To think that there would be less anti private school

[Poopoolittlekitten]

sentiment or threads on MN if people using private school were a tiny bit more self aware and didn’t ask for sympathy for rising fees or possible rising fees if Labour take away their false ‘charity’ status?

send your kid private if you want, just don’t come moaning about the costs or claim than anyone can go private if they ‘prioritise’ their child’s education they way you do. Particularly at a time when state school teachers are striking over pay and conditions.
And many, many people are working their socks off just to keep a roof over their family’s head.

YANBU - stop whining and looking for sympathy about your fees!

YABU - my milkman sends his 4 kids private by ‘prioritising’ their education so it’s not just for whiny poshos….

Children should not have to be exposed to violence, disrespectful behaviour and drug use at school.

If that is what needs to happen for my DC to be safe at school then I am ok with it

Why should private schools have to make up for the failings of the government?

while mostly educating their own children outside the state sector).

Izimbra do you know this for certain?

‘Children should not have to be exposed to violence, disrespectful behaviour and drug use at school.’

absolutely they shouldn’t, but most boarding schools know that they have big problems around this, it’s just they prefer to try to ‘quietly’ deal with it - they have a name and a brand to protect

"Izimbra do you know this for certain?"

No - and they'd never discuss it openly.

But given the eye watering wealth of so many of our current cabinet, what's the likelihood of them sending their children to a state school?

"Why should private schools have to make up for the failings of the government?"

I'm not asking private schools to do anything.

They're businesses. They're free to do what they like.

I'm asking why you think people shouldn't be object to abject unfairness and extreme inequality of educational opportunity for children?

Inequality of education would be a reality regardless of whether independent schools existed or not. There is no consistency in the state sector as it is - it's a postcode lottery. Why would that change? All that would happen is, those who have the means would move into catchment areas for the best state schools. It would just be another form of self-selection, just without fees involved (but mobility instead). It all comes down to the same thing. Some families can buy choice where others cannot. If your only choice is to put your child into a school where a murder has taken place in the last year, you would move if you possibly can.

Inequality would still exist if you got rid of independent schools, the grammar system, faith schools, and academies tomorrow. Universities would still have to contextualise - the local comp somewhere like Esher or Cambridge or Knightsbridge is hardly going to be the same as a comp in a deprived area. There would be areas known for 'the best schools' and it would be a self-perpetuating cycle.

‘Inequality of education would be a reality regardless of whether independent schools existed or not. ‘

True to an extent, but you can hardly compare the difference in quality between some state schools to each other to the inequality fostered by the private system to state.

Not that it really matters - private schools aren’t going away, wealthy people will make sure of that. Fine.
But they shouldn’t have charity status, or anything that affords as they are businesses catering to the top 10% earners and not charities.

In what way is a school an actual business? There are no shareholders, no profit making for shareholders. Independents just do educating. Surplus is ploughed back into the educating or maintaining or improving buildings or facilities.

I don't know how I feel about the VAT thing. I can see an argument for it. But let's not pretend schools are businesses. They're not.

Make ALL schools private businesses with a sliding scale of government funding that decreases the more they charge.

Most bursaries go to people who can afford the fees anyway, and less than 1% off children in private schools are getting a full scholarship.

The first sentence is simply untrue. You're also getting mixed up between bursaries (means tested) and scholarships (achievement based).

But if you want some numbers, a third of the pupils at our school are on bursaries, the majority of which are full bursaries.

Bursaries vary school to school. But about 1% of all independent school pupils covered by the ISC are on a full bursary.

It wont be evenly distributed. There will be some schools with big endowment funds that offer more Bursaries of bigger amounts.
Its pretty common for schools without a big endowment to set a percent of their fees to give away in bursaries of approx 10% and offer a different spread each year. So one year they might really want two particular pupil so they get a full bursary, but another year they give 10 people a 20% discount.

"True to an extent, but you can hardly compare the difference in quality between some state schools to each other to the inequality fostered by the private system to state."

I'm not sure about that OP. I think you have a rose-tinted view of 'private schools' tbh, as they vary massively. What kind of 'pruvstr schools' are you talking about? Some are 'money for old rope' frankly, run by eccentrics and people with a business mindset, rather than an educational background.

Any school, state or private, is only as 'good' as its catchment / intake. The main difference between schools is determined by location (if a school is non-selective) or, as is the case with most private schools, how academically selective it is at 7+, 11+, 13+ etc. What is the difference between a school like Brampton Manor (state) and other schools in that area? Nothing, except the former is highly selective and can take pupils from out of catchment.

We have various friends who live out in Surrey, Berks etc and the state schools are great. In London, things are much more variable. There is one state school not far from here with a very small catchment which consists predominantly of houses worth £3m upwards. Those families are wealthier than most families elsewhere who use private schools. Of course that school is going to be seen as 'desirable' - they don't have to deal with the social issues that the next comprehensive school (down the road) have to deal with because that school happens to be located next to a large housing estate. As I said, in London, it's very often 'selection by postcode.'

Teachers are teachers, there is good and bad in all schools. But of course, in any selective school (whether selection is by academics, ability of families to pay fees or by location / postcode), teachers will have an easier job and be able to focus in the job of teaching.

"They are very good at keeping their students and staff safe, yes."

They do this by ruthlessly excluding socially disadvantaged children

Erm....'socially disadvantaged' is not synonymous with 'violent, abusive, no interest in education'. Lots of us live in deeply disadvantaged areas and manage to bring up our kids to have kindness and respect for others and their surroundings. By the same token, plenty of advantaged children lack basic manners, can be violent and behave very badly in school. The difference erween independents and state is that independents have no obligation to keep trying and keep someone with anti social behaviours on role. They are just told to leave.

