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.

Old-boy network...David Prescott, Stephen Kinnock. Is it school or seeing what your parents do & thinking I'd like to work in similar field?

'Politics of individualism.' Dianne Abbott, Tony Blair.

DS goes to a private secondary. It was not the plan but the way things have ended up. DS old primary feeds a req improvement secondary. His school is good but no exam factory and not in the same league as the famous schools.

I want a quality education for every child. Could we start with teachers qualified to degree level from a decent university in the subject they teach being evenly distributed around the country? I know they may have family & a preference but why should the educational offer to the children of say Grimsby be lower than that in Guilford? My guess is there is no-one in education in NE Lincs with an Oxbridge degree.

I think more respect for teaching as a profession, better working conditions and addressing regional disparity in quality of provision are the first issues to address.

HorridHenrysNits, I am sorry, but all your arguments are just excuses for continuing with the current completely ineffective policies at best or for doing nothing at worst. What are you proposing to do that has not been tried a million times before?

No they're not. And what I'm proposing is for people not to be so stupidly naïve that they allow their ideology to blind them to the reality that people who have resources and want to use them to keep their children out of state education aren't going to all suddenly come round.

If the full involvement of the elite were a precondition for improving our state education system, we might as well stop bothering to even try, because we won't get it. As I want to improve state education, I don't have the luxury of deluding myself about that. Abolish private education or don't, I'm not that bothered either way, but meanwhile it isn't going to deliver that cohort into the state system and we still have problems that need fixing.

"The state sector does not equip people for top jobs."

Another statement which is utterly incorrect.

Why are 66% of FTSE 100 CEOs state educated then?

One of the things about the Sutton Trust "Top Jobs" report is that it fails to address the fact that for many top jobs nepotism and long periods of unpaid work are necessary.

Private school parents can afford to pay for their kids to do these long periods, and have connections that get their kids starts ( especially in things like law). People love to pretend it doesn't happen, but of course it does.

Kids whose parents are rich are also more likely to take more risks with possible careers, because if they fail, they will get a second chance, kids from less privileged backgrounds know they won't.

There are so many more factors other than just private school, don't ban them, just stop pretending they are charities.

You need to address selection by faith in the state sector. My DC couldn’t get into the nearest state primaries because they were the wrong faith (DH is North African and Muslim). Consequently, the local community school had a disproportionately high level of EAL and FSM compared to the Faith Primaries. It became a form of indirect ethic and economic segregation.

We went down the private route in the end. If you abolish private schools are you still going to allow the state schools that my taxes go to fund to discriminate against my children?

ethnic not ethic

The state sector of course in many places does provide excellent education, in many places better than the local private.

I find this hard to believe and would like some actual examples. Obviously if parents are choosing to send their children to private in such circumstances, then closing them down will do them a favour as they can send their children to the better state school. Amazing.

silvercuckoo, I don't know, have I?
I just can't see how someone who has been through the system can sing praises to it. Yes, it landed a man on the moon (to a large degree by efforts of scientists and engineers who were educated pre-Soviet times), and two million dissenters in the labour camps (which also was education - "labour re-education").

Sionnachbeag, it is an absolute fallacy that most parents who go the private education route are wealthy or rich. The majority are just run of the mill middle class people who sacrifice to pay for private education. Some people prefer to pay for private tuition. Some send their kids to private schools.

This idea of wealthy parents is so wrong.

If we are talking about banning private schools, what about the other problem - grammar schools? Different toilet, same shit. I went to one that was so socially selective I didn't know "free school meals" existed till I read about them in the Daily Mail. They had a fucking Director of Rowing and Equestrian Team, and lots of average pupils with rich parents, swimming pools and tennis courts who got tutored to get in. The atmosphere was actually horrible, they were so focused on academia and sport in a "if you're not sporty you can fuck off" and "manual jobs are for thickos" sort of way.

