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

I'd be in favour of this. I'd also ditch church schools and any selective schools.

Education is so important and the fact that kids get such different levels of education is awful. All kids should be able to have a decent education.

Schools in poorer areas should receive more support.

It's a utopian pipe dream on funding alone.

Our private school has beautiful old buildings, quads and nearly 300 acres. Sounds lovely (and it is) but the cost of maintaining it is eye-watering. I have friends who work in state schools and they're fund raising for things like loo paper. Do you honestly think the government funding will cover that level of maintenance?

Not to mention the school being happy to donate land worth millions to the local authority for a token amount? (Our school site isn't owned by the charitable trust that runs it, it's owned by a separate 'worshipful' company).

We're lucky in that our local state schools are outstanding (and highly oversubscribed) but, if they weren't, I wouldn't be putting my energy into improving an underperforming state school. I'd be moving abroad or finding a suitable alternative. I suspect in reality quasi private schools would be set up to find a loophole.

I agree with the poster above that it becomes a race to the bottom. Flooding the state school sector with 600,000 kids isn't going to improve things, it's going to make it worse.

Many centuries ago I was at a direct grant school. The school spent less per pupil than the local state schools. No showers and the 2 nineteenth century houses that housed the sixth form were a fire risk. In the days when cigarette smoke could be seen coming out under the door of one staff room there were strict warnings not to smoke in the VIth form house. It would have gone up in flames in minutes.

@Changeau I meant that they might not actually do anything about private education but it's got everyone talking about it. Without having any of that pesky reality/funding to deal with.

And a number of private school teachers choose that career because they get substantial discounts on fees and can send their kids to a private school. In many cases, they wouldn't choose to teach at all otherwise.

What do you want? A communist state?

There are a lot of life long Tory voters who are so utterly repulsed by the actions of the conservative government in the last few years that they would possibly vote Labour for the first time in their lives next election. But divisive policies (this and gender recognition), plus personal attacks, are a huge turn off. So I agree, stupid them.

Teachers who leave private schools in the uk, tend to go to teach in international private schools or go into private tuition. I don’t know any who have gone back to teaching in state schools, so I don’t think this would solve staffing issues.

The private school market is very international which means the it caters for very mobile people who come to the uk for short periods of time. There are also a lot of private schools in other countries, countries that will welcome rich tax payers with open arms.

Many special schools are private, so this will be another burden on the state. Especially as some of these schools cater for children who would be in mainstream state schools but can’t really cope very well in them.

We also live in a country that values freedom of choice (I hope). Why shouldn’t people pay to educate their child in the way they want? How much choice do you think is reasonable OP? Should people be able to choose faith schools, single sex schools, location of schooling, private tutoring, specialist teaching such as music or art, sports coaching, literacy support for SEN? Or should it all be allocated by inexpert people in government, as they see fit? I think parents are better at making these decisions for themselves and their children.

Practically speaking though wouldn't they just turn them into academies instead of locking the doors and throwing everybody out?
That's what happened to a big private school near us anyway.
So the teachers and pupils get to stay but they have to start admitting non-fee paying children from the local area as well.

OP I disagree

Sometimes treating everyone the same is the most unfair thing to do.

Equity is not created by flat standards.

Most people I know who buy private education work full time and have no time to drive their DC to extra curricular clubs etc. So they pay up to get the whole experience for their DC, not to buy privilege or better grades. So for them private education actually means they work more and pay more tax.

When I was deciding to go for partnership or not vs spend more time with the DC and work 60 per cent I was also making exactly that choice. Send DC to private schools and work all hours vs choose state and supplement myself and drive them around. For many women and men in good careers this is exactly the choice they are making.

I think if government were to provide a private school experience for all children including swimming, sports, high quality music provision (and a good working environment for all teachers) then I think I could get on board with this. However, it is never going to happen. The money isn’t there for all. They are not suddenly going to start spending 13000 a year per child and lower class sizes. That is what it would take. They would also have to have high quality provision for all SEN children at a much higher cost.

@NeedingCoffee I'm sure there many people in that position. but what is the actual polling on this issue? Aren't Labour just in need on centrist votes? Not life long tories.

