Closing all private schools would benefit state schools

[Nimbostratus100]

I've been thinking about that the argument of state schools not being able to accommodate another 7 % of pupils. It really doesn't add up

For one thing, state schools are frequently in a situation of having to accommodate 7% more pupils and they just stretch and cope. It wouldn't be any different.

And each pupil brings in more government funding.

And if all the private schools closed, we would have a fresh pool of 14% more teachers! More funding for teachers in state schools, and a massive increase in numbers of teacher applying!

Given that many vacancies are currently attracting zero applicants, this could be a total game changer!

Of course some teachers in private schools would not apply to state schools, an would just leave teaching instead, and some would not be qualified to teach in state schools.

But then, we wouldn't be taking in 7% more pupils, either, given how many private school pupils are overseas, or have parents overseas, and would just move to board in another country.

So say 5% more pupils, and maybe 12% more teachers! fantastic! even more so when you consider the resources potentially freed up - many of our best resources were donated 10 or 20 years ago by private schools, they might have untold wealth in the form of sports equipment, science equipment, technology, test books, musical instruments! working photocopiers!!! school furniture!

And potentially, even school premises

This is exactly the point.
No one wants their DC in failing state schools.

But the schools are allowed to continue to be underfunded and overstretched as it doesn't affect those writing the policies or their friends.

All DC should get a decent education, appropriate to their needs.
I agree, but at the moment the direction of travel is for large MATs with one size fits all.
It would be great for all services to be properly funded so properly funded and inclusive schools can get on with teaching, but that hasn't been the direction of travel for a long time.

While the rich can opt out of our state schools,they will contribute to be neglected.

But this isn't about the 'rich' Vs everyone else.
That's my point. It's very easy to try and draw the lines as the super rich with 6 figure salaries sending their DCs to Eton whilst Mum and Dad knock around the corridors of power ensuring state schools are underfunded.

But the vast majority of people sending their children to fairly standard local private schools are parents (who are obviously comfortable) in middle income, professional jobs.

In my area it would be cheaper to send your child private than to move into catchment for the outstanding secondary schools. Yet countless people on this thread would argue that the parents who can buy a house in catchment and supplement with tutoring and extra curriculars are normal folk, but the families who live in a different area of town, can't afford to move in catchment and have to choose between a sub-par secondary, homeschooling or private education are part of a rich elite.

Like you, I believe every child should have access to a high-quality and appropriate education.
Maybe I'm jaded from too long in the sector, but I can't see us getting to that point until there's large scale social change and investment in a whole range of areas outside of schools (and too many people won't be up for that because it would mean getting tough on the problems of poverty and dealing with social deprivation so that families and children can all thrive).

Different factors apply, surely? Geographic size of the country, population, laws, and established culture all play a role.

Abolishing private schools will not fix the state system. It will not force anyone to do anything. You're talking about the most privileged families. They aren't dumb!

A far better strategy is to fight for an increase in state school funding and standards including facilities and extra curricular activities. Level up our state schools to be on par with the private schools and the private schools will fold on their own!

There are no private schools in Finland, and yet Finnish students have some of the best school outcomes in the world. they also don't have tutors.
This is a really interesting article about the Finnish system. We could emulate it if we chose, but the government will never do so

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/10-reasons-why-finlands-education-system-is-the-best-in-the-world

I’m not sure how banning private schools would force private school parents to contribute in the way that’s being envisioned. They’re going to spend their money to benefit their own children, unsurprisingly, as those children are the ones they’re actually responsible for.

Also, some parents genuinely don’t care about the quality of education their children receive. They don’t care that the school their kids go to is failing. That’s a problem in itself.

My db has taught in state and private. Main difference is private can expel badly behaved pupils. He was unsafe in state - assaulted, classroom destroyed. He wouldn’t go back. He would become a private tutor if his school was changed to state. Or join a resource producing company or work for an exam board.

Oh and the best part, phoned up a parent to discuss lack of engagement and progress: told to fuck off.

@MintJulia same position as you as a lone parent. Private school with flexi board is the only way for me.

But more importantly my DD13 has SEN. She has ADHD and ASD.

Local state school is absolutely shit at catering for kids that have SEN. They need small class sizes and additional attention to thrive.

The state school system is not fit for purpose for ND children.

This sounds like utopia. I don’t think their starting point bore any resemblance to our current state though. So I don’t think we could emulate it.

Other countries do not manage it. This was a reply to someone who stated that all schools should be exactly the same and people should be banned from buying houses beside good schools. No country can do that and no schools are all the same.

My daughter is currently at a private school for children with Autism/ADHD/dyslexia/Epilepsy, and if it were to be closed down, we would be absolutely screwed. She does not cope at mainstream education and a change of schools would cause an extreme amount of anxiety and trauma. She already has a lot of bad experience at her previous schools and is still healing.

It's not as if Private schools aren't necessary for some children- they aren't all about upper middle class/higher class family's. Even if they were, it wouldn't change the fact that Public schools or mainstream schools aren't always the best option.

This exactly @jeaux90 . Keeping children (especially neurodiverse children) in a school that they can't cope with, for a long period of time is extremely damaging. It can be highly traumatic and in my daughter's case, it lead to an extreme reaction of her OCD.

If there's enough spare money / political will to find the state funds to educate privately schooled children, why on earth aren't we using some of that already? I should imagine that a fair number of kids being privately educated at the moment wouldn't be if their local state schools were better.

ALL state schools would have access to a MASSIVE new pool of teachers applying for work.

Or private school teachers would continue to do what they do now when they fancy a change - fuck off to Dubai for a spell of much more generously paid, tax-free teaching experience.

