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

A lot of private school teachers are there because they have had enough of the state sector. I think you’d find many would leave the profession.

btw where is this extra government funding coming from suddenly

OP of course, if rich people had to send their DC to state schools, the school system would be better. It's a no brainer. And it's something we should strive for.

It happens in other countries, there's no reason to think it shouldn't happen in the UK one day.

It'll take a lot to convince people though. The private / state school system is one of the core ways inequality and the class system is upheld in the UK, and as you can see on this thread, many people are either invested in keeping it that way as they don't want to lose their privilege, or are so used to it, they won't let themselves imagine another way.

I think we need a complete overhaul of schooling in this country and this would be a good start. No more religious or in any way selective schools, education needs to be inclusive. No expensive uniforms. No more buying up houses by good schools, all schools should be offering the same standard of education of all schools.

We also need to overhaul Ofsted. Ofsted inspections should not be about downgrading or punishing schools, it should be about identifying weak areas in a school and fixing them. Teaching not good enough? Extra training. Management not up to it? Training and oversight by a successful management team. Etc.

What is it about private schools that rattles folks cages so much.

we have a problem with healthcare, why not ban all private healthcare and hospitals, stop those pesky doctors earning money on the side when they should be serving the nhs.

what about housing, it’s a travesty people live in detached 5 bedroom houses when all that space could be used to build multiple houses. Everyone should live in identikit tiny house.

how about organic food? Waste of space when farmers could be cramming more animals in per sqft or sowing crops right up to the field edge rather than creating wildflower strips to encourage beneficial wildlife. Why bother when it makes food more expensive?

The point is people have a choice how they spend their money, it’s not your job, my job or the government’s job to tell them how to do that because it doesn’t align with our particular values.

The state sector would be very different, though, if the rich people had to use it for their DC, though.

People with serious influence and power would be properly invested in improving the state sector and making sure the government fund it properly.

The big boarding schools would move premises to Ireland and everything would carry on as normal. Day schools and smaller boarding schools couldn’t, so as private companies they would sell off their sites to be luxury flats and close.

Parents with kids in private schools would move into areas with the best state schools reducing their accessibility to other people. The 2 tier state system, which already exists, would widen. Schools would be more stretched economically with the influx of new students and little extra funding. (The government doesn’t have to find another 5 % funding, it will just say it hasn’t got it.)

Private school teachers would mainly set up as tutors and make a fortune -a whole new industry in private tutor academies and summer schools / Saturday morning schools would spring up. some would leave teaching, some would work in the best state schools.

Nothing significant would change really.

Short term it would be difficult. Long term it would be one step towards an equal society.

But, if done isolation, what’s the point? Society needs a huge overhaul, this is just one part.

Not to mention there is no appetite for change. Most people like the status quo (of private schools and society in general). It is the backbone of British society and the values - “my family first, wider society never”, which is allowing us to be the great country we are.

AmniMajus
The problem is that many top professions are dominated by privately educated people and privately educated people are not intrinsically better than everyone else. State schools are also in a mess from over a decade of deliberate underfunding and being a political football.

The other issue is that when discussing private schools a lot of people don't /won't consider that there is a big difference between a local private school that parents might choose and the sort of highly competitive, tutor your children within an inch of their life from 4, exam factories, expensive private schools and the very expensive ones like Eton that only the very wealthy can afford. They like to categorise everyone into the super wealthy category because it allows for several straw men to be drawn.

Of course the system is unfair, in the same way private health care is unfair. Being rich allows you to buy many advantages in life. But the OP is suggesting schools will be better off (financially and in terms of teacher recruitment) if state schools close. The current government hasn't funded the teachers' pay increase. I can only assume if this extra 5-7% of pupils joined state school, funding per pupil would drop too (over time if not immediately, it's already been frozen for ages). Said as a state school parent!

That last paragraph, dang. That absolutely sums up the reason we have decided to home ed (or private school if we can magically afford it when the time comes)

Oh. And you won’t get the teachers. State doesn’t pay well enough and conditions are not good. Many will go to international schools, take other jobs or choose to emigrate.

