To wonder how one would go about abolishing private schools?

[Chuffin]

If anyone is following the @abolisheton campaign, they state their aim is to integrate private schools into the public sector and hope this to be included in Labours next manifesto.

My children are about to start independent school, having had a terrible time for a whole host of reasons in their state primary.

Aside from the moral argument for or against private schools, I am very interested in whether it would be legally possible to abolish private schools and how this would happen? Would this even be feasible realistically?

At least removing (laughable and unfair) charitable status would mean they could stop evading tax and more would be paid into the system by those who can afford it....

Shouldn't everybody be grateful that people are willing to remove financial burden from state school system??

And... Given the parlous state of mainstream education..... Deep down many would understand why some people take that decision.

I think they must assume that the teachers made redundant by the closure of their schools would seek posts in the state sector.

I do not know how far they have tested that assumption (also the parallel assumption that staff are sufficiently qualified to move into the state sector. A few years ago, on retirement, the former head of Westminster School was barred from taking on a role in a state school because his qualification were inadequate and experience did not outweigh that)

Absolutely! All the local schools in our area of London are oversubscribed and many are having to take bulge classes in portakabins. You can’t magic up land in urban areas to build more capacity. It’s such a nonsense and built on jealousy - and I say this as a state school teacher.

How about instead - having a concerted effort to improve teacher well being and work life balance so teachers are motivated, not exhausted and over worked and leaving the professions in their thousands.

@nobodyimportant

It seems today, if you want your dc access to grammarian the parent needs to active in the process. So this automatically cuts out disinterested parents or those in Foster care etc.

However in ye old days the burden was on the school. Therfore dc with parents for whatever reason didn't want them educated to the best they could be, were not disadvantaged by this.

Therefore more able children were supported into grammars.. It helped smash the old boys network. Without grammars at that point in time, we would be in worse situation now in regards to those in power.

“And... Given the parlous state of mainstream education..... Deep down many would understand why some people take that decision.”

Not even deep down. But not because of the basic education. Because of the “stuff”.

Jeremy Corbyn himself lives in a whole Victorian house in Islington (very expensive and posh area of central/north London)

Umm, the sainted Jeremy lives in what very much resembles an ex-council house in Islington. In his wife's name.

The Scottish government has already removed charitable tax relief for private schools in Scotland. I think it has added to the financial struggles of the smallest schools that were already in trouble but the sector is still thriving.

You can’t magic up land in urban areas to build more capacity

You don't need to. Independent schools already have large quantities of land and buildings in a school setup. Some of these (like Eton) would be far beyond the reach of the state sector, but plenty of others could continue to be used as schools. Similarly with teachers.

This has been done elsewhere, and successfully - the issues are not insurmountable.

You can't.

Even socialists send their kids to private schools. Russian, Chinese, British and Italian socialists send their kids to private schools.

Stupid thread.

Yes. But they can't afford it. So their kids go to school and into classes of 33. Seems a little UNFAIR. Don't make the mistake of thinking poorer parents somehow love their kids less. There is plenty of money in this country...it just ain't fairly shared. Forgive me if I struggle to feel grateful to the middle and upper classes for buying their way out of a crippled system

(I mean yes to the poster suggesting it's understandable people pay...as the state sector's under such strain)

Noble giraffes graph shows the problem very well. Under Tory austerity, education funding has suffered massively. The last Labour government put a lot of money in and made teaching a more attractive profession. PP sniping about Tony Blair would do well to remember that.

Similarly with teachers.

You can’t just ‘use’ teachers. They have to make the choice to teach in state education at a time when a huge number of teachers are choosing to leave.

Thanks for that mind blowing contribution A12O3

I agree with you about a universal basic income, but I don't see how that would solve any problem in relation to income inequality. Some people would always be more willing and able to earn more than the basic level of income and some people would be happy doing the basics for other benefits. Also, I teach in part via online learning. Its a bloody nightmare getting adults to submit tasks set remotely and to do the work set for them, never mind children. Remote learning sounds great, but again, the children with parents who had the time, inclination and resources to either make their children do the work set or to get a tutor in to help them will be the ones doing it. You need a phenomenal level of motivation nd commitment to learn remotely.

Regarding UBI (which was a bit of a digression, sorry) I would say that's necessary but not sufficient in reducing inequality and giving people security. It would need to be part of a package including rent controls (so the extra money doesn't all go into landlords' pockets) and building social housing (for when the slumlords' racket is so unprofitable that they all sell up). Advocates of UBI always assume it would go hand in hand with increased taxes on higher earners and/or asset owners, so it would tend to reduce (though not eliminate) the income gap.

Your points about remote learning and different standards of parenting are completely correct, but I don't think we should let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I'd like to see progressive, humane legistation to tackle the social ills that actually can be tackled, rather than be discouraged by the fact that the state can't fix everything for everyone all of the time.

I think Labour could have chosen far more worthy causes to have focused on in our education system. Maybe they could have started with the fact the majority of state schools are in a crisis with regard to funding, teachers are leaving in droves and Special needs education in this country is a shambles with many SEN children illegally excluded, inadequately educated and denied their rights.

Way to go Jeremy.

Fizzy - so what do you want? Everyone to live in the same size house? Never have a holiday? No one have a car? All children to have the same ability?

Why scapegoat and zoom in on private education as being so unfair?

“I think Labour could have chosen far more worthy causes to have focused on in our education system”
They can probably have more than one.......

Might also be prudent to remember why we had austerity on the first place.
Who left the note saying there is nothing left??

It will never never happen. Large numbers of Labour bigwigs, eg Diane Abbott, Shami Chakrabarti are hypocritical about education. They preach about the egalitarian benefits of comprehensive education, but local state schools are never good enough for their own precious offspring. They won’t vote to abolish the schools they send their own kids to.

It is a lazy proposal that fails to recognise inequality is so massively ingrained by 3 that some children will never catch-up. You can’t undo that gap by abolishing the private system. Those students (with exceptions for disabled/specialist provision) will still have massive advantages over other pupils.

Not all private schools have charitable status. DD's doesn't and is part of a big national company with a couple of foreign outposts. Where we live, the only state primary schools in walking distance are faith schools and, being a Humanist and committed to their campaign to end state funding of faith schools, there was no way I'd send DD to one, even if they'd "let her in". So we paid to go private and were grateful to be able to do so. In this area the birth rate is apparently falling, mostly due to people leaving the area due to costs, and they are actually closing a primary school.

"but plenty of others could continue to be used as schools. Similarly with teachers"

That assumes that
a) the state can afford to buy them out on fair compulsory purchase terms. That would be really very expensive in London (which has the highest levels of privately educated pupils and greatest population densities). This is an expensive thing to do
b) teachers will want to join the state sector. They may prefer a career change, and you cannot compel people to continue.

Large numbers of Labour bigwigs, eg Diane Abbott, Shami Chakrabarti are hypocritical about education. They preach about the egalitarian benefits of comprehensive education, but local state schools are never good enough for their own precious offspring. They won’t vote to abolish the schools they send their own kids to.

Actually, I'll be sending my children to independent secondary schools but support abolishing them. As the system stands, a large number of children will go to state schools, I went to one (on a scholarship), our local state schools are crap and I don't feel right about hugely disadvantaging my children for the sake of principles they may not share, when the children of those who do not give a toss can get the leg up.

However I'd vote to abolish them for all.