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.

Private schools do offer exclusivity with no need for the children of the well off to mix with 'Oiks'.

It's not 'Oiks' I'm trying to avoid, but disruptive pupils who are incapable of sitting quietly during their lessons and in some cases have a tendency to physically attack the teacher and other pupils. How on earth can children learn when all that's going on?

Topsy so state school pupils are violent? Seriously come on. Clearly you just think your kids are better.
In terms of the intern yes I think the opportunities should be equal not based on your parents friends.

Did I say that all state school children are violent? I should have been clearer in saying that these are specific instances I'm referring to that have happened at our local state schools. No, I don't want my children to have to deal with that whilst trying to learn.

OK, so if you're going to eliminate any advantage, how do you do that? If your child had been looking for a work placement and an opportunity came up because of someone you knew, would you deny your child that chance?

Clearly you just think your kids are better.

Really? Where have I said that?

Oh come on!!! How are you going to regulate that? Are you saying the (state educated) girl shouldn't take job because not everyone was offered it? Really? What about the bright state Sch pupil offered a place at Oxford ? Should she not take it because another state school kid (equally as bright but without a 6th form tutor who prepped her well) didn't get in? Back to communism again!

Oh and I taught for many years in state schools. The vast majority of kids are not violent. The problem lies with the ones who are. Private schools would just get rid, state schools are expected to work to inclusion policies even if they're to the detriment of the other kids.

Haven't had time to read entire thread but... Op can you say hand on heart that if you chanced upon a windfall.. You would refuse to use it to privately educate your children?

What sort of country would we live in if parents were free to spend their money on fast cars, alcohol, gambling etc but banned from spending it on education for their children?

Would you also ban educational toys on the basis that not everyone can afford them? And music lessons? And educational holidays because, you know, it might give the children an unfair advantage on their UCAS forms? And how would you stop people secretly buying in home tutors, or unfairly tutoring their children themselves if they are well educated?

Thank your lucky stars that universities are not (yet) private. They are likely to go that way soon though with funding as it is. THEN you might be right to complain.

We DO, however, as a society need to ensure that state schools are all of such a high quality that nobody feels the need to privately educate. OTOH banning education is a dystopic vision.

I think what Topsy is getting at is that private schools are able to expel/discipline disruptive pupils much more easily than state schools - this is certainly true, and means that private schools naturally have fewer disruptive students compared to state schools.

I think what Topsy is getting at is that private schools are able to expel/discipline disruptive pupils much more easily than state schools - this is certainly true, and means that private schools naturally have fewer disruptive students compared to state schools.

Yes, this is very true. Of course there is bad behaviour, kids will be kids, but it's dealt with swiftly and of course anything extremely serious like violence and drugs does lead to suspension or exclusion.

I went to a state school and my best friend was beaten up so badly in the playground she was in hospital for over a week. The girl responsible had been previously suspended for violence, but had been passed from school to school and we were the last stop. My friend still has panic attacks which stem from that incident.

I'm not saying all state school pupils are violent or that all state schools have these issues. However, there are many that do and I'm not willing to expose my children to that. I can afford to pay to avoid it and do. If a good state option was available to us then I would definitely go down that route.

Topsy has made it perfectly clear the reasons why I have chosen private over state for my dd.

The very few and very disruptive children in the class take up far too much of the teacher's time in one lesson, when really the children who are prepared to knuckle down and try their best are not being guided efficiently. I do not think the teachers or the state are responsible. This is not a question about who is responsible though.

I'm not so sure that if everyone had the resources that they wouldn't choose to send their dc to private schools because of their morals or beliefs.

I 100% would never send my kids to private school if I could afford it.
I think education should benefit ALL kids not MY kids. I don't agree with any segregation in schools.

As a state school teacher I have to say that having a disruptive pupil does take up a ridiculous amount if time. But I would also say that having 30, 6yr olds of 34, 11yr olds as I have had is also very bad for the others in the class.

My child gong have particularly small classes. 18 in infants, 20/21 in juniors but having 10 or 12 less children you need to focus on makes a massive difference to the time and energy you can give to the rest.

