools, bring it on.

Sure this has been said already, but I firmly believe it is incumbent on our government to, by spending our money wisely, ensure that all state schools are good. If that ever becomes the case I'd have no problem with banning private schools, because there would be no real need. But right now we have a very patchy education system whereby people can choose to access better education by stealth e.g. Moving to a 'better' area, attending church to get a place etc. And those who don't have the knowledge, money or ability to do this have to stick with what they're awarded. Which, given the massive shortage of school places, may not even be a local school.

I may be biased however, as in my area (south east london, nice with rough bits) 3 out of our 4 closest schools are in special measures. That's just appalling. It's not a good level of service by any measure. If I could afford to go private I would in a heartbeat. Why should my kids have to go to a failing school because my LEA can't do it's job properly?

Truffle - recycle? I throw my rubbish into the street.

But Happyon that's just creating more division within the state system and just absolutely why you get schools parents who have other options aren't willing to send their children to. Next village you have excellent state primary, school massively popular because it is excellent. Other school, slightly further away nearer cheaper housing and a less "naice" area and the school is only 75% full because its not performing well.

The state says education is a right.
The state also says that taking my children on a cheaper holiday is damaging their education.
And the state says i have to send them to a local shithole because others have a more "deserving" postcode.
Where is the logic?

Ginnels, that's where part of Happyon's argument falls down. She says that those who buy an education for their kids should admit that they are buying advantage. In your case you'd be buying it to swerve disadvantage.

I should add, another school close-ish to us has in the last few years massively improved, going from special measures to outstanding and hugely improving results. It's not become an academy or a free school. The majority of kids attending are on FSM and most have English as a second language. It's in an area that many middle class people would sniff at. They've taken some major steps to turn the school around and done amazingly. So it CAN be done, and it's not just about getting sharp-elbowed parentsi nvolved. It's about leadership, strong governance, an amazing teaching team etc etc. I think if most people had access to a school like this they would use it. I certainly would (it's way too far from us sadly).

And the state says i have to send them to a local shithole because others have a more "deserving" postcode.

What do you mean by that? If by a more deserving postcode you mean one that is actually close to the good school in question, well yes of course. Where would we be if it was a complete free for all for every perceived 'good' school, regardless of where you lived? How would you even begin to decide who should or should not get a place there?

And a lottery system for every single pupil is completely impractical - people would be appealing left right and centre on the grounds of splitting siblings/excessive distance and the inability to attend other extra curricular commitments nearer to home/travel arrangements not being to their liking/family reasons/faith reasons/work reasons/logistical reasons.

Unless of course they got a place at the best school even if it was miles away from home......

Yes, grovels, absolutely. And there is simply no excuse for the state of education in this country. As long as there is such patchy provision I just can't blame people for wanting to send their kids somewhere better.
But...the central government civil service, as well as parliament, is so rammed full of privately schooled people that it's hard to see how state education will ever become the real priority it should be. It's all just lip service from the whole lot of them (bitter cynical emoticon). I guess that would be an argument for banning private schools, to get a more diverse government.

Years ago we were houseparents at a poshish public boarding school and conceded that a brigadiers son could wear discreet make up, earrings and a skirt if he wanted to as he felt strongly about it. We were careful not to indulge it as a "phase" but just go with it as he challenged our equal opportunities policy. Father not happy. I still feel strongly we did the right thing as much as we insisted dis praxic students were included in fixtures.

And he was gay and knew it from year 3 and we had known him from then until year 9 when this happened. Other kids didn't turn a hair

I read an article recently about a lady who founded a private school in Lithuania. She said this school is aiming for the elite and its not supposed to be affordable to everyone. In her words, is educated and well-off parents don't want their children mix with underclasses, thats their right. However this attitude is extremely upsetting.

Having just caught up, I agree with YoDiggity at 9.02am.
If I don't know a city then the Ofsted reports immediately tell me the middle class areas.
Grammar schools used to be fair, but not today because people buy their child's place.
If the grammar school system came back there would be an increase in private education. I for one would scrimp and save if my child failed. I am more than happy with a comprehensive, but I am not sending them to a school where the most academic are missing and the best teachers are missing.

Well Happyon, I for one have never tried to deny that I'm giving my child an advantage but to me it's more in terms of day to day experience and enjoyment. I don't see them as having much advantage over the children at our local state primary which is full of affluent and interested parents and children.
I think it would be quite disingenuous of both you and I though to suggest that what my children receive and what your children receive is not closer in many ways than what your children receive and the overall educational experience (from both school and home) being received by children living in poverty and attending struggling schools in very disadvantaged areas.