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.

Fayrae - the difference is that at the end of sending your child to an expensive catchment area state school, you still have the very valuable house as well as well educated children.

Yes breatheslowly -Although we bought the house in the naice catchment and then the school went into special measures and ds was horribly bullied so we ended up in private anyway - easier to change school than house. Plus the prices then went down as no-one wanted the school....

Topsy. Of course it is possible to be successful without being privately educated. My own brother is an example, he has a first from Cambridge- apparently state school pupils do get more firsts from Oxbridge than their privately educated peers which says something about general ability levels across the population. The doors are not closed to you, just harder to open. And there is still the issue of the relative lack of confidence, the lack of sense of entitlement and less influential networks whatever you achieve.

I have no need to have a chip on my shoulder but do believe that comparing like with like, the privately educated pupil will almost always have more advantages in British society. We are not as meritocratic as we like to think. Perhaps it is significant that your brother's opportunity is in America.

To all of you who rightly point out the number of highly qualified parents with kids in good state schools, I get your point. Why then do private schools exist at all if not to provide parents with an even greater perceived advantage for their children

Well as I've said a few times on this thread, I send my kids to independent school to benefit from all the extra enrichment. It's a local day school on the south coast. No big name parents or networking going on. No benefit in terms of results as although they are excellent, they are likewise excellent at our local state primaries and secondary. I love their PE facilities, their science facilities, the visitors they buy in etc. I don't think a state school could ever afford such things so I pay for them.

And we are both state educated and both well qualified. DH grew up in Easterhouse, a massively deprived council estate in Glasgow. He is an oxford educated lawyer.

We have no panic or issue with regards people who are less fortunate than us. I have no issue with a percentage of my fees financially supporting other children through our school when they couldn't otherwise afford it. I don't personally know anyone who has a problem with that sort of thing.

And yes, I also have a massive issue with my nearest school being a state school. Also, two other local state secondaries are single sex which I also do not want.

Sorry, that should read,
'My nearest state school being a faith school.'

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

Not if they are supported appropriately.

RaRa what do you mean by this? Some children with quite severe SENs already have one to one help, or very intensive help which is very expensive, but there are plenty of children who are disruptive because of behavioural/attitude issues, real problems with authority, routine, a lack of self-discipline, rather than any specific SENs that need intensive support.

There is a difference between a pupil who is capable of cooperating and working independently and one who isn't capable of working independently at all, and has no choice in the matter.

I don't know what kind of 'support' you are referring to specifically that will not be very time and money intensive.

Also, two other local state secondaries are single sex which I also do not want

Just to prove the varied reasons why people choose private - we will be going private for secondary because we DO want single sex [grin}

I really don't understand why people would want single sex. This is not Saudi Arabia

For girls there is overpowering evidence that they achieve much better results without boys in their classrooms.

Academically, maybe. Socially -- not really. Its 21st century, we don't have single sex workplaces and other stuff. Men and women are EQUAL

Apples where I live is the la-la land of commutor belt straight into the City.

As you can imagine, it is bankers/hedgies/lawyers/accountas/MCs ago-go.

Plus there are a lot of very thriving businesses locally that tap into that wealth.

As you'd imagine there are very decent state schools in walking distance to some georgous houses.

That said, the private school market here is thriving. Lot snad lots of kids pass those state schools every morning to go to their private schools.

Why do they do it?

The simple answer is they can. These people are wealthy. The state schools are good, but the private schools are great. And if you have the money, why not go for it?

And if you get a critical mass of these people who are used to exactlingly high standards all using the same schools, it gathers its own momentum IYSWIM.

I went to the top (girls) private school in the country. Half the Labour cabinet's children (and the Labour prime minister's grand daughter) were there with me. London schools were admittedly rubbish back then but I think you should look at people walking the walk rather than talking the talk.

Similarly, my Socialist friends and neighbours who were not prepared to send their children privately all, without exception, moved out of inner London when they had kids because,and I quote one, "my children would not even be safe there, let alone learn anything". Even more shocking was that she was talking about a school where she was a governor. Not a single one stayed where we lived and sent their children to the local inner London state school.

This is how anyone with the money to choose behaves if their local state school is failing - go private or move. I don't believe anyone on this thread who says they would do otherwise given the choice. Of course, if your local state school is fine, then it's easy.

It would actually be incredibly irresponsible parenting to send your children to a school where you know they won't get a good education and where you fear for their safety if you have a choice not to.

Children are not there to improve chances for other children, they will have their own shit to deal with in life, even if their parents can afford private school.

Parents have to be free to make their own choices for their children, as long as they are not harmful and they aren't expecting others to pay for it, otherwise you may as well have all children being brought up in state run children's homes like clones of each other.

Parents who don't support education and positive behaviour in their children are far more damaging to society than parents who choose private school.

I was always adamant that I woulnd't send my DC to a private school...

until I had DC and I had the choice.

Then, it seemed very churlish not to choose the better school.

Plum I totally agree with you about parents paying for education if the local schools aren't up to it.

I think the reasons for sending a child to a private school are manifold. I know people who do it because they truly believe the education will be better; because they want their child to be able to board for certain periods; they may want single sex, the school may not be overly academic but more nurturing than the local comp or have a strong SEN focus.

It's about choice - admittedly if you don't have the funds then you don't have the choice but that is just the way of the world whether we like it or not.

The state system would collapse without independent schools as well. I think it's about 12% of all children are privately educated. Imagine how much taxes would have to go up all these children and teacher and schools suddenly fell back into the state sector.

BTW most independent schools will offer bursaries for children who are bright or talented and often offer assistance for parents who are struggling to pay the fees.

I think there is no problem that some people and their DC have a choice. It is a problem that others DON'T and are not allowed.

It's not that others aren't allowed, no one is stopping them except their own finances.

People do have the choice not to have children in the first place if they know they can't give them what they want to have, but most people who want children believe that if their children are lived and cared for then that's enough. And that's their choice, same as other people might choose to be indebted to grandparents, or to work extra hours, or to put more money on the mortgage, or to put off having children until they are financially secure enough that they can afford private school.

And I think there is no problem that some people change their minds, or that there are Labour hypocrites.... it doesn't mean that everyone would do the same! You always get these lists of examples of parents who said they wouldn't and then did, as though that means either that everyone would, or anyone who wouldn't is sacrificing their children or something.

nataleejah the same can be said for other basic human r

So private schools are fine, because people can always just not breed? ooookay.

... Resources. Providibg everyone gets sufficient we don't expect everyone to have access to the same. Nor do we enforce it.

Its funny when people say "work harder" there are people who work extremely hard like nurses, lorry drivers, bakers, etc. yet their income does not allow their DC to go to a simply better managed school.