*roll

Actually, people are quite happy to acknowledge that there's a disparity. One if he reasons for going private us the unevenness if state provision across the country, and only a few are well ofg enough to afford the private option.

What they're not prepared to accept is myths like privately educated kids don't have to work hard to pass exams because of something called 'spoon feeding', or that everybody could easily afford another 20%, or that poor state provision is their fault.

@Poopoolittlekitten
I'm not from the UK, and moved here a few years ago from SouthEast Asia (through marriage) so giving my perspective as an outsider.

Parenting is a very key factor in educating a child. When comparing Asia vs UK one of the things that has struck me is the lack of ambition in people. You're quick to blame the rich and people who send their children to private schools but schools in less well off communities will not have crime, bad behavior etc if the parents are tough on their kids and accountable for their behavior. You don't need to be rich to be able to do this. You don't need middle class people to be part of low income state schools to achieve this. You don't need to tax private schools to do this. People need to value education and discipline their own children regardless of their socio economic background.

The standards in these schools are low because of the parents not private schools! People seem to have a lot of charity showered on them because they're "working class" - it's as if they need help. Can't they help themselves? Where is the ambition and drive? Not uncommon where I'm from for parents of street vendors working hard to spend on quality education, or people selling houses getting into debt etc to send their children to top universities in the UK in pursuit of a good education.

I'm going to be brutally honest - people need to care about a good education. I've found that lacking here compared to Asia. And people who do have ambition and the desire for a better life seem to be punished or vilified for "not caring about the less well off". You have to take care of yourself and your family first before you can care for your community.

The education system here is not challenging - i downloaded previous 11+ papers after reading threads here and am shocked at how easy they are! An 8 year old from an average school in my country could breeze through them. Both the English and Math!

People need to demand more from their children and have high standards- you don't need to be rich or in private schools to do this.

Why focus on private schools, rather than lobbying to improve the standards of state? And equalizing opportunity across the state sector?

Parents have a responsibility to their own children, and unsurprisingly most are going to favour their own children above others. As such, they’ll avail themselves the opportunities they have, and can afford. That others can’t afford the same isn’t an argument about denying those that can the option to do so. At least not in a liberal capitalist society that affords individual freedoms, in which ‘fairness’ is not the only consideration.

Notfromheregoggles interesting observations.

I have a friend from SE Asia who says exactly the same. There's no (or little) benefits safety net and, as a result, a high focus on the value of education.

Yes, we're not all equal. Some kids don't have a desk to work at, nutritious food to eat and need to pitch in with chores more as their parents work long shifts. But there's a lack of aspiration for some kids in a way there perhaps isn't in other countries.

I'm not from the UK and agree. I grew up in an area where nobody was rich; most people were what you would describe as working or lower middle class, but in my entire time at school there was not one incident of knife crime or similar violence. 30% of students went to the grammar school, regardless of their background. Here, if you make it into a grammar, the chances are extremely high that you come from a privileged home with educated and professionally successful parents. Higher than for those even who go to the average private school (outside London).

I see this too. It was drilled into me that education was a key to a good life, and that working had was imperative. It was also drilled into me how lucky I was to live in a western society where people were free to aspire.

One thing I have noticed, and of course I am generalizing, is that some people don’t seem to want their children to aspire, or to achieve more than those that came before them. They have to ‘know their place’ and shouldn’t be getting ideas ‘above their station’. I’ve seen those that do get mocked and belittled for doing so, and accused of ‘forgetting where they came from’. This attitude ime often coexists with a distaste for choosing a well paying career because ‘there’s more to life than money’. Of course there is, but there’s no escaping the fact that money is required to live, and if you want a higher quality of life then that invariably costs more money.

Yes, barely any benefits so if you don't get a decent job as an adult you will not be able to afford anything. Only the very poor and disabled get subsidies so this is a very small percentage of people who get aid. There are state and private schools but the state schools aren't free either, so parents (from all walks!) tend to demand more of their children since they are paying to educate them.

There's a high focus on education in the culture as it's seen as a way to improve one's circumstances. There's no way a kid is bringing a knife to school - the parents of that child would be mortified and embarrassed. That would not be tolerated by the other children either.

Inequality exists in every culture. Rich parents exist in all countries we can't change that but education is a great way to level up. And if you can't afford a tutor you can watch YouTube videos, download previous exam papers etc and practice.

Parents need to be more responsible for their own children, the laid back attitude here surprises me! I don't think increasing tax on private schools will solve inequality but parents regardless of their socioeconomic standing applying pressure on their own children to get a good education will make a difference!

@whumpthereitis I have to agree the "know your place" attitude does exist here.

‘Inequality of education would be a reality regardless of whether independent schools existed or not. ‘

Yes.

Because there will always be children from home with books, where there's a love of learning. Where parents are hugely supportive, and where children are exposed to the chance to learn from exposure to foreign travel, theatre, the arts, from meeting successful adults, from being taken to to galleries and museums.

And what the existence of fee paying schools does is take that inequality and turbo charges it - by putting the children who are already hugely advantaged - isolating them in ghettoes of privilege, where they overwhelmingly mix with children exactly like themselves, and lavishing double the amount of educational resources on them as the 93% of children educated in the state sector. All the while protecting them from the social and psychological damage caused by social inequality and deprivation.

And the end result is the broadening and deepening of educational inequality, and the entrenchment of privilege to an extraordinary degree.

It's toxic to our society and it's ethically indefensible.