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?

To the poster who said they wouldn't morally choose private education.

If you were in my position right now with my dd and you could afford private and chose not too, I would say that's morally reprehensible and I'd judge you. And so would your child.

[quote kittenpeak]@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. [/quote]
There’s a difference between personal choice and those that fundamentally affect society.
Shopping in Waitrose and going abroad is not detrimental to those shopping in Tesco or holidaying in Cornwall.

It’s an absolute cop out to say state schools should raise attainment. It’s like Waitrose having first dibs on fruit and veg and Tesco only being able to stock what’s left.

I’d have happily kept my dc in the state system but for:

The teacher who didn’t know her y axis from her x axis.
The teacher(s) who couldn’t spell.
The head who had such shocking grammar I don’t know how she qualified.
The emphasis on mediocrity
The fact that I’m our London Borough there was not a single state school offering a choice of MFL, a classical language or three separate sciences or triple science.
The fact that a large proportion of the pupils at even the better secondaries appeared scruffy, out of control, were exceptionally rude in the local shops and when caught stealing the school’s response was “yeh well they weren’t at school so we aren’t responsible”.

The local comp where the head denied a problem with behaviour until something so severe happened it hit the papers and 6 older teenagers were expelled having been allowed to dilute the education and happiness for their peers for four years.

Standards and expectations are so poor in the state sector, it’s morally wrong there isn’t a root and branch investigation into the failings. I don’t take my politics to work; why do teachers?

Morally wrong to send one’s children into the state system if you have a choice imo.

Finally op, we pay a lot of tax. We didn’t avail ourselves of the state system for long and chose to pay for an alternative from taxed income. I’m not sure what your problem is with morality.

Shall we ban international travel?

Don’t give them ideas!

I would never pair HA and LA. Before I had to have them in rows I would just muddle every table up so there was a good mix, and I’d have chosen to change it a few times through the year

Ah, that system where one or two do all the work and a few just sit back and copy their answers.

I had such a bad experience with groupwork/peer learning, I’m surprised to hear this is still a thing in schools 😢

Honestly I do feel this is demoralising for kids across the learning spectrum.

“ Finally op, we pay a lot of tax. We didn’t avail ourselves of the state system for long and chose to pay for an alternative from taxed income. I’m not sure what your problem is with morality.”

They’ll eventually run out of other people’s money to spend.

@dwiz8 it would improve it for several subtle reasons which you may have missed in this thread. One. It wouldnt 'cream off' the talent with teeny but flattering bursaries. That talent would remain in state schools and believe me, it makes a difference. Two. If the sharp elbowed among you were in state education (and if the children of politicians were in state edcuation) then believe me improvements would be made. At the moment those in power do not see the problems because they have no need.
Subtle. But think about it.

“It’s like Waitrose having first dibs on fruit & veg”

No it isn’t. Good education isn’t finite. I went to a state school that provided a fantastic education. The local independent didn’t prevent that from happening.

Theone, many parents who could afford fees send children not to the local sink comp though but to state grammars or similar schools - Tiffin, Watford Grammar, Henrietta Barnet (all not that far from where I am in London) and many others or the Catholic secondaries or they spend £1m on a house in an area where most houses cost that so everyone in the comp is posh.

Sharp elbowed means love. It means choosing the best school, food, bed time stories, care for your children. it means in my case making a choice to work until in Labour and going back when the baby was 2 weeks old, full time and expressing milk at work so I could pay school fees whereas some other mothers take different views.

I don't agree my precious ancels are so hallowed that if they had not gone to private schools they would have had a major influence on Watford Grammar to make it much better or the Catholic secondaries (we are Catholics). Even if they were bussed to the worst comp in outer London I don't think they would be sufficiently brilliant nor would my influence to change those schools.

Given how utterly facile some of the arguments are coming from the private school supporters (comparing a country’s educational system to Waitrose, or watch buying ffs) I can only conclude that if those posters had the benefit of a private education themselves it was a pretty fucking poor one.

Perhaps that’s reassuring, although I’m sure the money spent gained them some useful connections and the cultural capital.

Having said that, when we recruit at my company we now actively work to filter out the unconscious bias of employing people who had private schooling. If we have two recruits, one who went private and one from a state comp we will look much harder at the raw potential of the person from the comp. We believe it will benefit us as a company if we recruit from a wider range of socio-economic backgrounds than we have in the past, so we are trying to make that happen.

I think as more companies adopt similar approaches to diversity and inclusion it will negate some of the advantages of private schooling and re-level the playing field back towards those young adults who, through no fault of their own, come from families with fewer resources.

