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.

so capitalism rules then.

only a matter of time before some rich idiot presses the button and we're all fucked

capitalism

Echt, yes, I said earlier that there was an argument with regards superann but what that does allow is fluidity between the two sectors rather than excellent teachers from either feeling unable to take a job in the other.

Edinburgh Council would be in a complete mess if you abolished private schools. 25% of secondary children in the Edinburgh council area go to private schools. I'm sure the Council would be delighted to have its school roll increased by a 1/3.

Fluidity. :o it's an advantage to the private system. Nothing else.

Call it what you like, the private school system is massively underwritten by the state.

Who trains the teachers? The state.

I couldn't care less if people want to educate their children privately. They should just pay the going rate and stop acting as if they're doing the rest of the country a favour.

Though why they should do this in the face of evidence that shows state educated students outperforming the privately educated is a mystery.

That should be outperforming them at university.

It's absolutely right that private schools should have charitable status, they are still educating children, and children need to be educated.

I cannot believe people are so small minded that they would want education to be taxed. Why don't we just go the whole hog and tax people for specifically for having children in the first place?

I've never suggested I'm doing anyone else a favour! The last HT I taught under had come from the private sector and ds2's teacher last year had just joined from a local, high achieving state school. This is what makes me say, fluidity.

Also, what go you mean that the state trains teachers? I paid as much as my lawyer DH in fees etc. No subsidies or bursaries so no difference whatsoever to anyone else going any other course and then taking a graduate job in the private sector as a dentist or management consultant. Unless you are suggesting that all graduates pay a debt back to the public sector?

echt I'm not doing anybody, other than my children, a favour by sending them to independent schools. There are a myriad of reasons why people pay to educate their kids, of which you probably only think of two at most. You could, of course, read the thread thoroughly rather than cherry picking the bits which suit you and educate yourself.

Everything about a child's life is dependent on how rich their patents are- fact. Education is no different. I don't think anyone has said they pay for private school as favour to anyone else we do it got our children. We've just highlighted that if some if you got your way the state system would be fucked!

I don't know any other charities whose work primarily benefits the richest people in the country.

On the other hand if private schools were prepared to open their doors through the bursary system to children who are failing in the state school system and are unsupported at home I would consider their charitable status to be reasonable.

But they don't do this. They provide access only to those children who are already excelling in the state sector and who are well supported at home. They make noises about providing bursaries to poor children to reach their potential but they are only interested in such children who will boost the schools rating in the league tables and shore up their reputation for excellence. In other words the bursary system is primarily self serving.

"On the other hand if private schools were prepared to open their doors through the bursary system to children who are failing in the state school system and are unsupported at home I would consider their charitable status to be reasonable."

Why on earth would they want to do this? One of the main reasons people send their children to private school is to get them away from children like this.

State school outperform private schools? In which universe? I'm sure there are examples of this but on the whole it is not true at all.

I don't know any other charities whose work primarily benefits the richest people in the country.

Royal Opera House? Royal Shakespeare Company?

You are misinformed if you think only rich people send their children to private school. Plenty of families go out of their way to raise the funds to send children to good schools, with extended family all contributing.

Iseesheep and NancyJones I didn't say you, personally, were claiming to be doing the taxpayers a favour. It is a view often aired on these threads, and has specifically been said here when taxpayers' money is concerned, when the 3 billion pound savings to the state was mentioned upthread.

Iseesheep the "myriad reasons" for privately educating are beside the point. I'm not sure what reasons you think I'm "probably" thinking of. Best not to try reading minds and deal with what I've actually said, I find. As I've said, people can spend money how they like, but, should shoulder the full cost. That includes their teachers getting their snouts out of the state pensions trough and funding their own. Private schools benefit massively from the public purse, so any notion that they are truly private is nonsense.

I have not suggested that graduates pay back, though the uni fees system is doing that in a way.

I do love the snouts in trough comments. Don't we all have our snouts in the trough one way or another? Following your ideology echt you'll be expecting nobody to benefit from a State pension then?

And if you want us private schoolers to 'shoulder the full cost' then we can have back the proportion of tax that we pay* that goes into the education system then can we? No? Thought not.

*Disclaimer - I don't think we should get tax rebates for sending kids private!

