AIBU to feel that the ‘Labour against Private Schools’ campaign is a scapegoat for a lack of vision for educational reform?

[BusyMum1978]

2500 UK independent schools with 615K children attending which is 7% of the population of children in FT education up to the age of 16. A number of articles published this week have highlighted the campaign supported by Labour MP’s, who are calling for a number of measures impacting Independent Schools including their complete abolishment, and for these schools to become part of the state school system. A real hatred seems to be forming, and it feels to me like an easy smoke screen to put up rather than the Labour Party providing very specific policies to show how state funded education will be reformed.

I completely understand the feeling behind the imminent appointment of our 20th Etonian PM - there is urgent reform required in politics to have equal representation which I wholeheartedly agree with. I also understand the recently published stats showing accelerated social mobility for those attending top independent schools. I am not saying that there aren’t areas for improvement- but is the objective to bring more children up, or to bring the independently educated 7% down to make it ‘fair’?

My children both attend a prep school, and they are the first generation in both mine and my husband’s family to do so. We aren’t rich, neither of us have a degree, we own one property. We have -and continue to- work hard and made a choice to invest in our children’s education. We know we are privileged to be able to do so. To hear that MP’s want to wage a ‘class war’ with a family like mine feels inflammatory and yet more decisiveness in an already fractured country.

My children started their education in a state primary school but quite honestly it wasn’t good enough, and our heads were turned by what the private sector had to offer.

It equally broke my heart and inspired me to read The Times article on The Willow in Broadwater Farm school. Schools like this desperately need funding and further support, as do a range of children’s services which were cut during austerity. However will abolishing independent schools help a school like this? Parents who have money will still gravitate to the best areas / schools, and get tutors etc. There are a large number of selective state secondary schools that require heavy tutoring to access.

We need to nurture brilliant young minds in this country, to plug the UK skills gap, and compete in a global market. The independent sector has a valuable role to play.

Progress and globalisation is happening at such a rate that it’s becoming a bit uncomfortable. Many jobs our children will do haven’t even been invented yet.

The independent schools could work more closely with the state sector, but it concerns me that this campaign is chasing an ideal, and if successful would just shift the problem elsewhere.

This is what I thought too. I can certainly see the problems caused here, but the idea that all private school parents would send their kids state seems very naive to me. Those with the money to have and execute choices will be able to use those resources for homeschooling instead, pay private tutors and benefit from informal networks. The really wadded ones will also have the option of private school abroad. I'm not saying none will end up in the state sector, especially in schools selecting by mortgage, but they're still going to be people with resources making opt out easier.

I don't think the policy gives two hoots about the parents or children currently at private school, they just want the facilities and buildings for free, and have a scapegoat, so they don't have to look long and hard at why state education doesn't always work.

The thing is, and I say this as someone who went to a state comprehensive, I don't think they do.

Let's imagine there were no private schools. Those "top jobs" would still need to be filled and they would be filled by people who went to state schools. What evidence is there that our society would be worse off as a result? Are the politicians who went to comprehensives (Philip Hammond, Justine Greening, Nicola Sturgeon to give a few examples) noticeably less competent than those who didn't?

It is a complex issue and I don't necessarily think that abolishing private education would be a good policy - I tend to think that there would be more useful things a Labour government could focus on. But there's no reason to think that we would somehow be incapable of filling the "top jobs".

Why would they be filled by people who went to state schools rather than those whose parents had paid for excellent tutors to homeschool them?

Why would they be filled by people who went to state schools rather than those whose parents had paid for excellent tutors to homeschool them?

I don't think enough children are homeschooled to fill all the "top jobs".

If you mean "would people who have advantages through birth still be over-represented in the "top jobs" that's probably right.

Why has this debate become so over-simplified? Clearly it's silly to say "get rid of private schools and society would be totally fair and equitable." But it's also silly to think that private schools having their pupils over-represented in the top echelons is entirely down to their pupils somehow being "better equipped for the world." Absolutely nothing to do with people's assumptions? Look at some of the assumptions and blanket statements people have made about state schools on this thread. You think these don't do damage?

This is a very interesting thread.

I have used private, state and faith schools for my now adult DC, but I have changed my view over time from being in favour of private schools, freedom of choice etc to being much more ambivalent. Of course, most parents want what's best for their DC and are often prepared to make big sacrifices for a private education, if they think that will give them an advantage in life. And who can blame them? But whilst there is a two tier system, inequalities will continue in society - realistically they always will, but the inequalities start in the education system and perpetuate afterwards. It doesn't matter if 7% of people go to private school, but it matters very much when those people hog all the top jobs and dominate the rest of society. And yes, Boris is a case in point that illustrates all that is bad about the current system, a man of little ability or moral fibre, no principles but that of self love and aggrandisement, but his Eton confidence, charm, and 'pedigree' still cut a dash which enables him to be 'crowned' as PM.

I think that it would be a mistake to just close down private schools as there is no doubt that some of them are excellent, and it would be foolish to throw out the baby with the bath water. Some of these schools offer generous bursaries but it seems from one of the links provided up the thread, that a lot don't.

