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?

Well - interesting debate but thankfully the pp describing the raiding, theft and forced repurposing of private assets and likening it to building a railway line is just making it up as she goes along. It's not a country I'd ever live in.

The issue is the sheer unsuitability of the school’s application system.

It is absolutely laughable that this is even being discussed in this day and age.

It’s getting a bit off topic but someone upthread said that they would want to see class sizes reduced to 20 in state secondary schools.

I am sure that this would make life a bit easier for the teachers. At my comprehensive, there was one incredibly disruptive pupil (in particular) in my form. It wasn’t the end of the world because there were 30+ kids in my form so there were lots of other people to sit with and she was diluted a bit more by the rest of the room.

If I’d been in a form of 20 with her in it, I would have found school more stressful, not less.

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

absolutely

If that were the case, how come failed schools get an injection of cash, new leadership and are turned around?

Same kids.

20 pupils to a class would be great if the school also had absolutely no tolerance for disruptive behaviour.

When failed schools get new leadership and a load of cash, they improve things enough to get the middle classes interested. Once the school stops being the one where everyone says “Oh Christ, NO!” it’s easier to attract high achieving children.

I am assuming that this is a school in a city (where there are alternative schools). I understand that it is more difficult to achieve this when it is the only school for miles around.

it’s easier to attract high achieving children i didn't think state schools worked like that? Is there really that element of choice? There isn't here.

What will happen in practice is that it will be watered down and phased in. So charitable status will go, private schools will be expected to share facilities with local state schools that kind of thing if they wish to retain selection criteria e.g. exams, interviews.

Looking at this in tandem with Ofsted abolition proposal I wouldn’t be surprised if there was one new school regulator that all schools have to be subject to. That might lead to some curriculum guidelines that have to be followed by all schools and maybe also an end to the shopping around for the most favourable exam board/standardization of exam boards.

Also possibly incentives for joining the state sector like ability to retain selection for a limited period, let current pupils finish their school career as paying.

Is there really that element of choice?

The whole system of school allocation places is not transparent!

I know a superhead.

First thing he does is operate a zero tolerance policy for behaviour.

What will happen in practice is that it will be watered down and phased in how do you know?

Trewser I don’t know but years of political observation informed my opinion.

Actually 'what will happen in practice' is that whilst Corbyn is their leader, the Labour Party will never take power and thus,
this will become a zombie thread.
Let's hope.

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

There's tutoring, and there's tutoring.

Some children have tutors to close gaps so they can work at curriculum level. This might be a sign of a school's failure.

The more common, in my experience (which I accept might be skewed) is more an 'enrichment' sort of tutoring where they work beyond the syllabus.

The reality is that a lot (most?) of the students even at prep schools are being tutored because the stakes are so high for secondary school applications.

Obviously private schools offer social segregation inasmuch as social (however it's defined) is correlated with behaviour - I'd imagine one of the most common reasons parents opt for private is bad behaviour. Of course a rebalancing of the behaviour ratio would dramatically improve state schools. But very few parents are willing to deploy their children as diluters (I'm not).

The more common, in my experience (which I accept might be skewed) is more an 'enrichment' sort of tutoring where they work beyond the syllabus

Rubbish. That is not the most common. The most common is the parent whose child is predicted a 3/4 and they want a 6/7.

Jasjas suggests that the whole enterprise of tutoring would evaporate if state schools absorbed displaced private school students. and were well-funded/functioning optimally.

It would not.

@AsTheWorldTurns

Ok Boris, where did i say that????

I think you're referring to state primary and I am not

No, i am referring to gcse grades at state secondary. And I've reported you for the fruit loop comment.

This policy makes so little practical sense that all I can assume is that J Corbyn is hoping it will mean he has a swell of support from Momentum when the inventible happens and he loses the next election.

I've always felt more annoyed as a taxpayer that an excellent free education is available to the rich and well connected but not to us as we couldn't afford the £2million to live in the catchment of our good local states.

AsTheWorldTurns

In fact i said exact opposite, private schools would still exist but state pupils would join (as pupils left schooling) under whatever the state admission criteria is at the time.

I ve reported you for gross misrepresentation lol!

Is there really that element of choice?

It depends where you live. Where I live there are quite a few primary schools within a few hundred metres of each other. One, in particular, has become very fashionable among the middle classes and we keep getting letters from Estate Agents to say that they have someone who really wants to move into our street so they can be within the cut off distance. However a few decades ago it was considered so bad it was the subject for debate in parliament (this was a really long time ago to be fair).

So you’re saying jas that pupils in Y11 would continue to fork out £30k per year (or whatever) to continue in an elite selective school where Y7 are now all-comers from the local area with a wide range of abilities, backgrounds and learning difficulties?

And the teacher who was previously only teaching top top set kids is now having to get their head around teaching bottom set Y7 where some kids have a reading age of 7?

Can’t see any problems with that

Noble Firstly, i'm not on Labours NEC, so its pure conjecture on my part, as every other poster is doing.

I don't think anyone would be paying if PS are being abolished.

Why shouldn't a PS teacher deal with a child with learning difficulties? how do they manage when a wealthy child with issues turns up?
why should the state be the only ones dealing with disadvantaged children and in an underfunded system, whilst the wealthy avoid their taxes?

BUT as i said a while back, it would far better just to treat PS's as the businesses they are, just as we do private healthcare.

Which is exactly what Labour plan to do in their first budget, i suspect, the genuine issues that have been highlighted here, will make abolition v difficult, as McDonnell has said himself.