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.

"People on the national average income sacrificing to send their kids to private school is not my idea of wealthy"

National average household disposable income is about £28k, people who are average are not sacrificing to send their children to private schools, where the average fee is £18k per year in the South East and about 12k in the North of England.

Where is the money going to come from for all this extra investment?

I agree with you, but how are we funding it?

I think if Labour scrapped tuition fees and invested heavily in schools, dumped hs2 and the new runway then I'd be far more sympathetic to their cause.

The huge advantage with private education is...the access to sport and music facilities, denied state schooled children

Sports and music facilities are not denied to state school children . At the state school I work at, the majority of the class go to out of school activities - swimming, dance, tennis, riding, football.

It’s just that their parents have to pay for it. Just as private school pupils’ parents pay for it through their fees.

Average wage is around 28k before tax, its an avg of 17k per year per child (non boarding) for a top school.

Its £15k for a second tier private school, per child.

Both examples are for senior school children.

Its way beyond the reach of an avg wage couple with 2 children.

where the average fee is £18k per year in the South East and about 12k in the North of England

I’m presuming that’s for secondary?

Where is the money going to come from for all this extra investment?

I agree with you, but how are we funding it?

From all the taxes Labour are supposedly going to be getting from taxing the rich?
I tell you what's not going to fund it, scrapping private schools. Which won't raise any money but will put more kids into the state system.

Sionnachbeag, goodness I didn't think I was worth debating, having not done well at my private school.

On £50k household income I know plenty of people who do educate their children privately.

In any case, as you've been extremely rude, and given that private schools teach manners, I won't be wasting my education on you

Doesn't "taxing the rich" just result in them claiming that actually it's their wife's business, and she lives in Monaco so doesn't have to pay any tax?

Round where I leave private primary is £12k.

Sports and music facilities are not denied to state school children confused. At the state school I work at, the majority of the class go to out of school activities - swimming, dance, tennis, riding, football

Yes but its lovely to have them seamlessly integrated into the school day. If you work until 6 its a bloody godsend to pick up your ds at 7.30pm, homework done, fed, sports done.

Corbyn does not plan to take the rich. Rich in his vocabulary means middle class on £50k and above. You are consider a high earner.

Most private secondaries, the good ones, would be 21k a year for a day pupil. Impossible on 50k.

"I’m presuming that’s for secondary?"

Yes it is.

"On £50k household income I know plenty of people who do educate their children privately."

But that isn't the average household disposable income is it, or even an average income.

Oh and anecdote, how do you know how much they earn, or that they pay for it all themselves?

I'll keep correcting you cause its fun,.

Grammar schools have a far more detrimental effect on local comprehensives than private schools ever would.

Depends. The effect is proportional to the number of pupils in each from the catchment area and also whether it's a true "grammar" area or whether it's a "rogue" grammar in a comp area. Also whether it's a super-selective grammar or not. There's so many differences between areas, you really can't generalise.

We have a state selective grammar that is literally within sight of a couple of "outstanding" rated comps. In terms of numbers, it's intake is pretty insignificant - it's tiny compared with the two huge outstanding comps and there's also a couple of "good" (or whatever the next grade is called) comps nearby too.

Remember that 21k has to come out of taxed income.

£50k and above already start paying 40% tax!

If we're going the route of Scandinavia with everyone paying 60% taxes, then I'm expecting nursery and uni to be free and a full afternoon tea to be served for all new mums on Maternity wards....

On £50k household income I know plenty of people who do educate their children privately

Really? households on 50k take home pay aren't the average and are you really suggesting they are paying out 30k in fees? plus extras: uniform, sports music extra tuition?

What do they live on?

My brother pays 80k to board his children out of a take home salary of 230k, he is one of the poorer families there.

why don't Labour say they'll start with investing more in things like the arts, music, sport at schools, investing more in SEN support too, improving conditions and pay for teachers, investing in child mental health services.

Because they're playing up to the media, like they did with scrapping tuition fees. They know they're not going to get into power, so they're just playing silly games.

If they actually promised something useful, like massively improving IT and computing skills in schools, people may take them more seriously.

Unfortunately, it seems all modern politicians (all parties) can't understand how to modernise/improve and plan towards the new World future of robotics, computerisation, global economy, etc. They're (especially Labour) just stuck in the past and forever wanting to go back to how it used to be rather than being innovative and looking toward a new, modern future.

" Rich in his vocabulary means middle class on £50k and above. You are consider a high earner."

Actually the increase in taxes was only on those on £80k and above, which puts you in the top 5% of all earners in the UK.

Jasjas, two people on average income is approx £50k household annual income. The situation for one high earner with the same household make-up is the same.

You may move in wealthy circles where boarding is the norm. I don't and the figures near me out. The vast majority of private schools are not boarding schools and most of the parents sending their kids to private schools are just ordinary middle class folk nor earning 230k.

"Because they're playing up to the media, like they did with scrapping tuition fees"

Which costs about the same as Boris Johnson's tax cut.

According to a labour pill amongst its members, £50k is considered rich. In Corbyn's vocabulary and that of many Labour members £50k is rich. To win votes, he knows, like with many other things, he / they need to tread carefully. £80k has been the compromise but may no mistake, the membership and the leaders think £50k is rich. Their own pill says so.

*poll

Scandanavians do not pay 60% taxes, Denmark has an upper limit of 52% ours is 45% above 150k

Yes its higher, so is their VAT but we also have a lot of so called hidden taxes, insurance and council tax being the 2 main ones.

Scandinavians have, mainly, excellent public services, we get poor ones, cuts have meant we are paying for services we no longer have, including education, both for children and adults wishing to better themselves.