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

Look at Dyson trying to give money for a state of the art science block

”Trying” is the key word here! He’s trying to gift £6m to the state system but is finding it extremely difficult due to ridiculous reasons given by the local authority and department for education. Many are claiming that the state education system could be improved hugely with extra funding, and yet people trying to help with this are met with obstacles. The state education system as a whole needs an entire overhaul.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/james-dyson-donation-gresham-school-b2449552.html

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/3-november/news/uk/department-for-education-says-no-to-dyson-s-6-million-donation-to-church-school

So Dyson could donate to his old private school but hasn’t been able to donate to the state Church of England school.

If Starmer gets in and does not sort this out all that will happen is that private schools will increase donations and structurally change their approach to increasing fees (thereby indirectly swallowing the VAT). HMRC will lose on gift aid/inheritance tax and not gain overall on the VAT. They cannot do anything about charitable status anyway.

@Sherrystrull you said it frustrates you, so therefore I can surmise that if you decided not to be bothered by whether or not people with privilege acknowledge it as such, your life would improve. Unless you enjoy the feeling of frustration?

The other issue with your frustration (and that of many, many people who feel the same) is that feeling this way leads to action. Voting for those who support the destruction or targeting of private schools, supporting such action when it happens. BUT this action, which would have the result of more people using the state sector without an increase in budget, reduces the quality of education for all. A disaster for my kids, so I don't want it.

So yes, I would say that other people's choices do affect you, but perhaps not in the way you think.

Also stating that you prefer to be humble etc is super passive aggressive and only increases my view that you are bitter about this issue. Don't worry though, you're not in the minority.

@squinker45

That's a whole lot of assumptions.

Anyway, passive aggressiveness isn't only something you can accuse me of.

@ntmdino OK in that case I would support your suggestion, especially over dismantling the system in favour of petty envy and things that make no logical sense

This is your message. Petty envy?

@Sherrystrull yes, petty envy. That's what I meant. This is not passive aggressive - snarky maybe, and possibly a bit rude, but not passive aggressive.

Passive aggressive is where you say

"I prefer to be humble though and recognise my privileges. It helps me empathise with others."

But what you mean is, "other people boast, do not recognise their own privilege and cannot empathise with others."

I concede that it would be slightly passive aggressive of me to point this out to you if I didn't think you didn't understand it for some reason, but I can't actually tell if you do or not.

Many of our local state schools are run by an academy trust as are many other schools in the some of the poorest areas in the country. All these academies are registered charities. Would it even be possible to distinguish between those schools funded independently through private fees, those with some Government and some private income (e.g. many SEN schools) and those with purely Governemnt income (academies). It would be interesting to know how abolishing charitable status would impact them.

Do you want them to get on their knees and make a public confession or something? Ask forgiveness for not being poor?

And where do you think that 'government funding' is coming from? There's nothing left in my pockets for increased taxes.