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.

College/house system spanning all year groups to improve cohesion and integration.

We have that

No automatic "push through" according age so you move onto new subjects and higher levels when you're ready.

That sounds great in theory. In practice there is a stigma attached to it. Not to mention we would also need A LOT more special schools so we don't end up with a class of mainly left behind SEN kids. Then there's the practical and social aspect of having a 10 yo in the same class as a bunch of 6 yo. Leaving their friends behind,possibly more than once.
I know a y5 child that works at the level of a middle ability y2. A special school place only just now opened for him.

Schools open full days starting earlier and finishing later, but teachers/pupils only go in half days, so you can have twice as many pupils and teachers using the same classrooms, labs, resources, etc without actually increasing working hours

This would definitely need more funding. Let's say the school is open 7 to 7, early wakeups for the morning kids, late bedtimes for the afternoon kids,not to mention doing homework when you get home at 8 or unsupervised/while in childcare the next morning.
There is a certain amounts of hours needed in order for kids to do all the subjects they have to do.

Far more use of modern computer teaching methods, i.e. along the lines of the Open Uni Future learn system where people learn individually online, complete questions etc at the end of each section, have the opportunity to do it again (or required to do it again if scores too low), - no routine teaching required, no marking - ideal for the student who's engaged and willing which gives more time for teachers to deal with the disruptive/disengaged/strugglers, and pupils can work at their own pace so the able can speed along, the stragglers can take more time.

Maybe once they're older but you can't expect primary children,especially ks1 to set their own pace. As an aside, even the brightest pupils need human /adult input,interactions, attention and even extra help and explanations.

i.e. compulsory IT/computing,

It already is.

same with Maths, split it into numeracy and then offer "hard maths" for the more able, such as trig, algebra, etc.

Why? All kids need at least some exposure to "hard maths" and many of them are able to access it when the work is tailored to their needs.

I actually was educated in the type of system you seem to favour and while in theory it sounds great, in practice it allows many kids to be left behind, the main result being that those that can,are able and willing will get a good education the ones that don't or can't will at best get some basics. No "hard maths" of course.

Not all people who send their children to private school were just born rich ( that's obvious by a lot of comments on here ) It all smacks of a nanny state to me trying to take away choice ( it would never work)

We all have to realise that to get the services we want we have to pay more tax - OR ensure that education is being run in the correct way . It makes me very sad to hear that parents have to move their children because of lack of discipline / bullying/ generally bad schools . that's what we should be tackling - not adding more pupils into the system with no extra money ( their parents pay tax already ) .

I live in an area of high deprivation (not in the UK). My son is the only white child in his class. Next year he will be in a class of 12, because the government has decided to make smaller class sizes a priority in problem zones. It's just a matter of political will.

Who says private schools are the best? by what measure?

Few children with special needs, no children from poverty or substance abuse, supportive parents, money for the latest books and technology, extra lessons for those who struggle or those that dont, an almost unlimited budget.... it would be hard not to have great exam music and sporting results.

Couple this with a fantastic network of opportunity when the children leave school and its no surprise most from private schools do very well.

How can this be compared to most all state schools?

no children from poverty or substance abuse
I disagree about substance abuse. Alcoholism and drug addiction affect people from all walks of life including parents of children at private schools.

Well, if thats all we disagree on...... lol!

But i'd hazard a guess that the numbers of Heroin/Crack addict parents at Millfield compared to say a inner city comp in a UK city is tiny.

My point is that these schools just do not have the problems a mainstream comp has to deal with, making it so much easier for them to appear to be great schools.

Who says private schools are the best? by what measure?

Exactly. Personally, I think the better results from private and grammar schools is little more than because the pupils are more engaged, they have engaged/interested parents behind them, and because the pupils are usually actually keen to learn and that ethos is contageous so even the less engaged kids get caught up in it.

If schools are selective in any way, and only take in kids who are high achievers (i.e. by inbuilt ability or parental pushy power), then isn't it obvious they're going to come out well at the other end unless something disastrous happens along the way.

It's like the top Unis - they only take in A and A pupils, so of course they're going to turn out graduates with top degrees in hard subjects - if the students can get A/A grades at A level, they're clearly motivated and bright which is half the battle, so the lecturers/professors don't really have to work their arses off to get the students through the degree course.