Not sure if any of you have relocated recently but being in a catchment area for a state school is no guarantee of getting in. People play the system and rent within a mile of Cardiff High for example. Now if everyone went to state schools I'm utterly convinced they would be better as in the US where you are guaranteed a place if you fall within the catchment boundary whether you live in an apartment or in a mansion.

We are the only country in the world where most of our leaders have come out of one school. No wonder it's such a shit show right now.

I think you wouldn’t be able to stop the problem by banning private schooling. People would get tutors and Buy houses near good private schools. The difference between a good and poor state school is probably very large - how would people deal with that? I think the only fair way would be a lottery.

I wonder what people think of the govt centralising a curriculum and providing all resources online (if schools wish to use them)? A sort of national online school. I’ve learned loads from edx, udemy. This could serve multiple purposes including coronaV, kids who miss school due to medical/mental health problems, high attainers who want to learn a gcse not provided at school. Perhaps there could even be some teachers who work remotely and mark a couple of pieces of work a term?

It wouldn’t help all children, but it might reduce the effort in some cases and allow kids to explore different areas. It would need to be paired with provision of cheap laptops, internet access for disadvantaged though.

although I’m sure the money spent gained them some useful connections and the cultural capital.

I think it's one thing if you went to Eton or Harrow, Cheltenham ladies etc but Westholme in Blackburn or Bridgewater in Salford is not going to get you many connections.

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.

^This. It would mean that decent parents wouldn't feel that they have to make huge sacrifices to pay for private education for children who are being bullied or otherwise let down by failing state schools.

I don't doubt that my DM had the best of intentions when she sent me to the convent school when I was being bullied at the state village primary school. (She had no part in the other things going on.) Then later on, she sent my DSis to a private high school for equally genuine reasons.

These parents wouldn't do this if the state schools they originally sent their children to weren't letting them down.

The parents that still would are those with more money than sense, that send them to boarding schools, not because they care but because they don't want to have to look after their DC themselves. Gross generalisation I'll be told, but that type of parent really does exist, a lot of the girls who were boarding (I was a day pupil) had parents like that.

@Bluegrass

Given how utterly facile some of the arguments are coming from the private school supporters (comparing a country’s educational system to Waitrose, or watch buying ffs) I can only conclude that if those posters had the benefit of a private education themselves it was a pretty fucking poor one.

Perhaps that’s reassuring, although I’m sure the money spent gained them some useful connections and the cultural capital.

Having said that, when we recruit at my company we now actively work to filter out the unconscious bias of employing people who had private schooling. If we have two recruits, one who went private and one from a state comp we will look much harder at the raw potential of the person from the comp. We believe it will benefit us as a company if we recruit from a wider range of socio-economic backgrounds than we have in the past, so we are trying to make that happen.

I think as more companies adopt similar approaches to diversity and inclusion it will negate some of the advantages of private schooling and re-level the playing field back towards those young adults who, through no fault of their own, come from families with fewer resources.

I didn't go to private school, and my experience of the school system involves leading a major project coordinating early years agencies to tackle early disadvantage.

And I think getting rid of private schools is completely the wrong focus.

I'll repeat briefly what I said up thread (which several posters 'eager for debate' ignored): schools can only work with what they're given by the parent. Parents from deprived backgrounds need:

• support with raising their kids in a well-provisioned environment (education toys and books galore)
• support in providing experiences to give the child rich cultural capital
• the financial security to spend more time with their children and have those children in high quality early years settings

The worse a child's opportunities at birth, the harder they are to undo. (I would have thought that the teachers in this thread would have experience that the learning time they have with kids is far less effective if they have to start from a low-point of prior knowledge every time a topic is introduced)

Systemically, at the top, more needs to be done so that certain avenues aren't blocked or made much harder by lack of access to elite education, and removing charitable status is fine, but removing private education options does nothing to improve the things listed above.

I believe at one point OP condescendingly stated that equalising home advantage was 'silly' and 'nobody was suggesting that'. Well, I think it would be a much better place to start than removing a option for the elite rich.

I get annoyed at people assuming that good students or those wanting to study will somehow magically lift up all the state schools if only they went to them. I get annoyed that its okay for a sports talent/tv talent/youtube talent to get paid millions, but talk about education then everyone is equal its just money that is the problem.

The reality is the numbers in private are small. State swamps private. Majority of state schools like the majority of the country have a anti achievement mentality.