I can only speak for my own limited experience here, but we're back to funding, I'm afraid.
I was state educated myself, and it never occurred to me that the independent sector was any of my concern.
But.
Back in the day, I was employed by ILEA, who took over from the LCC.
Funding was such that, things which would now astonish parents existed. Just a few:
I was involved in its last days, but at one time musically gifted children would have free instruction in their chosen instrument until they left school.
I participated in a holiday scheme, as a tutor, where players form across London came together for ensemble coaching.
On many occasions, I took pupils up to the Royal Festival Hall, the London Coliseum and the like, to see live performances.
On a day-to-day level, I supplemented my teaching salary by doing sessions at after-school sessions and holiday play schemes. The parents did not pay for this provision.
I was given a grant towards tuition fees and paid study leave, to improve my qualifications with a second degree. ILEA valued well-qualified and experienced teachers.
We were offered in-service training and professional development without considering paying out of our own pockets,
But when the cuts began to bite, this became a perverse incentive; I basically priced myself out of the market by becoming eligible for a higher salary!
After a spell abroad and some time supply teaching, I happened by chance on a job in the independent sector; a temporary post became permanent!
And lo and behold, I was in an establishment where the experience and qualifications of my colleagues and myself were seen as a selling point again!
If independent schools were to close, some of the personnel released "back into the wild" would come at a high price, which could not be afforded.
The state sector would be facing the need to provide physical accommodation for extra pupils when there is already a huge problem with the state and capacity of existing buildings.
As it is, the independent school at which I used to teach leases some of its sports facilities to a local sports academy which lacks its own playing fields (they got sold off, but that's another story!)
Parents of children at independent schools are currently paying twice; some of their taxes fund the state system, which they do not use, and they also pay their fees.
If a good state school was available, this would be a great saving, freeing up funds to facilitate "selection by mortgage", which already occurs.

So true - we have lost a PE teacher and a Physics teacher to overseas schools this year

I wouldn't return to work in the state sector. I would private tutor instead.

The Treasury gives the DfE a fixed budget per year. It usually increases it below the rate of inflation. The DfE then has to divide that budget between the number of pupils it thinks will be enrolled in state schools before sending per-pupil funding out to schools. If the number of pupils increases and the DfE budget doesn't increase to match then the money available per pupil will fall further.

A quicker recipe for destroying what is left of State education in this country you could not come up with. Flood State school with thousands of new pupils with zero guarantee that privae school teachers would be willing to transfer to the public system.

My DD is a teacher - her teaching qualification was funded by the private school not the state. Teachers move from state to private and private to state - both pay for training. The issue is that there are many unqualified teachers in the private sector (often highly qualified academically, ie. with PhDs etc.). They cannot switch to state so easily.

It’s a bit off topic but, blimey, could you imagine the MN threads if this actually happened? I remember one from someone who complained about all the “braying” from other holidaymakers in Norfolk. Do you really want your WhatsApp groups filled with parents who wanted to send their children private but weren’t allowed to?

Also, some parents genuinely don’t care about the quality of education their children receive. They don’t care that the school their kids go to is failing. That’s a problem in itself.
That's why people like me can be assaulted by a pupil and in a meeting the parent, the mother victim-blamed me. It was my fault their teenage boy (who was bigger than me) assaulted me. I should have known better. It was apparently very unreasonable for me to expect a safe classroom where other pupils could learn free from verbal abuse and physical threats towards them.

What chance does a child have when that's their parents' attitude to education?

The figure of 7% of children in private schools is often bandied about. But that's the nationwide figure- this will differ greatly between areas. Some counties, eg Surrey, Berkshire, have a much higher proportion of children in private schools. It's just under 20% of children in Surrey. Fitting all these young people into state schools would be one hell of a task - even with a long lead in period and lots of cash being thrown at the problem. Schools can't just stretch - they don't have the space.

And to think they could is naïve in the extreme.

"Also, some parents genuinely don’t care about the quality of education their children receive. They don’t care that the school their kids go to is failing. That’s a problem in itself."

^This! This is the elephant in the room. This is one of the main reasons parents send their DC to private schools. To be with likeminded families who value education.
For various reasons, there are many families who are not interested in education. Maybe because they're struggling just to survive or because they didn't have a good education themselves. Maybe because the curriculum is wholly inappropriate for many children and turns them off learning. However, disengagement manifests in challenging behaviour which makes working in state schools bloody hard. Things like the Surestart centres helped with this but have long gone. So unless there is significant societal and curriculum change and investment, we're never going to be able to create excellent schools across the board. Not saying we shouldn't strive to provide the best we can, of course we should. But closing private schools isn't going to magically make this happen.

Additionally, many private school teachers wouldn't last 5 mins in a state school. I've worked in both sectors. In private I encountered some appalling teaching (and also some brilliant) but the level of behaviour management and differentiation required in many state schools (including in 'good' areas) as well as the reality of teaching classes of 30+ pupils would understandably put many private school teachers off (many start in state as I did and then move, though Ive also worked with some who'd never taught anywhere but private and boy was their view of the world narrow).

Once you've worked in the private sector it's very unappealing to go back to state. Smaller classes, longer holidays, less challenging behaviour, more freedom around teaching style and curriculum - what's not to like? It's hard work too in private, don't get me wrong, with longer days often and extra-curricular expectations but overall the experience is more satisfying.

One can actually 'teach' as opposed to managing behaviour and trying to be all things to 30+ children with a host of unmet needs with little or no funding for additional adults to support SEND pupils who are thrown into mainstream in the hope that they'll survive. Many don't. This breaks my heart as a teacher as I know there are children whose needs I can't fully meet and who are struggling.

A bit of a rant but what I'm trying to say is that without considerably more funding, state schools simply do not have the capacity to take in more pupils and any private school teacher in their right mind would not go work in state!