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

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g
Agree with this and there's the massive problem of recruitment and retention in the state system already.

Banning private schools is the sort of thing that sounds nice, but to me falls into the 'simple but wrong' line of thinking because most of the time people don't think enough about the big problems and what would be required.

Finnish private schools are funded by a combination of government contributions and charitable funds. Parents are free to donate to the charitable funds.

The main reason Finnish schools are so successful is a combination of having very small local community schools, an easy to learn language and a lack of time-consuming testing.

The average 4-hour day, and the schools only being compulsory from 6-16 makes education cheaper for Government to fund. Parents need to pay for pre-school and wrap-around care when required although many take much more time off when the children are young. Parents are often stay on paid maternity leave until the children are 3 years old.

At the moment around 600,000 out of 9million pupils' education is not paid for via taxes, it is paid for by their families. So if you put those extra 600,000 children back into the state system without increasing the total.pot of funding then the amount of funding per pupil would go down. To increase the pot either money is taken from elsewhere (social care, arts, policing??) or taxes would have to go up to cover the cost. Finland and other Nordic countries pay far more in taxes per person and have far lower populations so their entire model for funding education is different to the UK.

If anything more private schools would take the pressure off state school budgets. However a lot of state school problems aren't about money. Its about a culture of educational attainment or access to opportunities which are valued differently by parents who are prepared to pay for their children's education. The same is true but to a lesser extent for parents that pay for extra curricular classes, tutoring etc to get their children into grammar schools. It would take many generations to shift the culture towards education for all being seen as a privilege and not taken for granted.

Private schools do exist in Finland. What is banned is basiceducation for profit.

I would be supportive of a ban on making a profit from education in the uk. I know there are some for-profit schools but it would be much easier to create a pathway for these to become not-for-profit social enterprises than it would be to wind down all the charitable ones.

OK, so the state school gets extra funding for the extra pupils... from where exactly? Oh yes, by increasing taxes.

We sent our kids private, but we are not super-rich and wouldn't send them abroad for schooling, we'd have to put up with the local school.

Our reasons were the poor local schools - we are in an average area, where the local state school is not great and has various behaviour issues. I don't think this is particularly down to the teachers, nor do I think that it would be greatly improved by extra money or an influx of better-off parents. Let's face it, the nasty wee scrotes who are the trouble-makers (and who are now very difficult to expel or even suspend) are not going anywhere, and disproportionately affect the rest of the pupils.

Oh, and don't forget, if you're going for equality, you'd have to sort out the inequality between state schools, which is also affected by money of course, via house prices. We could afford private school, but couldn't afford to move to a comparable house in a decent catchment...

This thread is bonkers. The UK seems to be one massive race to the bottom nowadays 🤦🏼‍♀️

Having said that, I’m really interested in the massive business opportunity I’d have with creating an “after school enrichment programme” for those displaced from the private schools in my county. From 3:30 to 6:30 we’d be able to cover an array of topics. I even have an appropriate building in mind 😂

If I’m saving £40k per year on private schooling, that’s a shit ton of money to channel into tuition.

You are incorrect. They are not allowed to charge and make a profit for the basic education element. There are Finnish schools which charge a fee, presumably for things they offer over and above the basic education. Have a look at the International School of Helsinki as an example. They charge €16k a year.

From what I’ve read, where there is a difference is that all children in Finland benefit from state funding, so private schools are partly funded by the state.

So, perhaps we should look more closely at the Finnish model given you think it works so well. Private schools in the UK could still exist, but every child in that private system could benefit from state funding, which is what apparently happens in the Finnish system.

There would then be a justification for adding VAT to school fees, because parents could only be charged for things offered over and above the basic level of education. I would be more than happy to pay VAT on school fees if I was getting the benefit of state funding for the basic education element. The current £6,500 per pupil state funding equivalent would be more than the VAT on the fees for most privately educated day pupils.

Do we think nepotism greased Melissa Benne’s path through life? Classic socialism - deny other’s advantage whilst hoarding your own. Hypocrite.

Why has no one mentioned that actually private school parents pay for state school places through taxes and additionally (through choice), for their children too. No private school parent is moaning about paying school taxes for a place they aren't even using. So if this is the case how about they seek reimbursement for the years most of the parents have paid for state school places they haven't taken, but someone not contributing to our taxes uses.?