This is just jealous-based pure and simple. My four children go to private school. I am left leaning, I am not going to send my child to a failing state school regardless of my political views. If they add VAT to my bill I will pay it. If they close private schools I would probably get a governess and home educate them as state schools are horrendous generally. I don't see how shoving more children into a already over-full and failing system will help anyone. Although I don't see it as us doing "a favour" to state-school families as someone stated up thread. I send them for purely selfish reason. I am paying to give them a privilege and an advantage. Who doesn't give their children the best start they can within their means? I came for a very poor background and would do anything to give my children a better start to life than I had.

Dianne Abbott managed to just fine.

So who pays for the upkeep of the facilities?

This

@newtb not sure what the point if your post was? Outdated stereotypes of what private schools are is deeply unhelpful to the debate. As it is, a vast majority of people who have an opinion on this have absolutely no direct, recent experience of an average private school and have Eton in mind when they talk about "rich" kids and parents. There will never be a sensible debate in this unless people on both sides of it educate themselves about what the schools in question are actually like. ..by which I mean the range if standards and provision in state schools as well as private.

Something else the OP is unaware of. Private education is how many single parents manage to keep working.

I have a job that involves travel. I'm a single mum with no backup. If I'm on a business trip or managing a late meeting, my ds(14) stays in the school boarding house for a night or two. Or he has his tea at the boarding house and I can collect him up to 9.30pm.

Remove private schools and that means no more high earning job, losing my PAYE, my skills and my contribution to GDP. We already have a skills shortage in the UK.

Also, I'm late 50s. The govt is adamant that we should keep working. The only reason I'm still working is to pay school fees. If I don't need to pay them I'll retire. Why would I not?

More unintended consequences of an ill-considered idea. More lost revenue for the govt. Thankfully it will never happen.

@gwrachod
*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*
Whilst I understand the premise of your argument, I think in practice that banning private schools won't achieve the outcome you want.

Why? Because the state system itself is incredibly unequal and the rich and powerful are always more likely to use their influence to benefit themselves and people like them than the vulnerable or poor, private school or no private school!

I know on MN this will go down like a tonne of bricks but rather than focusing on the 7% of kids in private schools, why aren't we more interested in what is happening in those families, communities and schools that are struggling to offer children any kind of decent education. We all know the schools populated by those without options or without any kind of educational ambition that have terrible outcomes, both in terms of academic achievement and social influences. County lines have often infiltrated these schools and the children there will be lucky to escape these places without getting drawn into crime or being a victim of it.

The middle classes don't really care about this though as it doesn't affect them, instead they prefer to bitch and moan about a small minority that get an even better education than their own fortunate offspring. They would rather take money from the state school system by banning private schools than look to use the money saved by keeping private schools to tackle this inequality. They also absolutely wouldn't consider sending their kids to one of these sink schools to help raise the standards there. Funny that! It seems equality only really matters when they're the one that feels disadvantaged.

@MintJulia you could use the money you save on fees to pay for a nanny/housekeeper, you wouldn't have to give up your job.

This, 100%!

Labour could pretty much have the next election hand delivered on a silver platter but I imagine they will talk themselves out of it. I don't think KS & co want to win and are starting to panic that they actually might 🤣.

The only private school teachers that might find the move hard are the unqualified ones, as much fewer state schools employ unqualified teachers.

That's utter nonsense. Any teacher who has worked in a good private school with very bright, well-behaved students and excellent facilities is going to find the move to a state comprehensive hard. I started in a state comprehenive, then worked in an excellent girls' private school. Going back to comprehensives after that was frankly awful, mainly due to behaviour problems. Fortunately I'm now in a lovely girls' grammar. I will never leave until I retire.

I have worked with many colleagues in private and grammar schools who I suspect would would quit teaching rather than go and work in a comprehensive school, and tbh I don't blame them. Let's face it, enough state school teachers are quitting anyway.

So what would you do about children needing specialist education? There aren't enough special school places now even including those in the independent sector. For children in private special schools, you can't just shove them in a portakabin in the next nearest special school, because they may require a quiet, small school environment, specialist equipment, and staff specialising in their particular type of difficulty.

@Changeau

So who pays for the upkeep of the facilities?

The academy chain I assume, who get money from the govt.

Not sure about the ownership of the buildings as I've never gone into it in that much detail. I was just pointing out to op that the plan would fall down there as the teachers wouldn't necessarily all rush back into the "pot" as it were.

Like the vast majority of kids then. Not a problem.