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?

Surely the amount of money that would need to be spent compulsory purchasing assets and buildings could just be spent on state schools

No, we widened access to the group they excluded. Now what would the analogy be for the private schools I wonder?

Bursaries.

This thread is making me seriously consider sending DS to private school when he is older (he is 2) there is a fairly decent infant school not far from us but the junior school afterwards (age 7/8 up to high school I think?) leaves a lot to be desired. We are in a deprived town in an ok area of that town.
My thinking is that for the first three years, he goes to the local infant school... we keep a close eye on how he is doing, see if he seems like he would benefit from going to private school and take it from there I guess.
First and last child though so I really have no idea what to do for the best. Education is so important.

Do people not agree that the mentality and attitude of the pupils (usually inherited from parents) can also make a difference to the overall effectiveness of the teaching on offer?

@TrainspottingWelsh There's no complex legalities preventing religious criteria being banned by the next round of admissions

There most certainly is! Catholic schools have been built and are maintained by the Catholic Church in order to provide a Catholic education to Catholic children. The state does not own them. The church and state did a deal to say that the buildings remain the church's problem but the state would pay teachers salaries and in exchange non-catholic children could have the leftover places and the whole school would follow the national curriculum and be subject to the same inspection regime as secular schools rather than just doing their own thing. Ban religious criteria and that deal is broken. No that does not turn every catholic school into a secular school overnight. It means each council has a number of teachers that they have a contract to pay a salary to but no place of work for them to work in, each school has some proportion of their students that they no longer have any obligation to teach, and they need to recruit some new teachers. The schools would privatise, with fees as low as possible (probably about £8,000 per year to allow bursaries to be offered to those who can't manage any fee) and the religious criteria would stay.

Church (and other religious) schools are charities founded with the express purpose of educating children of that faith. Advancement of education and advancement of religion are both legitimate charitable purposes. The state cannot simply seize the assets of a church school and make it a secular school any more than they can seize the assets of a private school to make it a state school.

The rule of law is based on the principle that it is legitimate for people and organisations to own assets. You cannot simply ignore that principle.

I've a feeling that some of these "not great" schools are perfectly fine but it serves as an excuse to go private. What is the definition of " not great"?

No, we widened access to the group they excluded. Now what would the analogy be for the private schools I wonder?

Bursaries

Had Private schools genuinely opened up their teaching and facilities as a "charity" should do, then this Labour policy wouldn't be happening.

During the last Labour government, independent schools were threatened with the withdrawal of tax breaks afforded by virtue of their charitable status unless they did more for public benefit and specifically widened access for underprivileged children. This definitely resulted in a trend away from scholarships to bursaries, although we sense this has been reversed since the Conservatives have returned to power with more funds for scholarships

Had Private schools genuinely opened up their teaching and facilities as a "charity" should do, then this Labour policy wouldn't be happening.

You think it’s that nuanced? The people who came up with ‘Abolish Eton’ don’t give a shit how many kids get bursaries in a private school in Sheffield.

Had Private schools genuinely opened up their teaching and facilities as a "charity" should do, then this Labour policy wouldn't be happening

Can't speak for them all, but the local comp can come to our school to do certain A levels that their school doesn't offer. Also teachers of certain subjects teach at state schools. It works to keep the dialogue open and stop the private school kids being treated like pariahs in the town.

Church (and other religious) schools are charities founded with the express purpose of educating children of that faith

We've moved on from that. We don't let employers discriminate against adults because of their faith. There is zero justification for schools discriminating against children outside their faith. You can have a faith ethos, and parents outside the faith might not be interested, but actually excluding children from state funded schools is wrong. I suspect the bulk of the cash for the schools still comes from the state rather than the church. But even if it does not, charitable objects should not allow discrimination on any of the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

If this isn’t going to be Labour policy, then why mention it at all? Personally, I hope everything he said is going to be Labour policy as that would ensure they never get in. I don’t want to live in a communist country

@HarrietM87 You make very good points. Very dispiriting to hear the opponents to your fundamental points.

Very dispiriting to hear the opponents to your fundamental points

What, dispiriting to hear an opposing view? Wow, life must be hard

If you use private education, you are going to be opposed to this plan. The interesting thing is that a lot of people who do not use private education can still see that it is a completely unworkable waste of time and money.

You think it’s that nuanced? The people who came up with ‘Abolish Eton’ don’t give a shit how many kids get bursaries in a private school in Sheffield

Now? no, it won't matter at all but as the article points out, they changed their policies against bursaries.

