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.

It is more than possible to send 2 children to private school on a £45000 per annum income it just is about where you choose to spend your money

Cheapest school i could find for senior school aged children is 14k per year per child (Day not boarding) doesn't inc meals, uniform or transport.

That leaves 17k to live on, mortgage/food/cloths/bills and this is assuming this 45k is after tax, so gross earnings of around 60k..... so you lose CB too (if a single earner)

Just dont see it unless savings/family help or you have no mortgage etc.

In my opinion most of the problems with eduction in this country are down to the lack of interest of the parents anyway, so what difference would banning private schools make, those parents are still there letting down their children

Funny how people think that being rich = working hard.

Plenty of people work hard but are not paid enough to educate their children privately

Having money doesn’t make you a better person.

Kazzy

Its not Labour policy, so they don't have to justify it, they have an education policy, try reading it.

Until all parents have to send their children to state schools the wealthiest people will continue to ignore the crisis in state education. Education should be the great leveller in terms of opportunity. That means providing the right education for all pupils including decent support for gifted and talented pupils and decent help for pupils with additional needs.

I don't like Labour's stance on several key areas but in this they are absolutely right. Every child in this country deserves an excellent education. Schools need to have a culture of aspiration and having engaged, ambitious parents and pupils are what makes that happen.

Yabu.

Schools need to have a culture of aspiration and having engaged, ambitious parents and pupils are what makes that happen

Oh lord we’re not going to get into the “private school parents can save state schools” nonsense are we?

Its funny how posters who associate being rich with working hard are also saying that the access to top jobs is majorly influenced by parental income and the privileges bought by it.

"private school parents can save state schools nonsense."

You don't think that having engaged and motivated parents improves a school or the system as a whole?

You don't think that having engaged and motivated parents improves a school or the system as a whole?

Sure, but it’s a fairly common theme on these threads that private schools parents are somehow expected to lose the schooling of their choice and then swoop in and save whichever school they get given.

It’s utterly ridiculous.

Not really, if the private option wasn't available there would be significant political pressure to fund schools properly.

Other countries that perform economically and socially better than the UK manage without such a large private educational sector.

What private and in particular grammar schools do is remove a large number of pushy parents from the state sector.
Also, as many in power come from these sectors, they don't really care about state education and thats across all parties.

Not really, if the private option wasn't available there would be significant political pressure to fund schools properly

Not from me, and I certainly wasn't alone. I would have home schooled.

I think it is really important that people who are against state school acknowledge their privileged position from being able to send their children to a good school that they chose....

You don't think that having engaged and motivated parents improves a school or the system as a whole?

People are ultimately selfish/self-centered so will do what suits their child. No riding at school? Pay for private lessons. Learning about Ancient Rome in history? Family holiday to Rome.

Engaged parents will pay for tutoring so school results will rise but they can't do anything about poor behaviour bar contribute to higher house prices near the school and price out the poorer kids who are badly behaved.

Engaged parents are less likely to do stuff like raise money for PTAs etc as they care about their child first and foremost. They can't force governments to fund education better either.

Engaged parents are more likely to be involved in the school and do stuff like the PTA.

"Not me" your individual experience is not reflective of society as a whole.

your individual experience is not reflective of society as a whole

Of course, neither in fact is yours.

Your refusal to acknowledge your privilege is - as always with those who are anti-private education - is completely telling.

I haven't said I'm anti private education, in fact if you read what I have written Ive said that there is little point to abolishing it.

Engaged parents are indeed fundamentally selfish when it comes to their children. Depending on their philosophical bent, they will do what they can to help other children, but only where it doesn't impact upon their own child.

Very few would be willing to significantly dilute their child's education for the benefit of all.

But if their child was in the state system the oressure woukd be there, they would be inherently selfish and push for improvements for the benefit of their children, and a rising tide catches all boats.

Its the invisible hand at work.

But if their child was in the state system the oressure woukd be there, they would be inherently selfish and push for improvements for the benefit of their children, and a rising tide catches all boats.

