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.

The green school does have competitive entrance criteria but isn't super competitive because it is competing with several other schools which have similar fee levels.
This is what I thought when I visited the green school: When I go to an open day I want to know what a school offers that sets it apart from the others; what I got at the green school was a very polished musical performance but nobody could answer questions about transport or specific questions about academic matters and pastoral matters. I came away thinking thinking 'if I wanted to go to a musical I would have booked a theatre ticket'.
migsy which private school was it in Whalley Range because I am aware of the big old college named one facing the park whose results don't match some of other independents in the region and I am aware of the religious boys school which also doesn't get very good results.
Obviously it isn't all about results but I do know a couple of people with children at one of those schools and one set has been very unhappy with aspects of the school (not the results).

That's interesting, Impatient. My friend was mainly complaining that it's all become a bit show over substance. The magazine we used to get home was always full of info and interesting stuff the kids had done. Apparently it's now like a polished advertising brochure although I haven't seen it myself. The head who took over just as we were leaving had been DHT at Welljngton College so I guess that polished front was something she was used to and brought with her. They are still selective at 11 as far as I know but obviously not as selective as schools such as MGS & WGS.

My kids were very happy there but are happy here too and I think I'm happier overall with the more gentle ethos and where nobody cares what I'm wearing!

Migsy, I think there's quite a lot of independent schools in the south Manchester area and I guess they're all offering different things in order to compete. It seems inevitable that some state schools in areas such as didsbury and cheadle Hulme will get similar of better results. We are in a reasonably affluent area here but there is nowhere near as much choice in terms of independent schools.

Impatient It was the big old college facing the park with the blue blazers. It looks lovely from the outside and the kids were all very polite. I liked the traditional nature of it but the results nowhere near justified the money and I couldn't really afford it anyway Was that the school your friend was unhappy with?

If I could pay I would! Good on those who can and do!

migsy yes that is the school that one of my friends was unhappy with (but other friend is very happy with it). The unhappy one was unhappy because her child was repeatedly pressured into representing the school at sports despite not wanting to. The child left after GCSEs to do her A levels at a 6th form college.
Nancy - after the open day my husband and I nicknamed the green school and it's new headteacher as 'all fur coat and.......'

impatient yes! they seem big on sports. It has a mixed reputation. I think it really suits some kids but I hear that the head is very conscious that it's academic record needs to be improved. I have also heard that the school is struggling financially.

It won't be based on ability it will be based on catchment areas. Really expensive catchment areas.

I don't think so, not necessarily. When there used to be grammars, many working class or low-income children had this chance they'd otherwise have had no opportunity for.

Oh well, that will be fair then. Sorry you're too thick to come to this school and benefit from THE best teaching staff and facilities.

Selection on ability doesn't mean the brightest students are given better-quality teachers and facilities. It's about putting students alongside others at a similar level. I don't think differentiation and setting for different subjects works as well as streaming or grammar/secondary modern in many cases. Non-grammar schools may equally well have excellent facilities and teachers.

Do you think "Sorry you're too poor to come to this school" is a better way of doing things?

Tznett - "It's about putting students alongside others at a similar level. I don't think differentiation and setting for different subjects works as well as streaming or grammar/secondary modern in many cases"

here

Interestingly the evidence on the efficacy of setting and streaming isn't generally supportive of your assumption.

Speaking of catchment areas, they can be very dynamic in urban areas. Migration or building new properties might drastically change the composition of the community. Also in urban areas one may live just one small street away from a desired catchment, so the lottery really helps, as the distance between desired and undesired school is about the same.

Another thing...
If all those in power and influence were to send their children to the same school as common folk, we wouldn't have such ludicrous laws as absence fines.

Why wouldn't there be absence fines? I don't understand how that would change.

It irritates me aswell, but whilst money can buy them a top notch education - if their kid is thick as shit or has a bad attitude it won't help that much. Essentially, it comes down to that child and how passionate, enthusiastic and diligent he is - which is something you can instill without money.

There are always wealthier people around and yes, they can afford more expensive holidays, clothes, houses, access to better healthcare and ... well, everything else including education. That's life - get over yourselves!

Migration or building new properties might drastically change the composition of the community.