But you won’t get all the students at least. Successful and profitable boarding schools (the ones that are really the targets) can just set up offshoots elsewhere (for ease, Ireland probably) and transfer all movable assets and teaching staff to those campuses. The kids will follow.

A lot of my colleagues have sent their children to private schools all of the way through. A lot of them pay a huge amount of tax and most have at least one other passport. Many would send their DC abroad or move abroad themselves. So quite a few of the City of London lawyers and bankers wouldn’t stay or even come to London anymore without the well known UK education system. You would always need to offer at least international schools - would the state fund these? Most other countries have this.

Secondly, I have a lot of friends from university who are teachers by choice for the life style and the long boarding school type holidays when they write their books, travel, runs marathons etc. I am sorry to say most would leave too and retrain rather than enter the state sector.

This is obviously a small part of society but one that attracts and props up the rest of the country through taxes.

In addition, all the children settled in their private schools especially in key years or late secondary (Year 9 onwards) - you cannot just close them. The government would have to purchase them and keep as is, at least initially and just enter more children from the state sector gradually. You cannot go out harming children en masse in this way, whether they have rich parents or not.

So many private schools would have to privatised and I guess lands sold off. I doubt there is money for this with the health and cost of living crisis.

I don’t think much needs to be done. Private school fees are extortionate these days anyway and the costs keep rising. Fewer children will attend in the long run anyway.

In any event, the UK education is highly complex already with such a complex provision of state, church, grammar, independent etc. It can’t all be changed overnight by some government. That would backfire massively.

Anyway, it will never happen in the UK. I doubt Labour will even manage to bring in VAT on school fees, it is all hype.

I wonder if you've ever met a private school teacher? They don't have to be properly qualified, for a start and there's a reason why they don't teach in state schools. There would not be a massive pool of teachers. Lots of private pupils in fact come from overseas and they would just go somewhere else. But given how totally overstretched & underfinded state schools are there would need to be great investment to accomodate the sector, including probably purchasing private school buildings & assets (& compensation). And as others have said, further distortion of the housing market around the most desirable schools.

I think you are forgetting that private schools are businesses with owners and shareholders

charities have no shareholders. The trustees cannot benefit personally . Surpluses have to be reinvested in the charity.

And to the person asking about the percentage spent in education you can download the accounts if any charity including schools for free on the Charity Commission website , because if the SORP they are actually pretty transparent .

I completely agree with the principle that every child deserves a decent education & am well aware of the inequalities etc., but forcibly closing private schools is not the answer. Yes private schools close all the time, but we’re talking a few hundred pupils here & there who are absorbed into other private schools or go abroad, not hundreds of thousands all at once.

I live in an area with loads of private schools. There’s not a hope the (inadequate, bursting at the seams) state schools could just take on the private school pupils. And anyone who thinks the government would pump more money into state education is dreaming. The current funding would be spread even more thinly, disadvantaging the very children who need it the most.

Also what about the charitable ventures of private schools? My DCs school finds a whole free school in a deprived area, meaning that the children who attend effectively receive a private education for free. The school also offers 120% bursaries & funding for university for academic children who’s parents can’t afford the fees, as well as offering ongoing refuge for children from Syria & Ukraine. I feel the charitable side of private schools is often overlooked.

The answer is to improve state education to a point where private education is no longer worth paying for in the majority of cases, not force the already overwhelmed state system to spread funding even more thinly to accommodate even more children.

Do you have kids? I kind of get the impression from your posts you don’t have kids. Schools are basically classrooms - physical buildings with rooms in them. You have a very practical problem - you can’t just make classes 7% bigger - the average class is 30 kids some schools where we live its 32/33 - they physically can’t fit more kids in the room not to mention how do you expect teachers to be effective with closer to 40 pupils. And you can’t just add on another class in year groups without building more buildings.

@SharonEllis between then my children have been to 4 independent schools . They have never been taught by an unqualified teacher . I work in an independent and we have no unqualified teachers and in fact we train teachers in conjunction with local state schools.

This is very true. My dd goes to a local private school. It’s very close to an outstanding state school, which I would have been happy to send dd to. I heard mixed reviews of dd’s large former state secondary despite the ofsted rating. She felt like an inmate there as did several of her friends.