A lot of state schools seem to be focused on exam results to the detriment of everything else. I was highly academic and felt pushed into a corporate career as a result, which I hate, and am giving up to stay at home and do a creative job self-employed. I could have gone to a shitty comp and got no A-levels to do the job I'm about to embark on. I would want my future kids to be open-minded, kind, confident and know that being a plumber is no "worse" or "better" than being a hedge-fund manager, life is about what makes you happy and what fulfils you. I would not want them to be like me as a result of going to my grammar school, thinking that getting B's or not going to top 10 unis was shameful.

If private school pupils are dominating politics and top professions, they are doing something right. Labour should not be looking to abolish it, but rather provide a quality education to ALL children.

This

It is totally unacceptable that enrichment subjects such as music and drama are being slashed, due to lack of funds.

Another reason why Oxbridge entrance is skewed towards fee-paying pupils (music)

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

And will probably get jobs more easily, not necessarily because of ability or qualifications, but because of presentation, confidence, articulacy, etc. to some extent due to.....

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

But only to SOME extent, because unlike a PP has stated, inequality does NOT begin at school, it begins at home, often with better educated, articulate and involved parents, frequently with better social graces to pass on to their children.

Children from such homes will ALWAYS do better.

"I find this hard to believe and would like some actual examples"

You can find it hard to believe, but its true, especially when you compare the non selectives. Even with selectives when you compare the top set results with the private then there is little difference and often the state outperforms the private.

Although you don't get many state schools that can split their results between the "school" and the "college" to fiddle the results.

I also agree with stopping selection by religion, in a country that is vastly secular there are a lot of people who find god conveniently.

The argument for banning private schools is all over the place. In one breath, banning private schools will force those who would otherwise use private schools to oyt all their efforts into improving state schools. The argument here is that state schools would see a massive improvement.

Now we are being total that actually state schools outperform private schools.

So why should private schools be abolished again? If there isn't much difference in the outcomes what's the benefit? In fact, you should welcome the fact that the "wealthy" are paying twice only for those in State schools to achieve just as much as as pupils in private schools. In fact you should be laughing at these dumb rich people who are wasting their money.

*Now we are being told that actually state schools outperform private schools.

"Now we are being total that actually state schools outperform private schools. "

Not what was said, what was said in some areas the local state does outperform the private, not all private schools are good.

The sweeping generalisations made here by so many of you really don't point to a good education.

"In fact, you should welcome the fact that the "wealthy" are paying twice only for those in State schools to achieve just as much as as pupils in private schools. "

The "paying twice" argument is utter bunkum too, everyone pays in taxation for services that they don't use directly.

I just can't see how someone who has been through the system can sing praises to it.

My mum did, she got a good school education, a free university education and is now a professor at a UK university.

Its also interesting to note that there is research that shows that children from wealthy homes who get fewer qualifications, do better on average in terms of earnings than University graduates from poor households.

The current system is desperately unfair, but abolishing the private schools would not get to the root of the problem; I genuinely don't know what to do for the best.
I never thought I would end up teaching in the independent sector, but the miserable arithmetic got the better of me.......
A (very long) time ago, I went to my local state primary, then on to grammar school. There is no way may parents could have considered fees; letting me stay on past 15 was a crunch. But my DF, who had left school himself at 14, insisted that education was the way forward.
This may sound rose-tinted, and the system had many flaws, but at that time provision was such that the grammar schools were giving independents a run for their money! One of my school friend's DF actually stated that he could see no point in paying fees, which he could easily have afforded, when she was getting a good education courtesy of the taxpayer (including him!). As she had her own horse, I guess he wasn't boasting.
A friend of mine who showed musical promise received free instrumental tuition until he left school at 18, to go to Oxford on an Organ Scholarship. Later on, when I was working for ILEA (Inner London Education Authority), this system was still in place, and I auditioned pupils with promise as part of my adviser's job. Then the cuts began.......
Children would receive free tuition with instruments on long-term loan, as with the Tower Hamlets Strings Project.
ILEA valued developing teacher expertise, and I had a grant and study leave to help me develop my career with a second degree; it was seen as a benefit to the children to have qualified, experienced staff. Music education in London was seen as a flagship, with visitors from abroad coming to observe.
This sounds boastful, but I found that I priced myself out of the market! Twenty plus years experience, degree standard qualification in my specialist subject - two or three probationers would be so much cheaper!
When the advisory post I was aiming for was cut, I took off travelling for a while, and when I came back, did a bit of supply work. It had never occurred to me to work in the independent sector, but I did some supply work, and ended up in a school where having experienced, qualified staff was seen as a positive asset! I got considerable gyp from my staunchly Socialist family, but I went where the work was.
Anecdotally, I only went to one retirement "do" for a former colleague who lasted out to full retirement age in the state sector - and after forty years, I'd worked with a lot of former colleagues. Not the same degree of burnout, although it's never been an easy job.
In some cases, I have heard of "expensive" teachers being constructively dismissed, and head teachers now are left with shrinking resources for all the different issues they have to tackle.
I might also point out that, if private schools were to be abolished, the government would have to deal with extra pupils who, up until then, were being paid for twice over; once, when their parents paid their taxes, and for the second time when they forked out fees.
And the truly elite would probably decamp overseas........