Has there ever been a study done where a private or grammar school has been filled entirely with pupils from a failing crap comp to actually see what effect the "private" experience has on them. (No I don't mean those where the odd random state pupil is put into a class of private kids, that's completely different, I mean an entire cohort!). Only then would we see whether the private/grammar school actually makes much of a difference to a group of pupils, many of whom are disadvantaged and have chaotic home life.

One of the main advantages of the private school system for pupils and teachers is small class sizes and better pastoral care. Also the fact that teachers can actually teach rather than spend a lot of time on crowd control.
If all privately educated pupils went to state schools the classes would be even bigger, and crowd control would be worse. Resources would be even more stretched. Lots more schools would have to be built to accommodate more pupils, all this at a cost to the tax payer. The quality of education for all would be worse and kids who can actually learn in small classes at the moment would be lost in the mayhem.
I have worked in state schools and had my children in both state and private schools at different times. Private schools are not generally for the rich. Many parents struggle desperately to make sacrifices for their children’s education, or are helped by grandparents etc. Of course schools like Erin and Harrow are in a different class. However they really are educating leaders . The quality of debating , learning Classics etc gives them the edge on people educated elsewhere unfortunately. They get on the basis of ability as well as the wallets of their parents.
It would be great if we lived in a truly equal society, but we really never will. Most societies through time were not equal, it’s jus the way life is.
If you put many of the kids in the state system in a very competitive high achieving school they would not have the ability or inclination to benefit or partake fully. They would be lost. If you level the playing field so everyone is performing at a mediocre level to accommodate all abilities no one really wins.

There have definitely been successful experiments like that Kazzy, I'm just trying to find the reference. There's also Christ's Hospital which boards children from troubled backgrounds and has excellent results. It's an independent charity school.

Ah this is the thing I was thinking of kazzy, only four kids so not a whole cohort. www.eyla.org.uk/images/post/May-27-Rugby.pdf

If you put many of the kids in the state system in a very competitive high achieving school they would not have the ability or inclination to benefit or partake fully. They would be lost

mmmmmm i guess it would depend on their age and whether it was a boarding school or not, kids returning to chaos and terrible diets every day/w.e and holidays would temper the results.

Environmental factors play a huge part in how children do at school.

On the point of funding, private schools avoid about £3.5billion in taxes each year, about 10% of the education budget.

We are currently down to pay over £80 billion on a short section of high speed railway......

only four kids so not a whole cohort

My point exactly. Take a small number of disadvantaged kids and put them in a bigger group of advantaged ones in a private/grammar environment, they're bound to benefit, not by the building nor the teaching, but just by being surrounded by better behaviour, more engaged pupils, etc.

I'm pretty sure that if you moved an entire school cohort from a sink comp and relocated them to a top private school, even the best teachers and the best equipment/resources wouldn't make much improvement.

I know Christ’s hospital quite well, it’s an interesting place. It is in many ways the most traditional independent school I can think of. It’s an institution with incredibly strong identity and traditions. I think this is what makes it successful in absorbing kids from such diverse backgrounds, some very disadvantaged. Stuff here the state could learn from, yet it doesn’t.

kazzy there has been an experiment in Paris with alternating cohorts in nice and rough parts of town, so that all the rough neighbourhood kids in one year go to the nice school and all the nice neighbourhood kids go to the rough one. Apparently it worked pretty well. I can post a link in French if you're interested?

I'm pretty sure that if you moved an entire school cohort from a sink comp and relocated them to a top private school, even the best teachers and the best equipment/resources wouldn't make much improvement

I would imagine it would, they would go straight from classes of 30 or 40 to one ones of 10, they'd also have far better diets, weekend & evening schooling, sports and adventure activities.... the out of school stuff my brothers children have received is quite honestly astounding.... every taste and ability is catered for, no one goes without.
They would go from being a problem to being an individual.

The level of resource compared to my DD school (which was a decent state comp) was huge.

Perhaps take the pupils from a top private school and put them into an inner city comp? now that would be interesting!

My issue is that areas with high private school attendance receive less funding for state schools, for a wealth of reasons.

