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?

Looking into how they produce so many PMs could definitely show a bias in giving other alumni a hand up the greasy pole or teaching them they're better or having their own chapel, but until we get digging - and accept there may be other parts to it - we won't see anything.

One of the limits of education research, and much humanities research at the moment, is that too often researcher/institution bias and getting funding for a lot of areas is just not going to happen at this rate. I mean, feckless parents can come from all backgrounds, but we're only ever going to see writing on a very narrow band on them.

I can see the ideal of wanting private school facilities to be more open to the local community and wanting state schools to be good enough that most privates aren't needed (where I'm from, privates are for the very religious and those who kids can't go to public schools for whatever reasons. I toured one after my brother got expelled.), but while it may have social benefits, I think it can only ever be as part of a series of much bigger and smaller changes.

There’s something badly wrong when out of 55 prime ministers 20 were educated at the most elite school in the land.

Vinyl Do you also think there’s something wrong that so many politicians (in all parties) went to Oxford and Cambridge?

[quote year5teacher]@Commonwasher 😂 😂 one of my lecturers at my undergrad used to call them “male, pale, and stale”[/quote]
Couldn’t he come up with anything more original than that?

I completely agree with you OP. It's social apartheid. I say that as someone who will be sending my DC to private school (because I am not willing to sacrifice my children (one of whom has special needs) for my political beliefs) but my God I wish the whole system were abolished.

You obviously don’t wish the system was abolished as you’re going to use it for your dc.
You are the most appalling hypocrite. Why don’t you stick to your principles if you feel so strongly about it?

YANBU OP. The system is immoral, inequitable and divisive. Charitable status is a scandal. If it's any consolation top universities are onto it. We are aware of the students with potential, self-direction, and achievement despite large class sizes and low resource. We are becoming wise to the heavily-tutored and their ability to learn independently. So the tide is changing, but far too slowly.

a systemic blight on opportunity
Spot on.
Private schools are a shameful upholding of our unequal society and class privilege.
YANBU OP

Perhaps I don't know enough about it, though I've taught in three privates (and three states too) but the charitable status argument confuses me. The money they earn in fees is ploughed into staff and the learning of the students. With only one exception I can think of, there isn't a boss or a series of shareholders creaming off a profit. 🤷‍♀️

@Andante57

There’s something badly wrong when out of 55 prime ministers 20 were educated at the most elite school in the land.

Vinyl Do you also think there’s something wrong that so many politicians (in all parties) went to Oxford and Cambridge?

Not really. That’s not entirely true anyway. The new intake of MPs comes from a really wide variety of backgrounds.

Oxbridge places are awarded on academic merit, whereas the only requirement for schools like Eton is the ability to pay the fees.

*I completely agree with you OP. I find the amount of posters who focus on their own children only and talk about doing what’s best for them only makes me sad. It’s a shame we can’t be less selfish and individualistic about education. I’d love it if more people could view private education as a systemic blight on the opportunities of those who can’t afford it.

I’d get rid of privately funded education in a heartbeat - it makes me sick*

What makes me sick is the lack of education if your child isn’t average.

If your child doesn’t conform to the norms or needs that extra help.

Only when state schools help everyone and not just the ones who don’t need too much input will you find the private sector shrinking.

In the meantime I will focus my attention on my children and give them what is best for them. No one else is going to give my children what they need.

Make state education better. And before funding is screamed out, example before, asking a politician to come into the school to speak... How much would that cost? Our local MP has visited the school at least once a year, I'm struggling to see how that has benefited us - the school absolutely failed to provide an adequate education during lockdown - the private schools managed just fine.

Yeah how come state teachers didn't do much by way of zoom classes? Or did you? I'm curious :-)

Shalala the idea was mentioned up thread, that perhaps places like eton get politicians in to speak and inspire a life in politics... Therfore they end up in politics.

I was idly wondering why such a move might be out of bounds for a state school and whether a politician would ever charge to visit children?