Private schools are directly in touch with their funders. Hence if bullying occurs they are MORE likely to respond, rather than brushing it under. The average private school people are not millionaires - they are not Eton. They only allow like minded people - focused on education as a value - to thrive. By being in a class and school where getting As is not an invitation to being bulled or put down. The only trouble is to get that environment, you have to pay or be in a good catchment area.

The environment accepts that some are cleverer or work harder or have more resources, those that score lower are not trying to undermine those that get the marks, they actually try to improve. Abolish private? only thing that will happen is those trying to acheive via education will get a miserable childhood.

Many years ago, there used to be streaming in state schools. Classes would be set according to ability. There was also the fashion of mixing abilities. Some how having brighter kids in the same class would make those not working suddenly want to work. What happened was simply those working, would end up coasting, dropping work to appear to fit in. Teachers would focus on disruptive pupils. The lower end would be ignored no hope, the top end would be ignored they can cope. The quiet ones ignored.

I really wish there wasn't such an anti achieving mentality or focusing on Eton type schools and their sponsors. I wish there wasn't a race to the bottom. Most people I know struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids private. Some richer ones move to better schools so they don't have to spend (or its too expensive to send multiple). I don't have that advantage or ability, but I don't begrudge those that do. Instead I ignore the state education and top my child's education with my help. Means I make the sacrifice in my time. In Scotland I think Glasgow was proposing giving less well of schools free ipads for each child. I can barely afford the cheap android tablets out there. Doesn't mean I think we should take it all from those that work for it.

Good post @holdingpattern.

@xenia it does happen; bright children from families who value education can change outcomes in schools where there is little record of attainment. If your children had been to one of those schools you'd have seen it. My DD for example became best friends with a lovely girl whose family positively poo pooed university. She and her mum say that but for my DD she wouldn't now have a degree in engineering. The flip side was that my DD had an amazing, sparky, unconventional friend. So
I'm not saying it's a one way street!But of course having a mix of backgrounds and expectations in a school is beneficial to everyone.

YANBU OP, I've always thought this. I also think inheritance should be capped at £1m!

I just want to say that the posters who believe that the answer to improving the lives of the poorest kids is to address poor parenting are snobbish and totally wrapped up in a bubble of their own privilege. First, being poor does not equal bad parenting. Second, there are reasons why some parents cannot push education, such as illiteracy, mental health struggles, disability. Honestly, it's shocking how judgemental and totally unaware of the nuances of this some people are.

“ The flip side was that my DD had an amazing, sparky, unconventional friend”

The politics of jealousy 🙄.

It's bullshit that if any of you guys wanting to abolish private schools and hospitals wouldn't be sending your kids to one and popping off to your nearest private hospital rather than sit on nhs waiting lists if you had the money.

Like posters on other threads are saying, there’s a cost for appealing grades which private schools are more likely to be able to afford than state schools - especially those in disadvantaged areas. Funding for state schools is not exactly great.

^. Private Schools won't be paying the cost of appeals, parents of the children who go to those schools will. As they pay for transport, exams, extra curricular activities and insurance.

Reading pp re poor state school I’m even more aware of the range in provision. It’s tougher if that’s what’s available.

My child and I have just been listening to Animal Farm - I think this suggestion sounds a bit like this

You have to look at why people send their children to private school.
For me and I suspect a lot of other parents it is about buying their children an education that they aren’t receiving in the state system.

In dds school the numbers of pupils with SENs outnumbered those that didn’t I think tells you that for a lot of people their children aren’t receiving the education they should in the state system because of their SENs amongst other things

Is it privilege if you have to spend money you don’t have, work more and go without holidays and other things people take for granted just to access basic education because your child has a SEN.

Surely the privilege is the parents who have children with no SEN who can attend their local state school and receive an education for free.
It certainly doesn’t feel like a privilege when your 8 year old struggles with reading and has writing that even they can’t read and you are being forced out of another state sector school because the head wants to keep the SATS results up.

If your SEN child has received all the help and support from a state school then that is really privileged.
For a lot of us the only option is to pay and go without.

Get rid of private schools and the really rich would take their money out of the country and spend it elsewhere.
The ones who can’t afford to do that will spend it on extra tutoring and the state schools would have to buck their ideas up over providing an education to everyone not just the easy pupils with no issues or SENs

Privilege and inequality exists everywhere and will always exist.

If you reset everyone to a zero bank balance and paid everyone the same amount there would still be inequality.
There are those that would choose to eat beans on toast for every meal and save their money to buy something that puts them above their neighbour and earns them more
There will be those that choose to spend everything on cigarettes and booze and their children will go hungry.

You can’t stop inequality. There is always others worse off than you and others who are better off than you and nothing you do will stop it.