To think private schooling should be abolished

[year5teacher]

Just to preface, I’m not criticising individual parents. You have to do what you consider best for your child - for example if the choice was a private school with excellent dyslexia support and a state school that was notoriously bad, for example, you must make the correct judgement for your child.

Just to get that out the way so the thread isn’t flooded with “well I sent DC to private school because...”. I’m not talking about individuals, I’m talking about the system as a whole.

AIBU to believe it’s morally wrong for us as a society to allow children of higher earners to access a generally better level of education, which in turn can affect their trajectories for the rest of their lives?

I’m looking for private schools in Birmingham ( secondary schools) any suggestions

[quote kittenpeak]@VinylDetective I am not comparing watches to children's education, my point is, why would do you want pay rises? Why do you want the best for your children? Why do you go save money? Why do you want to do well In life? If you abolish private schools, what else do you want to ban? Are you saying parents shouldn't pay for their children to have ballet lessons? Football on a Saturday? Piano lessons? Swimming lessons? Sounds like you don't do any of these if you believe everything should be completely equal.

If a parent can afford to put their child in private education, then so be if. It means a place is then available for another child in the state system [/quote]
You literally did just compare education to watches or why would I mention it?

Why did I want to progress my career? For job satisfaction, to make a difference, to pay for the lifestyle I wanted, to provide for a comfortable retirement. Buying privilege for the next generation never occurred to me for a second.

@Ploughingthrough

I find it bizarre how mumsnet picks on private schooling, when there are so many ways of buying privilege. Organic/healthy food? Not fair to buy this because some people can only afford cheaper food. Well made and long lasting clothes? Not fair as some people can only afford Asda clothes. A nice, privately owned house with a garden? Not fair as some people can only afford to rent a council flat. Tutoring/extra curricular activities? Not fair as some people can't afford this. Private healthcare with no waitlists? Not fair as most can afford NHS only.

The whole of society is unfair, so the constant moan about private schools I find a bit bizarre. It is natural instinct for most to buy the best you can, whatever that is.

I think it's because of a lack of understanding or appreciation on how much home factors make a difference in a child's attainment

School, private or not is such a small part of why some children succeed. Children with educated parents often do better, children able to access after school activities do better, children who have the opportunity to travel often do better.

But nah let's just focus on private schools

The bbc is pretty leftist.

Someothergirl. Indeed - so I am sure you will be surprised as I was to discover Emily Maitlis has a son at Eton

‘I would morally never choose private education, and judge those that do”

A great point to end on. Much food for thought.

I think it's because of a lack of understanding or appreciation on how much home factors make a difference in a child's attainment

School, private or not is such a small part of why some children succeed. Children with educated parents often do better, children able to access after school activities do better, children who have the opportunity to travel often do better

But nah let's just focus on private schools

There you go then. Another reason to abolish private schools. If the school makes almost no difference anyway, then private ones are just a sneaky way of conning helpless rich people into believing it's going to give their children an advantage.

@fsklgf

I think it's because of a lack of understanding or appreciation on how much home factors make a difference in a child's attainment

School, private or not is such a small part of why some children succeed. Children with educated parents often do better, children able to access after school activities do better, children who have the opportunity to travel often do better

But nah let's just focus on private schools

There you go then. Another reason to abolish private schools. If the school makes almost no difference anyway, then private ones are just a sneaky way of conning helpless rich people into believing it's going to give their children an advantage.

Loving your work @fsklgf. There’s no arguing with that logic.

@VinylDetective I was using watches as an example of why people would want to earn more money. You say you earn more money to "pay for the lifestyle you want". That lifestyle might be having a nice car or going on nice holidays, or living in a bigger house in a nicer area. That is privilege. Are you suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to do that because then there is inequality? Some children have never been abroad. Would you not go abroad so that it's fair to all children? There is nothing wrong with spending money on your children'a education. Some might choose to live in a tiny house and make other sacrifices to send their child to a private school. Others may choose to live in a huge house in a wonderful area and enrich their child's life that way. Neither parent should be judged.

Why do people get so irrationally worked up about private schools. Socialists generally tend to have an overt illusion of being morally superior to everyone else. They also have a covert sense of being intellectually superior to others. This means finding the most convoluted, impractical way to bash inequality. Never mind outcomes and true equality of opportunity, as long as a good soundbite against private institutions/enterprise gets the comrades energized. Not a single person against private schools has yet managed to describe how abolishing them would fix The impact of bad parenting and how that leads to poor educational outcomes.

@fsklgf

I think it's because of a lack of understanding or appreciation on how much home factors make a difference in a child's attainment

School, private or not is such a small part of why some children succeed. Children with educated parents often do better, children able to access after school activities do better, children who have the opportunity to travel often do better

But nah let's just focus on private schools

There you go then. Another reason to abolish private schools. If the school makes almost no difference anyway, then private ones are just a sneaky way of conning helpless rich people into believing it's going to give their children an advantage.

There are many things people do because they think it will help

Banning them is pointless

Might as well ban acupuncture, Holland and Barratt etc.

Ridiculous idea. What anyone chooses to spend money on is up to them. You cannot simply take away that privilege. You are assuming that people are well off if their kids attend private school- this is not always the case. My parents sacrificed to send my sister and I and it has been something we will be forever thankful for. YABVU

Might as well ban acupuncture, Holland and Barratt etc

Now you're really onto something.

I haven't read the thread.

I sent my DS to private primary for 2 years as his primary went into special measures. He loved it, I loved it.

But I think it's so unfair that rich kids get better educational experiences. So yes I think they should be banned. Which would improve schools for everyone.