Debating is huge in these public schools so I'd rather start with that.

I don't think it matters much either way. However perhaps a trip to hoc would be better...

My school also didn't manage to do anything at all until last 3 weeks, even then it was patchy.

@Swelteringmeltering

Shalala the idea was mentioned up thread, that perhaps places like eton get politicians in to speak and inspire a life in politics... Therfore they end up in politics.

I was idly wondering why such a move might be out of bounds for a state school and whether a politician would ever charge to visit children?

Debating is huge in these public schools so I'd rather start with that.

I don't think it matters much either way. However perhaps a trip to hoc would be better...

My school also didn't manage to do anything at all until last 3 weeks, even then it was patchy.

Well our lovely MP used his visit to promote his last electoral campaign, which was a bit off by most people's standards. Our school are great at fixing the optics - shit at fixing the teaching but then we are a wealthy area and parents pay tutors to teach their kids when the state school can't do the job - it's still a lot cheaper than private but it's not something I guess many expected to have to do when they managed to score the lottery and got their kids into an outstanding state school...only to discover that outstanding wasn't quite what they thought it was going to be - too late over-priced house in catchment area bought!

@SomeOtherGirl you are right that there's nothing wrong with private schools having charitable status - the resentment is due to people fundamentally misunderstanding what charitable status means. it is open to any organisation which is (a) not trying to make a profit and (b) doing something from a list of categories that includes education. Schools have been charities for centuries, pre-dating most charity law. There are something like 200,000 charities in the UK, a lot of which offer their services in exchange for money but without trying to make a profit from it (like private schools do) and/or have restrictions on who can benefit from their services. Any rationale for stripping charitable status from private schools would have to fundamentally redefine what a charity means in law, and the audit to establish which existing charities can still qualify would be mind-boggling. it will never happen.

The scandal isn't the existence of private schools, but that the state free option is often so woefully inadequate by comparison. With adequate state-school funding, the quality of education would be broadly similar across state and private sectors and the motivation to go private becomes more about choices like whether one wants a religious aspect to the school, or a single-sex environment, as an alternative to the basically decent state option.

There was another question about the lack of zoom-based teaching under lockdown in state schools. in general private schools were able to start from the assumption that every pupil had access to a computer and wifi at home, and had the resources to supply equipment to any who didn't (eg maybe scholarship/bursary assisted pupils). State schools might have hundreds of pupils without adequate equipment at home, and couldn't reasonably put staff time into offering an education option that wasn't accessible to all pupils. This won't be the last pandemic shut-down, it will happen again sooner or later, so any coherent state education plan needs to include ensuring adequate technology at home for all pupils. Then, as well as the pupils benefitting from an education that uses 21st Century technology just generally, next time this happens online teaching is practically feasible

Yes, charitable status has always been available for those providing education. It means no VAT on the school fees. However UK private schools almost always do not have shareholders nor make profits - none of the schools where my 5 children went including 4 different secondaries nor where their father teachers do. Those - Haberdashers, North London Collegiate, Merchant Taylor's etc use all them oney so taxing a dividend would make no difference as they do not pay anything to any shareholders. 20% VAT on the fees would probably mean removing bursaries for the less well off and not allowing the public to use the grounds which may not be too big a deal. They could then set off VAT expended on things I think against the VAT charged which ordinary businesses do.

I was in favour of reforms Osborn proposed and had to drop in relation to charities. Too many people set up a personal charity and exploit the tax breaks (although rarely in the schools sector). I would much prefer a low flat tax and abolition of tax reliefs on any charitable contributions so we could move to low and simple taxes.

Please don’t assume that it’s solely the children of those who are more affluent who access the independent school system. I know it’s true for the majority of those who attend but it’s certainly not 100% clear cut. Bursaries (up to 100% of fees covered) can mean that this world is open to those on a lower income.

Whilst agreeing with the above two posters re charitable status, VAT on school fees is separate from the fact that they’re charities. Education is exempt from VAT generally. So charging VAT on independent school fees would mean charging VAT on all other educational activity unless the definition of “education” was redrawn.

