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 educational opportunities are the same. Both state and private do A levels? There's a wider choice at the state school tbh. We are at private for the sport (non existent at state, surrounded by pupils who don't care about it and piss about the whole time).

"be brought down to the level of educational opportunities that 93% of other children in this country get. Speaks volumes really"

Yes - it shows the belief that state education is inferior. It shouldn't be like that

Yep, dd was in top and toppish sets at state and all her friends were tutored.

The land currently owned by private schools could be used for the new housing they have promised. If Labour then reduce the working week of existing full time teachers to 32 hours, teachers from the private schools could then have contracts for up to 32 hours week.
The worry in all of this is that people actually believe it.

Compulsory purchase of land, property and business?

So they compulsory purchase the school and its assets. Donate the assets to the council for public use and sell off the land for building - presumably that would be tricky as not many building firms would want to invest in a project that could be taken back by the govt at any minute. Also as the govt is anti capitalist it would have to use its own preferred building firm rather than tender. So obviously there will be massive safe guarding issues having housing within the school so that needs to be dealt with. Not sure the council will wamt to or afford the costs involved of running an athletics track and pool, so that will go. Ancient buildings presumably cost a fortune to upkeep so they'll go. Teachers might stay but head and organisational team will go. Noone will be able to buy a huge piece of land and buildings in Jeremy's brave new world as they wont have the money to do so and entrepreneurs will be actively discouraged as they dont exist in socialist countries apart from as part of the government. Just thinking this through.

Listed buildings? Ones owned by the church, families... what about properties owned that aren’t used by the school (ie houses in the school portfolio)?

I guess the state gets the lot. Tbf even John McDonnell has said it might be legally dodgy.

These a street near us that the leases on properties are owned by a school. Do these go too?

Presumably that comes under assets so yes. A nice little earner for the state or perhaps free to the teachers?

I am state educated myself, and my children were all state educated.
However, I do not have a problem with independent schools, even the most renowned ones, such as Eton, Harrow and WInchester, etc.
Remember, their parents (UK ones) have already paid taxes, but choose not to avail themselves of the state education on offer, and pay extra to have their children educated privately.
It seems there are mainly 3 ways this could happen.
a). You could abolish the charitable status, and charge VAT. However, I understand this already applies to lots of private school, so no change there then.
b). You could close the schools, sequester the buildings, facilities and land, and redistribute the students to other state schools. Apart from the overseas students, many of the UK students will be boarders (parents in the military overseas, etc). Assuming sufficient notice was given, the overseas students would probably move to schools abroad,(thus losing the UK income) but it also assumes that there would be sufficient places in state schools for the extra UK children. Taxes would have to increase to pay for them.
c) Somehow nationalise the school, keeping the buildings facilities and staff, but make them into state schools. (Taking over their endowments, etc).
[Note An earlier poster said this could apply on a year by year basis. So, all new year are state education, etc. This would create practical difficulties of part private and part state education].
Nationalising the entire school, assumes that the school, staff, facilities, are static commodities to be acquired at will. In reality, some facilities are static (buildings swimming pools, tennis courts), some facilities will be moveable (trampolines, sports equipment, books). It also assumes the staff (and students) would not have a choice.
Many of the buildings are historic and have Listed status, and would require extensive remodelling to accommodate the larger class sizes.
Options b and c, run into so many legal difficulties, that I do not think it would ever happen.
If we assume that somehow all private schools would cease, the smaller ones would obviously close, but the most renowned ones, would move abroad.
As an earlier poster said, all the rich parents would ‘colonise’ a local ‘rich’ area, and squeeze out the poorer children, so their ‘state’ schools, would still be better resourced, even if they came under state control.
It is also impossible to prevent additional private tuition.
So, my view has always been, that the real answer is to make state education such, that fewer parents would opt to send their children private.

So, my view has always been, that the real answer is to make state education such, that fewer parents would opt to send their children private and there you have it. Perfectly put.

that the real answer is to make state education such, that fewer parents would opt to send their children private

I think it has to be a two-pronged approach of improving state education, and at the same time, making private school less attractive. So on one, hand we could work towards increasing the resources in state schools (how we pay for it is difficult), and on the other hand, work towards making private education less attractive (either by encouraging university admissions to look at the context of the applicant, reducing some of the tax breaks enjoyed by independent schools, or if they are to retain them, increase the proportion of students on bursaries)

Surely all that’s going to happen is the rich kids will now take up all the places in the few good state schools that are left?

Why do you have to make private schools less attractive? Is that an admission that you can never make state schools attractive enough? Is that what this is all about? The knowledge that state education is always going to have glaring flaws?

Why do you have to make private schools less attractive?

To discourage people from using private schools and encourage support to the state sector.

Is that an admission that you can never make state schools attractive enough?

To some degree, yes. That's not controversial.

Is that what this is all about? The knowledge that state education is always going to have glaring flaws?

No.

Looking at Edinburgh, roughly 25% of school pupils are privately educated. The measure here which parents will generally look at is % of students getting 5+ Highers. The top Edinburgh state schools usually sit around 70+%, the bottom schools in the low teens or even below. The day schools usually sit around 90%+. I’d argue there’s a far bigger problem with the gap between the state schools than the day school/state schools, particularly given that the vast majority of private parents live in the top catchments anyway. Abolishing the day schools with have a minimal, if any impact on the bottom state schools, IMO.

Thinking about Scotland, if English private schools were abolished, if I were the Scottish government, I’d be encouraging private school parents to move up here.

That would be interesting! Those Scottish private schools would be mega!

So in a nutshell, instead of making state schools more attractive Labour wants to make private less attractive. Because it’s easier.

@ChardonnaysDistantCousin exactly. and cheaper. let’s make sure nobody gets an excellent education, rather than making sure everyone does.
The state will have to provide loads more school places - this will leads to currently decent schools going down as well. everybody looses...

So in a nutshell, instead of making state schools more attractive Labour wants to make private less attractive. Because it’s easier.

First of all, none of this is official Labour Policy. Secondly, my posts aren't Labour Policy. Third, it's possible to do both at the same time, and to be mutually reinforcing.

Why do you have to make private schools less attractive? Is that an admission that you can never make state schools attractive enough? Is that what this is all about? The knowledge that state education is always going to have glaring flaws?

So long as Govt ministers can put their children in private schools, then state education will always be disadvantaged.
Exactly the same is true of the NHS, if Matt Hancock et al had to use his local hospital instead of the Bupa one, it would have all the scanners and staff it required.

The state will have to provide loads more school places - this will leads to currently decent schools going down as well. everybody loses...

No, because these private schools will gradually become state schools, so overall the number of school places will remain similar.

If 25% of state children are getting private tutoring, this surely shows the state sector is failing and education needs major reform?

The elephant in the room is always the "good schools" thing. Come on, it's not good schools, but good pupils . It has nothing to do with resources.

I know that if you swapped, where I live, the local sought-after high achieving state school pupils with those from the school three miles away that is one of the worst schools in the country, results wise, you'd just get the same situation. The "bad" school has very small class sizes (as it is unpopular!) and very dedicated teachers (personal knowledge!) and is very-well resourced and has much nicer buildings and grounds into the bargain.

Come on, it's not good schools, but good pupils absolutely

Come on, it's not good schools, but good pupils - absolutely

Is it good pupils individually, or good pupils collectively? I don't dispute there is some truth to both.

If that were the former, as a thought experiment, if those good pupils were integrated into state schools, would the good pupils do just as well? If the latter, is it the case that private school is about is paying for social segregation?