Abolishing private schools - how would it work in practice?

[Dongdingdong]

Labour has voted to abolish private schools:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-public-private-school-abolish-eton-vote-conference-corbyn-education-policy-a9115766.html

Whether you agree with this or not, I don’t understand how the logistics would work. Would private schools suddenly cease to exist from say, summer 2023, with all pupils forced to find a place at the local state school for the autumn term onwards? What would happen to the buildings and facilities - would they remain as state schools or be sold off to developers for example?

The facilities would be shared between all of the pupils, so every one of those 7 classes would have access to the private schools gigantic playing fields, full range of sports equipment, up-to-date computing equipment, music facilities - many have art studios with kilns, proper theatre spaces, recording studios, large libraries, SEN departments etc. Some of those things could be moved around to the other schools, or pupils could travel to the private school (using their minibuses/coaches) to use them regularly.

The facilities are there because the parents are paying fees. Once they stop all the facilities will go, unless the state pays for them, so where is the money going to come from?

Parents currently paying school fees would no longer have to, yet their children would still have full access to all of those facilities (just have to share them a bit more).
What facilities? You need money to maintain those and pay the staff. No money, no facilities, no staff.

Parents previously paying school fees would suddenly be aware of things like the narrow nature of the national curriculum, would make a fuss to ensure that languages, arts, public speaking, lateral thinking and subjects like psychology or philosophy A-levels are still available to what will now be the whole of the nation.

This is very undulating to parents whose children are in state schools and who are aware of the failings of the system and who are trying to do something about it. Why do you think that people who have previously paid fees will be successful? You are being patronising and insulting to all the patterns who currently have children in state schools.

Statistically, children with the potential to cure cancers are more likely to come from that 93% previously underfunded than a narrow 7%, so it's more likely that society will benefit. Some future genius in science or technology, or a great musician or even politician will no longer be hampered by having to share a textbook between 3, with not enough equipment or supervision to do more than the absolute necessary to pass an exam.

What's stopping the state from investing in the state schools? Also, as above, no fees, no textbooks. They won't magically appear.

It is monstrous that children are not all given equal access to equipment, resources, teachers' attention etc. Can you imagine going to a playgroup where some toddlers were given only a few chipped bricks and a couple of toys to be shared between a large group of them, while the others were fenced off into a large space with tables filled with jigsaws, clay, brand new bricks, were surrounded by staff to sing songs and learn the alphabet?
It would feel wrong.

What's stopping the state school staff from singing songs with the children and teaching them the alphabet?

How is taking from one group going to make the other group better? Wouldn't it better if the state invested in the state system instead to strangling the private one?

It's so easy and temping to see it in black and white, but that's short sighted and it won't solve anything long term. Investing in the state sector so it's better than the private one is a much better solution.

Not sure where the undulating came from, It was supposed to be insulting.

Aloadoftwaddle. Sorry, explain again how you believe this will be funded, bearing in mind the massive current underfunding in state education?

They'd become academies, which would then be free to sell off extraneous facilities.

Whilst you’re at it, please also explain how Labour plan to abolish some key aspects of employment legislation, eg TUPE or are they also planning to find additional money to fund the higher salaries and benefits of independent sector teachers?

They could draft new legislation. Staff would be able to change over or take redundancy, as often happens in the world of private business when there is a change in management or structure.

The teachers there would still be able to teach, they're not going to get sacked.

Thread in the staffroom suggests that many private school teachers would not be taking up the wonderful opportunity to teach double the class sizes, lesser facilities, shorter holidays and probably worse pay.

So now you’re very short of teachers.

Aloadoftwaddle. Your user name is very apt!

Academies still require funding. Currently the funding for those schools comes from the parents paying fees. Without those fees, the funding has to come from central coffers.

That’s after they have paid to purchase the buildings, grounds etc.

Labour want to extend employment rights, not reduce them. Or is that only when it suits them?

twaddle yes, because of course selling off some facilities is really going to plug the current crater in school funding, and provide extra on top for the influx of additional pupils. And of course with education having an abundance of teachers we can easily afford to lose more at the same time we gain pupils.

yes, because of course selling off some facilities is really going to plug the current crater in school funding

In this scenario, Labour are in power. I doubt they'll continue with austerity and underfunding schools. If necessary they'll divert funds but I imagine they'll just borrow yet more money.

There’s only so much parental engagement that state schools have time for - most parents engage at school firstly to help their own dc better, and also, having parents involved requires teacher input to direct them, like any volunteer group. Our school has a large pool of parents willing to help but they can’t bring the core teaching standard up by volunteering for 25 mins one day a week.

Parents having time to engage is another kind of unfairness - why is it more acceptable to advantage your dc by being a sahp than sending them private? They are many (expensive) ways of giving your dc better chances.

SOme people on this thread really need to educate themselves.

You cannot seize private assets which is what most private school buildings are.

The facilities are maintained by the fees that are paid so no fees = no facilities. If the state has the funds to do this themselves why are they not already.

If you think taking away charitable status is magically going to give you back all the VaT and business rate relief into the public purse you are much mistaken. Many independent schools are only breaking even in cash terms (ie after re-investment in facilities) so take these tax breaks away and they close.