You need space to build new properties and space is very limited in urban areas.

You need space to build new properties and space is very limited in urban areas.
Knock down of transform an old warehouse/pub/church/factory into high-end flats and you get an influx of middle classes. At least in my city it is happening all the time.

As for absence fines, they only apply for state schools, while private schools enjoy longer holidays (and less expensive travel). If all went to state schools, there would be way different attitude from rule makers.

They have tried regeneration in many urban areas by knocking down old buildings and putting up new buildings which are supposed to be desirable but it doesn't usually work as well as hoped (out of London anyway). The reasons it doesn't always work include:

1. (Outside of London) families don't want to live in cramped flats regardless of how 'high end' they are. Families want to live in houses with outdoor space.
2. Modern properties are often boxy and small and most people with children want space.
3. Regeneration areas are being regenerated for a reason and people that have the choice will not choose to live there. They would prefer to move to an area with a good reputation and good schools.

I can think of many inner city areas where huge sums of money has been spent on regeneration and the social problems and school problems are the same as they were before and once people (with the funds) have children they start looking around for somewhere else to live with good schools and like minded people.

As for absence fines, they only apply for state schools, while private schools enjoy longer holidays (and less expensive travel). If all went to state schools, there would be way different attitude from rule makers.

Not necessarily because they wouldn't have school fees to pay so could easily afford either the fine or a holiday during the school holidays.

The government wouldn't buy old warehouses, churches etc to just build schools to accommodate an influx of pupils whose parents would rather pay for them to be educated elsewhere.

There are many ideals on this subject, without doubt. And many of them are wonderful.

I'm going to say something which won't make me popular but it's another way of looking at it (I think).

I know of many parents who send their children to private school who really begrudge having to spend the money.

They already financially contribute a lot of their gross salary to the tax man, some of which gets spent on state education. However, they don't feel the state schools available to them are good enough for their children so deem it necessary to privately educate their dc.

It isn't just about wanting better teachers. It's also about better pupil to teacher ratios, higher levels of behaviour standards (as other posters have said, disruptive children are removed swiftly).

I had a choice of 3 private schools for my dd. The first one was the prep I went to, I found it far too military and formal. The second's religious values were too high. The third that I have chosen is wonderful. It's family run, has a family community feel, has good ethics and the children all seemed very confident, happy and polite. It doesn't get the best academic results compared to the other two, but it encourages a strong work ethic, a wonderful involvement with the local state schools, a very low tolerance for bullying and strong morals for acceptance and hard work. And their statement is "Every child has a talent. We must help them find it and use to the best of their ability."

The state schools in our catchment area don't give me any confidence that they can do a fraction of what I would expect from a school. And for my dd I should give her what I feel she deserves and if the state schools that I do financially contribute to can't offer it, than I shall try my hardest to provide somewhere I can.

I do think it's a shame that the minority seem to be the ones who ruin it. I'm confident in saying that if there were more parents supporting their dc educational/emotional needs, there would be less disruption in classes so the teachers could focus on teaching not babysitting, fewer people would choose private schools.

But ultimately why not teach your children to strive for better to have the nicer things. Surely that's better than telling them they'll have to 'make do' because 'what's the point?'

On a separate note, it still wouldn't work with the authorised absence, the "richer" pupils parents will just pay the fines/happily pay the extortionate prices in the holidays/move abroad/home school.

Nataleejah I think you seem to have confused this post with a question of how you'd run this country if you were PM. I don't dispute a lot of the principles on here, but it's the reality, practicalities and sociology of it all as it stands now.

I don't know who originally said this but I'm in total agreement with the person who said they find the idea that people think private schools students are snobby and stuck up both ignorant and insulting.

I didn't go to private school but my sister does. She actually attended a local state primary school until Year 6 but she wasn't happy there. When it came to choosing secondary school for her the local comprehensives simply weren't right for her. My sister is bright but shy and can be sensitive and all the local comprehensive schools were big, rowdy and noisy. The pastoral care was awful and the classes were too big. My sister even ended up crying at one visit to a school because she thought it was too big and loud and she said she didn't want to go there. She was struggling in her state primary school so we were all dreading to think how she'd cope in an even bigger environment.