Xenia,

Private schools are both charities and tax exempt (as you know).

As you say, they do not make a profit. And yet, private school fee inflation has way exceeded CPI (and RPI), pushing private schooling beyond the reach of all but the wealthiest. So, what has the money been spent on? It has not been on smaller class sizes or higher teacher salaries, but more on what I would call the ‘country club’ features. The buildings are increasingly flashy (some of the country’s top theatres are now in private schools), the music and theatre provided are top drawer, with entertaining parents coming very high up on the list.

None of the above is bad per se but it has made private schooling the preserve of a few careers (banking, law, management consulting etc) and, increasingly, wealthy foreigners, disenfranchising the middle classes. Strangely no private schools have sprung up to fill the gap, providing a top class academic education but without the bells and whistles now considered a part of private education.

None of the above would really be a problem if private schools spent the money saved due to their tax breaks to provide bursaries or to open their facilities up to the general community. As.a sector (and I know their are honourable exceptions including Westminster school) I think they pay lip service to this obligation, spending a small percentage on social mobility and with beautiful facilities generally empty and unused at weekends and holiday times.

I think that the sector urgently need to address the above transparently in order to retain their tax breaks.

It is hard to generalise across all schools but I agree that some have spent money on facilities and the fees have gone ahead of inflation. I thought 80% of school fees in most normal private (rather than boarding) schools went on teachers' wages and those had gone up hence some of the increases including pension costs (as people live so much longer now).

Out of interest I just checked our 1990 school fees on my little annual list of expenses £3423 and my lawyer salary was £31,633 before tax that year so about 10% of the gross lawyer salary. I had been qualified 4 years so that is probably about £100k salary these days and 10% is more than the cost. We were paying for one at Haberdashers. Let us look at Habs cost today for year 1 £17 826 including lunch). My figure would have included some cost for the next child down's nursery school I think too. I have grandchildren starting private school next month and their parents are funding that from earned income but I agree it is more expensive than it was in the past even for London lawyers or in my sibling's case Yorkshire doctors.

I don't think it's true no small cheaper new ones have sprung up. Aren't there cheap and cheerful chains - I have forgotten the name of a couple of them. Also it depends where you are. In Yorkshire my sibling pays about £10k a year. Places like Manchester Grammar are trying to move to entry on a blind basis in terms of parental income.

Every single school we have been associated with has had outsiders in because of the change to the charity laws and the definition of public benefit. [I wrote a section of a law book about that and some case law on it so I do know a bit about those legal changes and the impact they have had]

Nah. But I do think that private schools should have bursaries and scholarships.

I think that abolishing elite schools like Eton will not help the country. I don’t think that they produce people that feel born to rule the world - I know a few of them. But even if that were true, then why not have state schools where people feel able to do anything?

I actually suspect that the feeling that you can do ‘anything’ is to do with existence of a fallback option if you try something risky (eg unconventional job). Which does not really have to do with education but whether your parents can help if things go wrong.

Loads of foreigners send their kids to elite private schools. This is putting money into British economy (which needs all the help it can get with corona and brexit). Also you would exacerbate the teacher shortage as many private school teachers would not continue in the state sector.

I can understand removing charitable status. Banning, I think would be costly and not achieve V much.

Vinyl
Oxbridge places are awarded on academic merit, whereas the only requirement for schools like Eton is the ability to pay the fees

An exception was made for Prince Harry. His mother died in tragic circumstances and I guess Eton agreed that the brothers could be at school together.
Apart from that exception you are wrong to say all that money is all that is needed.
Schools such as Eton, Winchester and Westminster have a difficult entrance exam as they are heavily oversubscribed.

My DS goes to private school, we’re by no means rich but we agreed we would sacrifice other things to let him go. Best decision ever. Closing private schools won’t solve the problems highlighted in this thread.

Vinyl - you are talking nonsense