Never heard of any of the local private schools, opening up for free, A level courses... our nearest comp has heavily cut back 6th form studies (due to budget cuts) so much so that many parents are taking their kids 40 miles away to a dedicated state 6th form college or moving to other schools, which is what my DD had to do.

Funding of state education really is terrible, the budget cuts to Callington schools 6th form is shocking as is its infrastructure, much of which hasn't changed since i was there 40 years ago.

Never heard of any of the local private schools, opening up for free, A level courses well, it does happen! Parents were a bit grumbly about it but can see it is actually an advantage in the long run. And students from the private school can do Film A level at the local comp if they want

The interesting thing is that a lot of people who do not use private education can still see that it is a completely unworkable waste of time and money

Not really as any policy from Labour will be criticised heavily, there is thread after thread on labour policies on IHT, private renting, housing, schooling, defence, shorter working week etc
But little on tory plans to raise retirement age to 75 or to cut taxes for the very richest, costing 10s of billions over a Parliament, let alone billions to cut corporation tax or their failed policies on adult social care.

MN is quite conservative in its politics.

What, it's not interesting?

Are they going to abolish church schools at the same time?

@trewser are you saying that letting women into Cambridge on an equal basis with men is the same thing as private schools making a few places available per year via bursaries? Unless 50% of private school attendees are there for free then your argument makes no sense.

"Not great" in my case

• built as a single stream (1 class per year) but has had 1.5-2 classes per year for the last 7, so now massively over capacity
• only getting away with this as they've converted the library, the general use space, etc. And an attic space in an annex

And build an extension on the already tiny playground

• playground only consists of concrete, not a blade of grass. This is also the only PE space except for one internal hall which is frequently shared between two classes at the same time.
• class of 33, 1 teacher, no assistants
• major staffing problems, largely due to there being nowhere to park without paying a fortune.
• last year has seen the head, deputy head, assistant head and most experienced stafg go. Even the office admin left
• lots of nqt and very few experienced teachers
• new head is inexperienced and clueless about everything
• teacher so busy they didn't notice bullying up to and including one child burning another in the classroom

What, dispiriting to hear an opposing view? Wow, life must be hard

No, dispiriting because of your follow up point.

If you use private education, you are going to be opposed to this plan.

Which brings me back to the analogy I used earlier. Of course many that benefit from an iniquity are going to support it (it's why most of the biggest feminists tend to be women, why some of the key campaigners for gay rights are gay, etc, etc). But it is an iniquity.

The interesting thing is that a lot of people who do not use private education can still see that it is a completely unworkable waste of time and money.

I grant that the practicalities to this policy mean this policy will never be implemented, but I would like to move to a situation where something as fundamentally important a social good as education, and the resulting outcomes are so dependent on parental financial resources. There is a social justice argument, but there is the practical argument that so much talent is wasted (and we end up with people like Boris Johnson as PM).

Damn

I would like to move to a situation where something as fundamentally important a social good as education, and the resulting outcomes are not so dependent on parental financial resources

I've a feeling that some of these "not great" schools are perfectly fine but it serves as an excuse to go private. What is the definition of " not great"?

For us the choice wasn’t because the school was “not great”. We didn’t, however, get any of our choices and were allocated a school 25 minutes drive. The school had no wraparound care.

It simply wasn’t workable for us, so we chose to use the prep school 5 mins drive away.

See, I don’t think it is an “iniquity”. Everyone in this country is entitled to state education, which is a pipe dream for millions of children worldwide. Obviously I want that state system to be as good as it can be, but I’ve heard the arguments and I just don’t agree it is somehow wrong for some children to go to private school. Children from better off families will do better whether they go to private schools or not for a whole multitude of reasons; social mobility is about so much more than private schools.

And even if it weren’t, I consider it totally wrong to take opportunity away from some children because not all children can have it.

See, I don’t think it is an “iniquity”

I find that an interesting position, and I don't really understand it. It's clearly an unfair system (that is incredibly difficult to tackle, and I agree that wealthier families will often find ways to game the system - see the admissions scandal at US Universities right now). Do you mind me asking what side you sit on? Does that affect what side of the argument you sit on?

And even if it weren’t, I consider it totally wrong to take opportunity away from some children because not all children can have it.

Would you say the same about other forms of injustice? I get that it's an emotive one to use, but would you say the same about racism or sexism?