I agree it's unfair but the answer is not to abolish private schooling.

firstly, it is totally right parents should be able to opt out of state-controlled schooling. this is a free country after all.

it is no more unfair that the rich can purchase a more expensive mode of schooling than it is that they can purchase private healthcare and geriatric nursing care. distasteful, but a necessary consequence of capitalism.

the state should not be the sole arbiter of the maximum quality of education a child can receive. the government could pledge to double taxes and plough every penny into schools. they don't do this because it wouldn't win votes. the ultimate decision make is the voting tax payer, who decides how much tax they are willing to pay.

I would love private education to become gradually obsolete as the quality of state education rises so much that there is no need to spend on an alternative.

@LimeLemonOrange

I haven't read the thread.

I sent my DS to private primary for 2 years as his primary went into special measures. He loved it, I loved it.

But I think it's so unfair that rich kids get better educational experiences. So yes I think they should be banned. Which would improve schools for everyone.

Pray tell how you think banning private schools would make things better for everyone? Including those who no longer have access to private education

I think it's been mentioned already but the obvious answer, rather than banning private schools, is to improve state schools to the point that there is no demand for the vast majority of private schools.

@fsklgf

I think it's been mentioned already but the obvious answer, rather than banning private schools, is to improve state schools to the point that there is no demand for the vast majority of private schools.

If state schools were good enough what would be the problem with private schools existing?

Supermarkets are good enough in the UK. Should we aspire to the demise of high-end delis where rich people spend a daft amount of money on fancy ham and cheese, like it is a problem to be solved.

If state schools were good enough what would be the problem with private schools existing?

Nothing. Re-read my post.

You start with "the obvious answer" and end with the private schools not being wanted if things go right, which suggested to me that your issue is with private schools existing rather than with the education of the masses. It suggested to me that you want state schools to be good enough to "solve" the problem of private schools existing.

I don't really understand what you're saying. My point was that if state schools were as good as private schools, there'd be no demand for (the majority of) private schools. There would then obviously be no problem with them existing, but most wouldn't anyway.

Some countries just don't have them as it's not in their cultural DNA. There is definitely an unconscious bias in the UK that wants to keep private schools going (look at the the whole look-and-feel of most private schools with their heritage architecture for example, fancy uniform and polo classes). The class system is still pretty much alive. That is not the same as just Rich and Poor. And that is not to say that all private school goers nowadays come from money or the upper class of course. It's all blurred now. But the fact this system is "protected" is not dissimilar from keeping the royal family at their job. These institutions are deeply tangled with privilege, heritage and national identity at the core.

Other newer countries don't have the class system as such, just capitalism. So just rich and poor people who can have/not have things. Somehow society is content with state education as they know nothing else.

Still as a capitalist society, privilege manifest itself in other ways. In stuff. And the rich areas or cosmopolitan clusters will still host the better schools as the rich know how to work the system and demand quality and can buy into the nicest parts. right or wrong, that's the way life is.

So you can scrap private schools but you will not get rid of inequality and not necessarily have access to good education either.

7% of children go to private schools. Another tiny amount have the opportunity to sit entrance exams for grammar schools, if of course their parents earn enough to live in the grammar area, and they might get in if their parents have the resources to prepare them for the entrance exam.

Which leaves the overwhelming majority in state where the school they attend is decided by their postcode. So if your parents can afford to live in catchment of a good school you’ll get in. The higher density of housing the smaller the catchment. At this point the attending pupils are already pre-filtered by family income. Schools with good results are full of kids whose parents can afford to live there, which means the parents have the financial and personal resources to encourage and support their kids to achieve. The dice were loaded before a single lesson is taught.

The attainment gap is wide before children start school. The best teachers with the best resources can’t balance out the impact of social deprivation.

So let’s ban private schools. That pushes an extra 7% of children into state schools. There’s no room for them, so where’s the money coming from to build schools or extend schools? The private facilities will have been sold off, most of the teachers and support staff are now out of work because the ratios are totally different in state so let’s be generous and say 50% of the teachers etc find work in the schools that have miraculously been built or extended to fit in all the extra kids. It’s more likely that class sizes go up and already full schools become overcrowded alongside catchment areas being redrawn.

The sharp elbowed parents have ploughed the money they previously spent on fees to buy property in the best catchment areas they can afford, if they don’t live there already. So the ex-private kids are now taking up 7% of places in the best schools. The many thousands previously spent on fees are pushing up property values near good schools and being spent on tutors. This artificially inflates the schools results and everyone agrees that x school is wonderful. Except it isn’t. The results are propped up by parental investment. So even if a kid goes there, they aren’t getting the same education if their parents aren’t paying out for extras. Meanwhile the gap between leafy school and school in deprived area is getting bigger and its absolutely sod all to do with quality of teaching or facilities.

State education is not working for many children. Improving that requires removing the barriers to attainment. The vast majority of those are outside the classroom. It’s ludicrous for those with the resources, not just money, to support and nurture their children’s education to judge those who can’t as if it’s a simple choice. It’s the educational equivalent of pontificating about how fresh veg is cheap and filling and there’s no reason to eat cheap fatty processed food. It’s not that simple.

There is no private schooling in Finland. Every child attends the local state school.from 7 - 16 where there is no setting or streaming and no national exams. There is very little homework and lots of subsidised after school activities eg music lessons. Finlmd publishes more children's books than any other country. It consistently ranks very highly in PISA and other league tables.

Well said basedrops

I am in a grammar school area. The local secondary gets better results than most comprehensives. Every now and again someone says if the grammar school kids had to go there then the school would "be better". Sure their stats on GCSE A*s would go up but that wouldn't actually change outcomes for the kid who has no books in their house and whose parents think using big words means you are stuck up and should be brought back down to earth.

Arf sst.

Not only poor parenting but how will abolishing private, help simple bad teaching, attitudes in some primaries.

Our lefty head seems to hate any type of attainment