The actual cost to the economy would run into the billions - where is this money coming from?

SO the result is huge pressure on places for existing schools, unless the government plans to fund the current private schools to continue running - most don’t have classrooms to facilitate 30 people so you wouldn’t be able to run these without a huge deficit.

I could go on but this is too ludicrous to waste more time on. Typical policy to grab headlines with no thought to how it would work in practice.

They could draft new legislation

Legislate away employment rights? Not very progressive

How would parents of higher attainers make a school better? Wouldn’t they just tutor their own kid? Why would they want to motivate a disruptive kid given that their intervention is unlikely to make a difference?

Kids spend more time at home than school... if you were a parent of a high attained, would you spend your time after work a) helping your own kid with their homework b) helping a class of kids including your own with their homework c) working more hours to pay for tuition/language lessons/music lessons for your child d) using the extra cash to contribute to a specialist teacher for the whole class, where lessons are regularly disrupted and your own kid finds it hard to learn...

My guess is a and c would be more commonly chosen...

Parents having time to engage is another kind of unfairness - why is it more acceptable to advantage your dc by being a sahp than sending them private? They are many (expensive) ways of giving your dc better chances

I don't know that being a SAHP does advantage them tbh. It's more about actually caring how they do at school- generally parents who do read with their kids etc will produce kids who can add more to the classroom. Also, having friends with dentists, doctors and other high-fliers as parents will be of help to academically able youngsters who otherwise wouldn't have been able to make those connections- think how difficult it is to get work experience in a hospital as a teenager when you don't know anyone in that professional sphere.

The facilities are there because the parents are paying fees. Once they stop all the facilities will go, unless the state pays for them, so where is the money going to come from?

This country isn't short of money, its one of the worlds richest nations. Its how it is distributed that is failing,

What's stopping the state from investing in the state schools?

So long as govt ministers children go to private schools (and for that matter, the oppositions children) there really is zero incentive to invest in state education.

Over the summer i went to a state primary school in rural france, i couldn't believe the equipment, the sports fields and the small class sizes, no idea if this is typical but it was head an shoulders above anything i've seen in Cornwall.

SOme people on this thread really need to educate themselves

Do we really?

How do other countries manage? and produce far better results across their populations.

That’s exactly why parent engagement doesn’t bring schools up, parents are more likely to go around complaining to other parents of naice kids about the disruptive SEN kids that aren’t being adequately supported in large classes than do anything to help the struggling kids. At best, engaged parents can benefit a class by having one kid that doesn’t need much input from the teacher.

This country isn't short of money, its one of the worlds richest nations.

Left wingers often make this silly point, but fail to realize that we became one of the world’s richest nations through capitalism, not their precious socialism than would drive us into the ground in no time.

twaddle and where exactly is this money coming from? I don't disagree that in theory we as a country have the money to provide good state education for all, but on top of all his other batshit spending schemes there won't be.

If he got into power and started introducing his stupid land taxes to increase revenue I wouldn't be the only person to sell up my home and land and fuck off elsewhere. Or perhaps just do some legal, but creative accountancy to ensure we didn't pay anymore tax than we do now. And as it will mainly be the wealthier that have the opportunity to do so he'll have even less money to waste.

You need time and energy to get them to to homework, read to them, talk to them about their day. Much harder to do when you get home at 6 with an exhausted toddler and younger primary aged kid.

Of course parents that aren’t working full time have more time to engage with learning and it isn’t fair that some have time and some don’t.

I think probably the smaller class sizes and having the resources to pay to retain teachers have more of an impact than the technology or facilities...

Half baked and half cocked. Just like the rest of Corbyn & Co’s policies.

How would parents of higher attainers make a school better?

Why in earth would you want parents involved?

I trust my school to educate my child well, I don't want parents involved.

I can't think of anything worse than school policy being dictated by parents, all with their own personal agendas.

I don't disagree that in theory we as a country have the money to provide good state education for all, but on top of all his other batshit spending schemes there won't be

Based on what happened the last time labour were in power, I presume the plan is just to borrow as much as we can. Not a good plan, but hey, when has that ever stopped them? It's a moot point anyway as they won't get elected.

You need time and energy to get them to to homework, read to them, talk to them about their day. Much harder to do when you get home at 6 with an exhausted toddler and younger primary aged kid.

Not impossible though. Many do manage it.

Just as many kids do fine in state schools, doesn’t change the fact that a parent that is able to work less is better able to engage with learning at home. To say it’s not harder for parents that work more to do that is perverse.

So long as govt ministers children go to private schools (and for that matter, the oppositions children) there really is zero incentive to invest in state education.

Well, draw up a Code Of Conduct, no need to use a cannon to kill a fly by abolishing private education just to stop ministers not investing because they are sending their offspring to private schools.

Sorry I haven’t read the whole thread so may be repeating.
Much as I love the idea of abolition in theory I’m not sure how nit would actually work.

However stopping charitable status immediately would be excellent: and channeling that might eye straight back into state education even better.

And before everyone says ‘oh but what about the (tiny proportion) of bursaries etc’ let’s remember these benefit the private schools too since they’re mostly given to particularly gifted kids and so boost attainment figures. It’s not something for nothing!