Had the possibility of private school not been an option, we would have definitely moved to the town, where dd’s private school is based before she was at secondary to get into catchment. I did seriously consider it. The students at the school are in general far happier and being a smaller state school, it has the feel of a very large rural private school.

What about specialist independent schools for kids with Sen, would you close them as well and force the kids back into mainstream?

I don't buy into this at all.

I have plenty of 'rich' friends that send their kids to state schools. None of them are massively invested in or put any of their resources into improving the school that needs significant improvement in the poorer area of town. Instead they join the PTFA of the already well resourced great schools and hold massive fundraising events that pump further money into the schools they attend.

Houses in the catchments of these schools are only really affordable to those with highly paid professional jobs. The intake is pretty homogeneous and parents will openly state that they chose the schools because they didn't want their kids going somewhere where parents wear pyjamas on the school run or vape at the school gates. The state schools are being used a social filter for their darlings and the gulf between the results of the different schools would suggest that the kids at the underprivileged schools do not benefit from having the rich kids in a state school near them at all.

I feel most sorry for the parents in the 'bad' school catchment that can't afford the £300k+ they would need to move to the better area. At least in the current system they can afford the £10k a year (with immense sacrifice) and give their kids a bloody chance of escaping the poverty trap. Make these parents pay VAT on fees and the schools will become unaffordable or they will have to make yet further cuts to their already extremely basic lifestyles. Ban private schools and condemn the kids to a bad education.

Banning private schools or making them more expensive will not promote equality for the poorest and most vulnerable. Those with means won't just attend the local rubbish comprehensive and raise standards. To think this would happen is just unbelievably naive.

I’ve worked in state schools all my professional life, and am horrified at the way education has suffered under the current government.

However, I wouldn’t want to live in a country where people weren’t allowed to spend their own money on their children’s education if they saw fit.
In areas where state provision is good, many who could afford a private education will choose a state school. (Of course there will always be those who will go for the private option just because they can - the people who buy expensive homes, cars yachts and so on. But that’s their own business, and their right.)

‘MASSIVE new pool of teachers applying for work.’

Really?
Many teachers prefer the private sector over state schools for a variety of reasons beyond just pay & conditions. Also, how many private sector employees would relocate themselves & family to live & work within reasonable distance of a state school? Unless the self same private schools, their estate & assets are ‘nationalised’ in situ.

the government pays schools per pupil, that is how schools are funded, so more pupils is more pay

More pupils, more teachers required, more space required, more books, chairs, tables etc. Each child will come with.money sure, but they will nees to be fitted into the system and that will also have a cost.

People with serious influence and power would be properly invested in improving the state sector and making sure the government fund it properly

That's a naive view. People with power and influence would use what they have to ensure their children receive every advantage they can muster. Personally I believe that would be in the form of extracurricular activities, tutoring, after school and holiday clubs both in person and online. As someone who's developed curriculum in an independent, it is very clear to me what parents expect to see: I could have myself up and running, providing the very same, very quickly, and no doubt run a waiting list as well. In fact, I could probably work with a number of colleagues to provide something very high quality for less than the school fees were costing but which would pay us well, negating the need for us to work in the state sector.

As it stands, in my subject ITT recruitment is so low, if I wanted to continue to teach, I could have my pick of schools. No need for me to work in anything other than the best schools - same for anyone is maths, MFL, the sciences, DT and increasingly in other subjects How would that improve education for the majority?

And the argument that the private schools could just be taken over. ...sure, at a cost. Some are in listed buildings, held together with duct tape and a prayer. Good luck with the maintenance!

it’s hard to say what would happen because Labour haven’t published a detailed policy or an impact assessment. But one thing is for sure, it would only serve to make private education even more exclusive, reducing social mobility.

The wealthier middle class are not your enemy.

Not all rich people have power and influence over government, no.

Yes, plenty will just focus on their own local school, not the whole system.

But everyone would be invested in standing against changes that impacted all schools negatively.

And the smaller group of rich people who do have influence - including politicians - would exert it.