My view is that the way forward is collaboration, enforced if necessary. It's not enough to say that we, as a school, are charitable because we let the plebs from the local comp use our swimming pool when we don't need it. I am thinking along the lines of say a third rising to 50% of school places to be provided to those from low income families, for example, which the state should pay for by paying the same amount which they pay per child for a state school. This would lead to better integration and equality of opportunity. The private schools - and I am talking secondary schools here - would then have a vested interest in becoming involved in helping their local primary schools, to ensure that they had a suitable cohort from whom to recruit their next year's intake.

I also agree with the pp who said that tertiary education should be free for all. It's shocking how much debt a student takes on to do a degree - interest is charged at a usurious rate before they have even attended their first lecture. The rich kids don't have that concern and don't have to take jobs during term time to make ends meet, unlike their poorer counterparts, so have more time to devote to their studies and gain better degrees.

One ray of hope is that Oxbridge is facilitating entry by taking account of an applicant's school and educational background to make contextual offers, and also allowing a second application for those exceeding their anticipated A level results. Oxbridge, if anything even more of a social divider than school, is no longer a rite of passage for 'Tim, nice but dim', so this is definitely a positive step forward.

If the government could get the top private schools on side to widen entry - and I think they probably could as, like Oxbridge, I assume that they want the best talent, regardless of economic background - then this is the best way forward. Don't antagonise the top schools, work with them and learn from them, to achieve results.

And yes, more investment in state schools as a priority. It is totally unacceptable that enrichment subjects such as music and drama are being slashed, due to lack of funds.

But often they ARE better equipped for political jobs! The refusal to believe this is why we have this issue in the first place!

Smaller class sizes, public speaking exams from 9 years old, emphasis on social skills, manners, high expectations- this is what does it!!

I have used private, state and faith schools for my now adult DC, but I have changed my view over time from being in favour of private schools, freedom of choice etc to being much more ambivalent

Yes, I'll probably do the same when it doesn't affect me any more!

But often they ARE better equipped for political jobs!

Where is the evidence for this? The 1945 Labour government had a large number of Cabinet members who hadn't even had secondary education and that govt achieved a lot in very difficult circumstances.

I'm a bit surpised that anyone can look at the state of the country now and think that's a good advert for politicians with a private education.

Well i know Clement Attlee went to haileybury and stafford cripps to winchester for a start!

Private schools create educational apartheid, where the poor or disadvantaged are further disadvantaged by their accident of birth and means. I think abolishing them is unlikely but charities they are not. Remove that status and we’ll start to even the playing field because fees will go up and more parents who demand good education will be forced back into the state sector to demand that standards and funding improve in every area.

And I say this as someone who can afford to privately educate and chooses not to in a city where the extremity of educational apartheid makes parents behave like lunatics and reject outstanding secondaries due to fear, prejudice, and pure snobbery. My child does not deserve a better education than yours, whatever the money sitting in my bank account. Every child deserves an equal shot at an outstanding education and the opportunity it brings. The private education system gives the government an easy out when some of the most demanding parents are outside the system which requires pushy people to push for adequate funding and excellence. It’s nuts. It’s fear. It’s unfair. It has to stop.

I think abolishing them is unlikely but charities they are not

Not all private schools have charitable status.

Every child deserves an equal shot at an outstanding education and the opportunity it brings

So bring the state system up to scratch then.

Jacques you are missing the point. If you take out the 7 per cent of parents who are most demanding about education, the fight is harder. When a government is run by private eduacated etonians, the fight is harder. When the socialist opposition is in total disarray, the fight is harder. When the opportunity to buy better exists, people will because ultimately people are selfish and want what is best for them, not the majority.

I don’t know if you privately educate but, if you do, this is a genuine question: why does your child deserve a better education than 93 per cent of the population?

I agree with a PP. Close the private schools and force all children into State school whereby the rich will just hire private tutors, so their DCs will still come out on top.

I don’t know if you privately educate but, if you do, this is a genuine question: why does your child deserve a better education than 93 per cent of the population?

I did yes, because we didn’t get any of our primary choices. To me? Yes my child deserves the best and I was fortunate enough to be able to provide that. I’m afraid I’m not throwing my child into what was sub-standard education as a socialist experiment.

As I said if private schools weren’t an option she would have been home-schooled.

What is very interesting is the main “anti private school” cohort on MN on the main educated their kids in excellent state schools.

I don’t know if you privately educate but, if you do, this is a genuine question: why does your child deserve a better education than 93 per cent of the population?

Why does the child of a wealthy person deserve more holidays abroad than other children? More visits to the theatre? Better quality clothes and food?

Most parents want to do the best they can for their children within their means. For some, educationally, this means private school. For others it's state school supplemented with tutoring.

The only way to eliminate childhood inequalities is a system where the state controls all aspects of childhood and everyone gets exactly the same. I don't think any parent would want this.

There are many issues with schools labour could deal with instead of this. Typical champagne socialists as lots of them send their kids to private schools or highly selective schools that aren't local - Tony Blair causes a right storm 20+ years ago not sending his child to the most local school, I bet they are all the same one rule for them and one for the minions.