It was my mum's idea to start looking into private schools in the area instead. There was one particular one where my sister just instantly settled and loved from the very first minute so that was where she went for secondary school. Admittedly it's a bit more of a trek to get to than the local state schools but my sister loves her school and still does now she is in year 9. She has instantly settled and made fantastic friends, taken up new hobbies and is doing brilliantly academically. Her favourite thing is that it's an all girls school so there's no "horrible boys" to distract her.

I know it's not really fair that other people couldn't afford that opportunity but nothing in life is fair. You make the most of what you've got. My parents can afford to send her though admittedly we are in the north east and private schools are cheaper here than the rest of the country. So my parents could afford to cough up an extra 12k a year for her without sacrificing too much.

Going back to the first point re: snobby and stuck up; my sister has always been very polite, well mannered and a lovely girl. I could be biased but other people have said the same thing. She has remained a sweet, well mannered girl despite attending private school for nearly three years now. All her friends at the school are all lovely and well mannered too and I've never got the impression they were snobby or stuck up or thought they were better than anyone else because of the school they attended. Her school mixes with other local private schools sometimes and when I've been to sport matches I've never got the impression of the other kids in other schools being stuck up and snobby either.

If anything most of the snobbery I've seen comes from the state school kids and parents towards people who go/send their children to private school. Before my sister went private both she and my mum had comments all the time from people saying she was going to turn into a snob and had people sneering at her, questioning why she was sending her there or rather demanding to or their children so it's odd that people do it to us so much.know why she was going there Even now people will still occasionally demand to know why she goes there, as if it's any of their business. We've never questioned other people's choice of education for their children so it's odd people do it to us.

We've also had people comment to us that so and so went to state school and got much better results than so and so who went to private school or this state school has better results than this private schools, all said with a big smug grin on their faces. We've honestly never understood these comments and I've never understood the train of thought that if you don't go on to get brilliant exam results and have a high flying career then your education has been a waste of money. We don't actually care about academic achievements for my sister. Of course we want her to do her best and get the best results she possibly can but beyond that we're not interested. As long as she's happy and in the right place for her now then we're happy. If she decides to go to university and be a brain surgeon or a doctor then great we'll support that. If she decides she doesn't want to go to university and she wants to become a beauty therapist instead that's also fine. Just as long as she's happy and doing well then it won't have been a waste.

That turned out to be longer than I intended so I doubt anyone is going to read it but oh well. Just needed to get all that off my chest.

If anything most of the snobbery I've seen comes from the state school kids and parents towards people who go/send their children to private school. Before my sister went private both she and my mum had comments all the time from people saying she was going to turn into a snob and had people sneering at her, questioning why she was sending her there or rather demanding to or their children so it's odd that people do it to us so much.know why she was going there hmm Even now people will still occasionally demand to know why she goes there, as if it's any of their business. We've never questioned other people's choice of education for their children so it's odd people do it to us.

That paragraph turned out jumbled so I've re-written it below.

If anything most of the snobbery I've seen comes from the state school kids and parents towards people who go/send their children to private school. Before my sister went private both she and my mum had comments all the time from people saying she was going to turn into a snob and had people sneering at her, questioning why she was sending her there or rather demanding to so it's odd that people do it to us so much. Even now people will still occasionally demand to know why she goes there, as if it's any of their business. We've never questioned other people's choice of education for their children so it's odd people do it to us

There, better.

I can see this thread has moved on a lot. But the title has been really bugging me. It just seems a fine illustration of the way a certain type of lefty genuinely believes the way to achieve the good life is to enforce it from the top down, by banning things, or regulating them, or in other ways getting the centralised state to exert control over individuals' choices about how they want to live their lives. Just so misguided - as if you can enforce happy huggy everyone-is-the-same-isn't-it-nice by bullying people into line

I read it Colin, couldn't agree more.

Of course they should be banned, no possible justification. If I could afford it though, my DCs would go to one because children don't reach potential in groups of 30 or more..................................

So then nellieellie the justification is that state schools aren't providing children with what they need.

getting the centralised state to exert control over individuals' choices about how they want to live their lives

What about the choices of all the individuals who can't afford private schools? Where is the "choice" for them? The wealthiest people may be limiting other people's choices by perpetuating a system where money can buy education.