So no streaming then either?

I have a good friend, primary school teacher, who for years and years and years would tell anyone who'd listen how disgraceful independent schools were, she'd never even for a minute consider it for any of her children and anyone who did was a facist. Twelve months ago she sent both her kids off to boarding school (the youngest being 8) because she could now afford it.

I think quite a few of the anti-independent school posters on this thread would do exactly the same (maybe not the boarding element).

'that having a disruptive pupil does take up a ridiculous amount if time.'

Not if they are supported appropriately.

Education does benefit all kids.

There is a decent standard if education available to all children in this country. As long as all children are getting an education that is good enough, I really can't understand while people think private education is so harmful.

Private education does not come at the expense of other children. It just doesn't. And I can't see how it benefits society for us to have fewer highly educated individuals.

I suspect that if the children who are disruptive in lessons were removed, and the parents with bad attitudes towards education and discipline were removed, then there wouldn't be so many people who want to use private education. Some would still want the tiny class sizes and the facilities, but many would rather save the money and provide opportunity out of school instead.

Why is it that we never hear people arguing the benefits of getting rid of the disruptive and disengaged but we often hear arguments for getting rid of private or grammar schools that are going a good job and are contributing positive things to society?

Iseesheep your friend clearly just doesn't want to look after her own kids
She does not represent the rest of us.

'Education does benefit all kids. There is a decent standard if education available to all children in this country.'

This is absolutely untrue, unless by all you mean 'typically developing'?

Children who do not conform to the norm and who are not subsequently supported adequately not only receive little to no education, and gain a whole host of behavioural and mental health problems, but they get in the way of others learning.

Private schools can select out those children who are likely to be disruptive, and those who need extra support can be charged additionally if not excluded.

'I suspect that if the children who are disruptive in lessons were removed,'

Removed and sent where exactly?

How about supporting and meeting their needs instead?

itsbetterthanabox Did you not read the bit where I said 'because she could now afford it'? Or are you trying to bang the drum about shit parents who send their kids off to boarding school to add to the selfish parents who want to do the best they can for their children?

Woowoo - private education damages society in some of the same ways apartheid did - it creates distance and a lack of understanding between different sectors of society, it ghettoises the poor and concentrates unearned privilege in the hands of a few. It's partly to blame for the profound lack of insight many politicians have into the lives of the people they govern.

Meet their needs by all means, but don't do it in a place where it will disrupt other people's education.

Of you think it's ok to have children's attitudes to learning damaged by the disengaged, and you think it's ok to have children's education damaged by disruption, then you can't complain when others pay to protect their children from that.

I accept that some children with SN aren't catered for well in the state system, but I don't really think that's relevant to the private school issue. Either way, the answer to the problem is to improve state education, not to remove private education.

RaRa., Absolutely, but unfortunately that is not the case day to day in many state schools. And it's not really that small % of children who have a SN that are the issue. Of course some of them will be disruptive due to their disability but in the whole there is far more support for a teacher with a child diagnosed with an ASD, say, than there is for a teacher who just happens to have 6, 10yr olds on School action or school action plus simply due to their behaviour.

Now it could be argued that it's not their fault that they had mars bar for tea last night if stayed up until 3am playing tour of duty but that's no comfort to either the teacher or the other kids in the class.

And back to the SN issue. Many kids with SN are woefully under supported in mainstream. Many shouldn't be there as it is no place for them to reach their potential. Inclusion can work but in many cases it really doesn't esp as it's all about cost saving.

I can't believe I've just heard private education compared to apartheid!

Private education does not ghettoise the poor at all, and poor isn't really the problem anyway. People can be poor and still be supportive of education and have a positive attitude to behaviour and expectations.

You might have a point if there weren't so many state schools whose intake is significantly above national average in terms of academic achievement, with so few numbers of children on FSMs, but as it is, you don't.

The difference between state schools is far bigger than the difference between some state schools and some private schools.

I wouldn't send my children to private school no matter how many lotteries I won, if that helps.