HPFA Let's imagine there were no private schools. Those "top jobs" would still need to be filled and they would be filled by people who went to state schools.

But where we have a deficit in the labour market, that doesn't happen.

What does Britain do when faced with a doctor shortage? Does it push forward gifted programmes in state secondaries to channel pupils to medical school? No, it recruits from abroad.

Again, we have an engineering crisis. Does the government push for engineering careers advice in schools to help interested students get onto engineering degrees and into jobs? No. Instead, desperate firms ask people to come out of retirement, or they recruit from abroad, while postgrad engineering departments largely teach international students.

I mean, look at the current chairman of the Bank of England. He's Canadian.

To go the other way, prior to the EU8 expansion, we had a plasterers crisis in the country. You could get hold of a plasterer for love nor money. At the time, I was involved in a NEETs programme in Manchester where a 19 year old lad told me why this had happened. You had young men going to college to train in the trade but once they finished, they couldn't properly qualify without an apprenticeship, but no one would take them on as the expense was too great for single man firms. So we had all these half-trained plasterers signing on.

What did the government do? Solved the problem by advertising for Polish plasterers to come to Britain instead.

This is going to be controversial, but I'm going to say it anyway. Successive governments in this country do not give a flying fuck about the majority of the populace and their wellbeing. State schools are not good enough because government does not actually give a shit.

And that goes for all parties.

I dont think enough children are homeschooled now to fill all the top jobs HPFA, rather that at least some of those currently privately educated would be should private education end. The assumption that everyone would be state schooled in that scenario is what needs questioning.

What does Britain do when faced with a doctor shortage? Does it push forward gifted programmes in state secondaries to channel pupils to medical school? No, it recruits from abroad.

Nut medical schools turn away a lot of highly-qualified applicants. Is it likely that without private schools there wouldn't be enough qualified applicants? Most of those who get the required A-Level results would also get those results in state schools.

I do think part of the issue is what qualifies as a "good" state school. I personally know a couple of people who have gone private rather than use DD's school. The school is excellent in every way, that's my own experience and backed up by the data. I'm sure there are people who wouldn't have used private schools if they had access to a state school as good as this but equally, there are people for whom no state school is good enough.

"Nut" in the above post??? Not even sure what word I was searching for there.

15% of French children go to private school and 10% of children in the USA.

Wow, this thread is a clear illustration that equality (or even a hint of it) does indeed feel like oppression for those with privileges.

Privates schools in the UK are the equivalent of the guns in the US. It is blindingly clear how they create and sustain the immense inequalities in the UK society, but people will bend over backwards to defend this shitty system that raises those with money to the top and lets the other rot.

Yes, abolish the private schools! Perhaps this will finally force those at the top, who were so bloody well prepared by their private school education for leadership, to consider the education of the wider population. If their children have to go to state schools, they will have to care about the state school funding. Only the funding decisions they make will apply to ALL schools and not just to a select few.

The increase of the house prices in the catchment areas of good state schools? Perhaps. But this will be more than compensated by the fact that many people who currently live near good private schools but cannot afford to send their children there will now be able to. And in the long run the increasing quality of the state sector will most likely actually abate the scramble for the properties in the catchments of the few excellent state schools.

ALL children deserve quality education. To say otherwise is pure child abuse and criminality. And this abuse is going to continue as long as the wealthy who rule are able to insulate themselves from the ills of society with their money.

Some people are very attracted to the idea that people who invest considerable resources preventing their DC from experiencing state education would suddenly be cool with it and not use their resources to avoid state education in some other way if the private schools suddenly shut. Its mystifying. As a pp said, there are privately educating parents for whom no state school will ever be good enough. Better that we accept that and come up with ways to improve the system, without the involvement of that cohort. They're not coming.

The idea that abolishing private schools would help state schools is just plain ludicrous. Theoretically it might sound nice and play to the politics of envy but:

1. Once private schools are abolished, it will be replaced by something akin to it. Parents with money will buy properties near good schools and then end result will be the same, except it will apparently be socially more acceptable. So instead of top jobs being held by people from private schools, they will be held by people who went to selected state schools.

1. With less than 700,000 kids being educated privately (and that spans primary and secondary I think), it is ludicrous to put the blame of poor state schooling on the shoulder of this small population of students and their parents.

1. To completely remove the ability of people with some money to afford better schooling, health, housing, transport, insurance, clothes, we will need to move as close as possible to a communist system. That's the only way to remove the ability to thrive above your neighbour (not the incentive or desire as these will always be there as human beings).

Private schooling is a scapegoat. I know many parents who send their kids to private schools and believe me, they cannot be described as rich by any stretch of the imagination. They're just regular middle class folk who sacrifice. That's the choice they make and they shouldn't be punished for it. I know some parents sacrifice all sorts, including saving for private education, to go on holidays. No one critcises them for it. Some will say it is a basic right. So why penalise parents who choose not to go on holidays but instead sacrifice holidays for private schooling for their kids?

It's about choices. However, choosing to save and send your child to private school is deemed a problem. Save for other things like holidays, or spending on latest gear, TVs, phones, etc are perfectly okay and a God given right.