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?

all you achieve is the barrier for private education is just higher, super wealthy swedes will just send kids abroad to any number of excellent academic institutions overseas

Why would they? If state education is of a high standard, there’d be no reason to do that. Especially if it would be of no advantage to them in the job market.

Should the lowest earners in Sweden have a third of their salary taken in tax?

Again, why not? They get brilliant public services in return. It obviously works because they don’t vote for a lower tax economy, do they?

The transition would be an absolute killer. Firstly the need to unwind a stack of charitable trusts and pay compensation, and secondly in terms of the tax increases that would be required for the state to fund education for all. And it’s not as simple as saying “tax the wealthiest” because those people are also the ones most likely to be able to legally manipulate their situation (via moving overseas, or by reducing their earnings, or by tax efficiency opportunities) so that they don’t pay the vast increase.

The middle earners who don’t currently use private education would be facing tax at an unprecedented level, and meanwhile those who were previously privately educating would be busy moving house next to the best state school or employing tutors.

My DC went to.the local state school. It has a wide catchment area (rural) with a diverse intake.

My DC benefitted hugely from the social capital they have just by being born into our family. Dh and I have both got post grad and professional qualifications. Dh went to Cambridge. We are typical MC parents who had the time and money to eg take the DC to the British Museum when they were studying the Ancient Egyptians. Our house is full of books, trips to the theatre, museums etc etc. We have a wide circle of friends and networks to tap into - if one of them had been interested in, eg, medicine then we could have arranged work experience with medical friends. That sort of privilege is the norm of 99%of children in private schools but not so in state schools. However, our children made friends with their peers who didnt have those sorts of advantages and some of that transfers across. I'm.not for one moment pretending that taking ds1s best friend along with us on a museum trip, or passing on some books, balances out the structural inequalities he faced but the fact is that mixing up children from different socio economic backgrounds is better than creaming off those with social capital and money.

Again, why not? They get brilliant public services in return. It obviously works because they don’t vote for a lower tax economy, do they?

They pay it because their society has the mindset and buy in of a redistributive tax system that was built on the post war model. Sweden is actually very pro capitalist and has a low corporate tax hat allowed a huge jump in living standards from the 1950s onwards. More crucially the benefits of the established institutions and infrastructure are there, visible and tangible, those high taxes paid today see an immediate return in terms of a cradle to grave welfare state. It would take a generation or more to turn the UK around to a similar model, if that was even possible for a country with a population seven times the size of Sweden. You cant just impose Swedish taxes on the UK when the average working person will not see any immediate benefit in the near or mid term future. For what it is worth I lived in Stockholm for a while and certainly from my observations the young were not happy with the high rate of tax and many aspired to work abroad. Only when they had families they signed up to high taxes as they saw the benefits. Sorry that was a long post

@DillonPanthersTexas, thank you. It’s really interesting hearing about that economic model first hand. I know the chances of the UK ever being remotely like Sweden are zilch but I do wish we could do better. It feels to me that economic inequality has increased exponentially during my lifetime and that really feels uncomfortable.

I think there is a reasonably fair way to sort tax, abolish corporate tax entirely, and even income tax. Take certain things like basic food, clothing and energy (those too poor really shouldn’t have to pay any tax at all), and capture the funds we need by a more stringent sales tax. The richer will pay more in because they buy more (especially luxury items), but then we’ll have way more in our wallets to offset it, and tax becomes much more voluntary into the bargain. If it works well enough there might even be enough for a universal basic income for everybody too!

@EmmaGrundyForPM
Snap! Almost exactly the same situation and set up as us except Oxford not Cambridge! And we figured that with all those advantages it would be wrong to add the cherry on the top - a private education. That's the thing you see, alll those kids benefitting from having paid education most likely also have those same home advantages. Hard to fail really!

@holdingpattern - your comment about whether the most able pupils from the private sector would lift attainment if they were all put into the state system really fits with my experience - I hadn’t realised it, u TIL I read your comment.

As the first year of comprehensive intake in a former secondary modern, those of us who would have passed the 11+ and gone to the grammar were in exactly this position. I don’t know if we helped lift the attainment of the other pupils, or if we were a good example of studiousness - but I do know I was miserable, and I am absolutely sure that I had a worse experience in that school than I would have had elsewhere.

As I said yesterday, my parents believed passionately in the comprehensive system, and apparently they were just fine with me being a lab rat to test that system and get the bugs out.

I’m still living with the consequences of their decision.

(Sweden abolished its inheritance tax by the way but in the Uk we seem to have high taxes at least 49% income tax NI for a start and even higher if you are paying 9% graduate tax on top (student loans) or in the band which loses the single person allowance entirely, doesn't get child benefit etc - our marginal UK rates have got very high whilst all the 1970s tax allowances my doctor father got like child tax allowances, large married man's allowance, mortgage interest tax allowance, allowance if you covenanted money to chidlren. big pension tax contribution breaks just about all disappeared and all the bits you got as a higher earner as long as you paid in like free university education, much higher unemployment benefits if you had paid full NI, even in my uncle's case (a doctor) an almost free council house all went. We seemed to move from a system where the hard workers who paid in all took out to a system where those who pay the most in stopped getting stuff back so not surprisingly many of us lost faith in the system - the system stopped by the fair contributory system Beveridge conceived.

Xenia, you never fail to amaze me. You’re a bit younger than me. You constantly hark back to the good old days when high earners got ridiculous amounts of support from the state. My memory is that the poorest people in society got levels of support we can only dream of now. We can’t both be remembering accurately. And, if we are, where the hell did all the money come from? Who was paying it?