Take the two schools nearest to me, for example: one is an outstanding selective private school, the other is a state school so bad that it recently had to be closed.

I live in an area of London where a lot of rich people live.

Compare my area to a comparably affluent area nearby without a private school in the vacinity. Guess what? The state school is well funded and outstanding!

Then look how many schools are facing cuts due to reductions in student numbers.

Private schools take away from the community in so many ways.

It will be interesting to see how Holyport college continues to perform its doing well so far
www.holyportcollege.org.uk

State boarding sponsored by Eton

There have definitely been successful experiments like that Kazzy, I'm just trying to find the reference. There's also Christ's Hospital which boards children from troubled backgrounds and has excellent results. It's an independent charity school.

I have a family member who works here. They select by ability so of course on some level it is unsurprising they get excellent results.

The traditional nature of it - and other private schools - is something that the socialists sneer at. By at the end of the day consistency is key - private schools simply do what works. They don’t keep changing term on term, desperately trying to find the secret ‘key’ to success, driving teachers and students into the ground.

Hey keep to tradition, strong sports, consistent teaching methods. It’s not rocket science but the state sector admitting this is akin to treason.

Hey keep to tradition, strong sports, consistent teaching methods. It’s not rocket science but the state sector admitting this is akin to treason

Jesus wept - even after 34 pages you still come out with this crap.

Private pupils simply have far more resources - teachers & money and do not have pupils with the issues many state schools have to deal with.
Here is an example - from my sisters school (a few years ago) an 8 yo turns up at school dressed entirely inappropriately, the Head goes around to see the mother, who high on crack offers to sleep with him..... another child has a history of attacking teachers, the mental health team deem him not to be a priority.

State schools do not have the money to have "strong sports"

I can guarantee Kelly College does not have these sorts of children to deal with.

But you keep on with your fantasy schooling.

I’m aware but thanks for the lecture.

The comment was a response to the many posts that ha e stated many children have supportive parents and are just as able as those in private schools, and that many private schools have disadvantage children, such as Christ’s Hospital.

No shit Sherlock that state schools have far more social issues to deal with. That’s the point. It’s partly why many parents - myself included - are sending private. But to state that part of the issue is the way the schools are run is a no brainier. But until finding matches the private sector and you deal with the very fabric of society that causes so many problems, nothing is going to change. But it is not ONLY this. Otherwise places like Christ’s Hospital wouldn’t work.

Well, your post did say that it was down to teaching methods and strong sports, glad you acknowledge that was a little simplistic.

I choose to spend my earnings on my sons education instead of holidays and clothes. That is my choice. Why should I not have that choice?. I earn less than some of my friends, they make a different choice. I do it because I can work and I know my child is in my choice of environment instead of childminders etc. If you remove these schools, state schools will be more overcrowded and childcare options will be saturated as most private schools mean during
no additional childcare is needed.
Why should my son be uprooted from a safe happy environment he has been in since he was 3 because someone else doesn't like it????

So how does banishing private schools help with parents that are on crack or children that attack teachers? Is the solution one of ensuring all children are exposed to that disruption? Any parent trying to remove their child from such an environment should be brought back into line? No one apart from the very rich should have the ability to exercise a option of removing their child from a disruptive environment?

How do private schools help the vast majority of parents who cannot afford to take their children out of these environments?

If parents paid vat and the schools corporation tax, then that would instantly give (assuming it was spent on ed) 3.5billion to state education, approx a 10% increase in spending.

Have private schools if you like but don't expect poorer tax payers to subsidise your choices.

Most of the schools don't make profits as the money just goes into teacher salaries so tehre would not be corporation tax in my view. There would be some VAT but as fees might go down a bit as no need to give bursaries etc and the schools could also then claim back VAT on items they buy which are subject to VAT I doubt it would boost state coffers. in fact suddenbly ihaving 500,000 private school children in the state sector at say £7k a year per child is a lot of extra cost to state school parents i.e. higher taxes all round presumably for those parents in work and bigger class sizes.

We aren't subsidised - we pay loads of the UK's tax bills for a start and in effect pay twice and thirdly we produce such well educated children they make a vast difference to the nation in a lot of cases - so good are our private schools people flock from all over the planet to be educated under that system so it is win win for the UK