They don't directly pay for their child's place....

The rich would flood areas with great schools pushing up the house prices. Teachers wouldn’t be able to afford local housing. This is already happening in Grammar school areas.

Unsafe classrooms are closing all over the country, but somehow state schools can magically accommodate 12% more kids. They’ll just ‘cope’. They aren’t coping with the current population of state school kids. Where do we put them? In the already overcrowded, falling down classrooms?

Where are all these spare teachers going to teach? On the field?

And besides the logistical issues, why should everyone be forced to send their children to any type of establishment? Parents deserve to choose how to raise their children. If a private school aligns with their values, and there is no adequate state school, why should they?

We have one tiny local village school, and it is shite. DD is going private, tyvm!

Well said @Another76543. I agree, private school children should still get their state funding

Locally, one of the well known private schools funds a state school and also runs a curriculum in another school. Close that private school and you lose 1.5 state schools.

I worked in a private school for a while. I earned less than I would have in state - not an uncommon situation. And anyway, if your job goes and the equivalent pays less you still take it.

Denying people any choice in their children's education is morally wrong, imo, regardless of any perceived or planned benefit, the greater good, etc., even assuming it would work out as planned. (It wouldn't. It never, ever does.)

state schools do make such more efficient use of their teachers!

Private schools ask a lot more of teachers than state in terms of extra-curriculars, because they don't have serious poverty as a factor. I did qualify as a teacher, but never worked as one. I was not willing to work in a school that considered 10% bad behaviour as normal or acceptable, so my skills (and age) were insufficient to get me an interview in the private or grammar systems which can afford to be more selective of teachers. Scream me down, loud as you like, but schools which can sanction bad behaviour make space for learning to happen.

You are sadly misguided

You clearly don’t work in state schools. This wouldn’t happen. No extra funding would appear and no teachers would want to work in these schools.

I don't think private school teachers would last very long in your average comp. Great teachers who are used to being able to teach rather than having to deal with behavioural issues wouldn't thrive in that environment.

I changed job from an independent school to a state one a couple of years ago. Yes, the behaviours and problems are different, but the behaviour issues are easier to deal with because there's a proper system and SLT have your back. At the independent a lot of problems were ignored. They couldn't afford to upset parents and lose fees.

it works in Finland because they put more resources into education and less into their corrupt mates' hands.

And they pay more tax in Finland which a lot of people are allergic to in the UK, and those who ought to pay more will offshore more and hide more and still pay less than the bog standard worker.

Added to all the house price inflation that would happen near the good schools.

IMO there needs to be much much more targeted funding at schools, less of the standardised stuff, fewer academies and more heads having control over what is taught and where their budget goes. There need to be more teachers and they need to have paid time allocated for marking and preparation. All this (and more) needs to be in place before private schools are looked at.

My only beef with private schools is the charitable status which needs to go.

Finland is a daft comparison. Tiny, culturally homogeneous country with a completely different history and culture.

The Finland being compared is usually also the one of a generation ago.

And besides the logistical issues, why should everyone be forced to send their children to any type of establishment? Parents deserve to choose how to raise their children. If a private school aligns with their values, and there is no adequate state school, why should they?
That's my central reason for being wary of the attack on private education.

I have my own opinions about the questionable pipeline from a certain type of private school to top networks in society, old boys network and so on, but I don't think people can fairly compare the likes of Eton with their town's small prep school where most of the parents are no different to the parents sending their children to state in the town down the road. These parents are just making the right decision for their children.

In my own ideal world I'd have funds for independent education and I would choose to send my children to a school that has a play based early years, with formal schooling starting later. I'd want them to have much less testing than the state system currently does, and I'd want them to have a genuinely broad curriculum right through (not history/geography/science on rotation, art one half term and DT the next). If I had the funds and such a school existed I'd snap up some places.
It worries me that some people are so anti-independent education that they'd want to limit parental ability to choose an appropriate school.

Parents who are not rich deserve to have children who are educated at a high standard too. Especially today when income is less and less a reflection of hard work.

Would be better for climate change if children went to their most local school.