Echt Apart from super-ann, would you mind listing where the public purse spends money in the private education sector please? Because looking at my schools' annual accounts I actually can't see an income from HMG.

minifingers The charitable status is not all about bursaries and helping under privileged children access better/different schooling. My children's school earns their charitable status by giving free access to the swimming pool, astros, gym, theatre, music block to local state schools and residents. As well as the bursaries and scholarships. This is the sort of thing that would go straight away if you got shot of fee paying schools. How does that help anyone?

Short of throwing open its' doors to all (which, let's face it, doesn't happen in the state system so it's not going to happen in the private) what more would you like it to do?

I assume it still happens but state schools used the playing fields at my son's school for sports days and had access to the Latin, Greek and Russian language teaching.

echt - both my dh and my father benefitted from the bursaries you mentioned. Both were deserving, wouldn't have had a great education otherwise (good comparison here with Dhs bro who left with 0 gcses) and both have gone on to be successful.

Surely no one under the age of 50 is seriously expecting a state pension?!

As I've said, people can spend money how they like, but, should shoulder the full cost. That includes their teachers getting their snouts out of the state pensions trough and funding their own.

Fees at private schools probably wouldn't rise by very much if that happened. The schools would simply cease to offer bursaries as they would no longer need to do that as they wouldn't have to meet any charitable status requirements. So bright kids from poorer families would be the real losers of that system. The private schools might also be more reluctant to share their facilities with state schools.

The Republic of Ireland have very low private school fees because the state pays the teachers wages and pension benefits and parents just pay for the building overheads and materials etc. Northern Ireland's govt have discussed ending this on many occasions and making private schools pay all of their own associated costs but they have repeatedly decided against it because it still saves them money over the alternative of the state meeting the costs of educating all of the children who would enrol into state education if private costs rose significantly.

Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland (obviously).

I'm at a loss as to what to say. I strongly suspect most if not all of the anti private schools brigade on here have ever set foot in one. The attitudes of most of these posters is reversed snobbery. How are you any better than Lord Toffeenose-Upmyassington making a sweeping statement about ALL children from council estates are going to end up in gangs, pregnant at 12, living off the state forever, breeding more uneducated spongers etc etc etc.

Not very fair is it? Lord T-U had never set a brown leather brogued foot into a council estate and yet he makes a sweeping generalisation. And gets it wrong. Very wrong.

If would be seriously verbally attacked if that was expressed on here. And rightly so.

So I say, how dare anyone who hasn't educated themselves and armed themselves with the facts about private schools flame anyone who has. Down right bloody rude IMO. You are doing nothing for yourselves or supporting your cause. Makes you look ridiculous and strengthens my resolve to keep dd at her private school.

Secondly, why shouldn't the teachers benefit from that pension. They have contributed to the learning of the future, doctors, lawyers, QCs, administrators, cleaners, shop workers etc like all other teachers.

By the way, I know quite a few teachers, one of whom used to teacher at a very well known private school (he was state educated btw) and left to become a teacher at a local state school because the money was BETTER (only by a fraction, but it was better). Teachers at private schools generally get paid the same as at state, I never see a staff car park full of Bentleys, Porsches, BMWs and the like.

echt, I didn't think you were proposing a graduate tax. My question was to why you feel the state pays for teachers to train any more than it pays for anyone else to qualify in their chosen degree?

I never see a staff car park full of Bentleys, Porsches, BMWs and the like.
No, neither driven by the staff nor the parents at any school we've attended! Much nicer cars outside our local state primary and the cars outside our local state primary in Cheshire would have made you gasp!

*Can I just ask those who would happily ban private schools, how they would intend to plug the 3 billion pound gap that taxpayers are currently saved, because the children at private school don't require public funds for their education?

Every penny of that 3 billion would be needed, to build new schools, buy new resources etc. The country has hardly got plenty of money going spare right now has it?

So yeah, just curious, where would the money come from?*

Ok, let's say the rich and powerful were made to send their children to local comps, so probably wouldn't. But lots of that investment end effort that makes private schools exclusive would be channeled into making state education more attractive. Its just my guess.

But where would the money come from Nataleejah?

Would you expect those parents that have been denied their right to educational cost to still stump up extra money in addition to their tax after their children were forced into state schools?

It wouldn't happen. Those parents would pay for extra tutors, music and sports clubs instead.

The money for educating extra children would have to come out of the education budget that already exists, so the already limited resources would have to be spread even thinner.