So what is your point? That some state schools outperform private schools mean that private schools should be banned to protect these wealthy people from wasting their money?

On another note, is it that these private schools are poor or that on those state s hooks parents are doing the equivalent of private schooling, ie, tutoring? In other words tutoring yields the same outcome as private schooling in terms of academic achievement.

Some parents choose private schooling not just because of academic attainment but because of behavioural attainment. Are you saying that choice should be removed? Why should parents with a particular ethos towards discipline, who choose to be very involved in their children's upbringing not have the choice to spend their money to send their kids to a school where they know that parents won't be causing major disruption to how the school chooses to instil strong civic duties?

Its also interesting to note that there is research that shows that children from wealthy homes who get fewer qualifications, do better on average in terms of earnings than University graduates from poor households.

It's not exam results. It's the whole package. The confidence, the pep talks and career advice from parents, CV help, much higher expectations of life, internships at the company Dad works at, etc.

For example there was a thread here somewhere of someone "poor" lamenting how they'd worked at the same company for 7 years and hadn't got a payrise despite working really hard, asking "how do people get these well-paid jobs?". That is the problem. My middle-class friends would never stay at a job more than 1-2 years if they didn't get a payrise or if the job was in any way less than perfect. They move up and up. One of my mates asked for an 18k payrise after working somewhere for a year, and got a 9k one! It's just a totally different attitude, expectation and entitlement. People who feel entitled to things, that they deserve them, tend to make sure that they get them. Whereas people who grow up feeling like they don't deserve good jobs, relationships, etc because those things are for "other" people, won't get them.

The class problem is a lot bigger than just exam results.

"That some state schools outperform private schools mean that private schools should be banned to protect these wealthy people from wasting their money?"

Your whole point is a strawman, never said anything like that, if you read my posts you wouldn't have constructed such a poor point. You've based everything after the point quoted as if this is what I had suggested. I didn't.

"It's not exam results. It's the whole package. The confidence, the pep talks and career advice from parents, CV help, much higher expectations of life, internships at the company Dad works at, etc."

That was the point I was making.

Students from wealthy homes do better in terms of salary. So that means abolish private schools?

Why do you think they do better? Do you think it might be because of the home environment? What next, stop parents who are educated from becoming wealthy and stop them from having effective parenting in the home?

Children from "wealthy" homes will on average do better regardless of educational attainment because of those life skills and invaluable lessons learned in the home, and parental guidance and involvement.

You arguments are all about bringing down those who do well in an ill-conceived plan to achieve equality of outcomes. You shoukd think about raising the standards and achievements of the underprivileged and achieving equality of opportunity. Equality of outcomes cannot be achieved unless you are in a dictatorship that enforces this kind of equality, and even then there will still be a tiny elite.

My mum did, she got a good school education, a free university education and is now a professor at a UK university.
So did I (although using my doctorate in a different way), but there's no way I'd choose the same for my children. Your mum also obviously preferred for you to receive your education in the UK.