Mixing up kids is no educational panacea.

I went to a comp like STDG. Ok they were in turmoil at the change point so I will concede they have likely got better overall!

My children have gone to comps and many in my wider family. Mostly the education is ok. But I know people who have bailed out to private because their kids fell through the rather wide cracks.

I just don't see any academic merit in the mixed ability approach we have seen in our schools (Scotland.) If you struggle you may get sidelined and written off. If you are academically able you tend to coast. (I guess that's where clued up parents come into their own!) It's just mediocre in my experience.

Op would you not be more useful spendinh your time looking into pedagogy rather than trying to reform society root and branch.

@CommonCarder

Mixing up kids is no educational panacea.

I went to a comp like STDG. Ok they were in turmoil at the change point so I will concede they have likely got better overall!

My children have gone to comps and many in my wider family. Mostly the education is ok. But I know people who have bailed out to private because their kids fell through the rather wide cracks.

I just don't see any academic merit in the mixed ability approach we have seen in our schools (Scotland.) If you struggle you may get sidelined and written off. If you are academically able you tend to coast. (I guess that's where clued up parents come into their own!) It's just mediocre in my experience.

Op would you not be more useful spendinh your time looking into pedagogy rather than trying to reform society root and branch.

I’ve spent a lot of time “looking into pedagogy”, as you call it, over the past five years of working in schools. There are plenty of experts who believe in mixed ability grouping - as well as those who don’t. It’s certainly not an issue that is universally agreed on by educational experts. Remember I am a primary school teacher - ability grouping in secondary becomes more necessary.

I won’t be able to be doing group work anyway, due to covid.

V, depends what we compare with and at one time. The 1940s when my uncle got the council house was a dreadful time for most people just after the war with rationing. I am suggesting it was some golden panacea but there was a system everyone felt bought into as you paid in and took out and if you didn't do any work you were just about fed but not much else. Employment benefit was much much higher than supplementary benefit for example.

We did have 16 million fewer people in the UK when I was born than we do now and a lot of those older ones now are living longer and we are paying their pensions and plenty pay no income tax as their pension income is low so that is one difference.

I don't want the old lots of state benefits system or current state benefits for some but high tax and no benefits for others. I want a much smaller state and lower taxes and much more personal responsibility.

In my fairly extensive experience of the private school system (I went from 4 years old my children go), private school is of NO benefit (In fact inferior to) over the state school system for:-

1.Those with learning and developmental issues

And of LITTLE benefit to

1. Exceptionally bright and focussed children that would have done very well in any environment and may actually find themselves discriminated against in university applications by virtue of being privately educated

But of SUPERB benefit to:

1. Very sporty children

And

1. Average ability children (or elevates them. Me for example, nothing special academically but landed a graduate placement and then very good job that really.... I know I would not have secured had it not been for being very heavily “educated” And instilled with confidence that is cherished within the private sector)

Thank you for replying op.

What is the educational evidence that having richer children sitting next to poorer ones in a class raises attainment in poorer students? Also what is the possible mechanism that would make it happen.

Sorry if my wording was off.

@VinylDetective

Xenia, you never fail to amaze me. You’re a bit younger than me. You constantly hark back to the good old days when high earners got ridiculous amounts of support from the state. My memory is that the poorest people in society got levels of support we can only dream of now. We can’t both be remembering accurately. And, if we are, where the hell did all the money come from? Who was paying it?

Debt paid for it. The massive government debt which means the government now can’t afford to do anything.

We are all paying for the generation who had it so sweet.

What is the educational evidence that having richer children sitting next to poorer ones in a class raises attainment in poorer students? Also what is the possible mechanism that would make it happen

We had a system where it worked very well. The mechanism was the 11+ and grammar schools. There were kids from very poor and relatively wealthy backgrounds with the same opportunities. Private schools in those days tended to be for middle class kids who failed their 11+.

It still happens when bright kids from impoverished backgrounds are given scholarships and bursaries to private schools. Even Eton does it.

Debt paid for it. The massive government debt which means the government now can’t afford to do anything

Nonsense. The current debt resulted from the global financial crash in 2007.

We had a system where it worked very well. The mechanism was the 11+ and grammar schools. There were kids from very poor and relatively wealthy backgrounds with the same opportunities.

This is rollocks! 11+ massively favoured middle class kids.

Did it? Not where I went to school it didn’t.

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

So for those that were denied a state school education and were forced into the private sector they are being discriminated against again.

Just because someone went to private school doesn’t mean they are all from similar backgrounds and to presume they are is quite wrong.

Dds best friend from her school lived in a very modest terrace house. Her mum is a hairdresser and her dad worked in a job that had a very average salary.
Another friend lived with her single mum in a rented flat.
Another was from a very very wealthy family with houses and yachts dotted around the globe.

The people who you are getting application forms from are not the wealthy ones. They could be from very diverse backgrounds but you are binning them because of your prejudice against private school applicants

@VinylDetective

Did it? Not where I went to school it didn’t.

Based on data or your impressions?

All testing of that type favoured MC children. It was the nature of the test.

It favoured intelligent children.

@VinylDetective

It favoured intelligent children.

Well, no, but carry on thinking that if it makes you feel better about yourself!

Of course it benefitted MC children.

My sibling passed it, and it'd gone by my time so I've no axe to grind.