Which would be fine if you were able to diversify the risk, but you're not. It's one child, with one cohort per year. It's not a sufficiently fluid arrangement to take a wait and see approach.

When we invest in people to develop their skills and capabilities, we all benefit from a stronger economy and society

Say Labour

So why can't I invest in my own children and just be left to get on with it?

To send two kids to the school ds is going to would cost 41k a year and that's day not full boarding. So not possible on 45k net. Yes there are cut price private day schools but I think you'd have to be desperate to use them as often the results are no better than good state, sometimes worse.

If i was forced back into state education I would do fuck all to improve the school. How dare people expect that to happen! On one hand we are selfish privileged Tory scum, but oh by the way can you just sort our school out for us? Fuck off.

Yes there are cut price private day schools but I think you'd have to be desperate to use them as often the results are no better than good state, sometimes worse.

It's not always about results. My parents (shop worker and secretary) sent my brother to a local private school as a day pupil because they really didn't want him going to the local comp he was assigned to (a lawless failing comp). He came out with some bog-standard qualifications, nothing special, but he at least survived it and got enough quals to get a half decent job. Some of our neighbours who sent their kids to the failing comp said they really suffered, one committed suicide due to bullying, another (top at primary) came out with literally nothing as he'd got involved with the wrong crowd, another was bullied so badly they moved him mid way which set him back.

So, yes, some people are desperate to use them.

More recently, I know a plasterer who had a mid-teen son at a comp getting into all kinds of trouble (bunking off, drinking, drugs, gangs) etc. He wasn't really "that kind" of kid but just couldn't say no to the excitement of the wrong crowd. They scraped enough money together to send him to a pretty bog standard local private school, but it turned him around and he went onto A levels and Uni.

As you can see.... people who pay to send their children to school bristle at their social obligation to deploy them as class wardens or dillutors of bad behaviour.

I care very much about impoverished children in the UK, I contribute money to various causes, but I am not willing to drop my kids into a disruptive or underachieving class to improve their outcome. Pretty normal, I think.

When people point to Scandinavia i.e the Land of Milk and Honey, what they set aside is that it's a relatively wealthy, homogenous population . Sort of like a giant leafy comp.

When there is evidence that Labour can sort out the current inequalities in state schools, then people might actually consider their point.

State schools are, always have and always will be, a postcode lottery. We all know this.

Getting rid of independent schools will simply mean that the gaps between the winners and losers in this postcode lottery are even greater.

Are they planning to get rid of faith schools as well? Will they ban the farce of aetheist families showing up at church with their pre-schoolers, just to get the form signed by the vicar?

Or what about the Catholic system we have round here where your place at your local Catholic secondary school is determined by.. wait for it.. the age of the child when they were baptised!! So a child baptised at two days old will get a place over a child who maybe had to spend a week or two in hospital or ICU because they were premature or other complications. Yes that’s fair isn’t it.

The whole UK school system is a joke.

At the independents mine go to in London the fees are £7-8k per term. The reason they are higher is because a proportion goes into the bursary scheme, allowing 1 in 5 pupils to be there free.

One of the schools my FC go to won a TES award last year for enabling social mobility, alongside organisations such as the NHS!

I can’t soeak for boarding schools or more rural independents, but maybe the anti- independent schools brigade should actually come into schools such as the ones we use in London. They might change their attitudes very quickly if they did.

At the independents mine go to in London the fees are £7-8k per term. The reason they are higher is because a proportion goes into the bursary scheme, allowing 1 in 5 pupils to be there free.

This is the direction of travel for the independent sector, at least for the most elite tranche.

These schools tend to be run by socialists who are genuinely conflicted about the morality of private education, and they can read the political mood as well as anyone else.

I don't know why the PP has been so dismissive of Eton's rather impressive social goals. I guess some won't be happy until the country's most elite institutions open their doors to disruptive/low achievers from poor families.