To wonder if you are against private schools…

[Unsrr]

Why is this? As in against their existence?

I was brought up in a reasonably poor area and my education was not good. I sometimes went to the nearest private school for swimming lessons and remember being in awe of it. We have one dc now age 7 and can’t afford private but there is maybe a chance we could for secondary. I wouldn’t give it a second thought if we could make it work.

I have never felt private schools should disappear because surely that’s what we should be aspiring to? An education that is excellent (yes I know not all private schools are good and lots of state schools are better), isn’t that what we should aim for?

I feel sad that this country has now made it harder to access this education. What is the reason people are against private schools existing at all? I don’t think it can be jealousy, I think many people are genuinely opposed to it from an ideological perspective and I can’t understand it at all. Just interested really as there’s been so much talk about schools recently.

There are swathes of children in this country whose parents can’t afford to take them on any holiday, nevermind an educational one.

There are also many whose parents just make “bad” parenting decisions and don’t raise them in a way you see fit, or are downright neglectful. Many of those kids are the ones we’re referring to as poorly behaved, or worse, in this thread.

I wholeheartedly believe that those children shouldn’t be limited by their parent’s decisions.

@Kitte321

Exactly.

It's like the general education problem is so difficult they just blame everything else!!

@SleeplessInWherever when you add in dyslexia and dyscalcula and everything like that, which state and many private schools can't cope with due to utter ignorance and being tied to the education department in gov... That's a hell of a lot of failed and disengaged children.

Alongside all private schools, I think all state schools that are not "Ofsted outstanding" should also be abolished. And all grammar schools. They all confer either an unfair advantage/disadvantage.

All children should have the right to an excellent education so none of them should have to attend poor state schools.

Of course, the slight issue with that is that then there will be a massive shortage of school places.

But if what we're aspiring to is an excellent state education for all, then the only option should be excellent comprehensive state schools. Bin everything else.

In reality, things are somewhat more complicated. And while I don't object to the policy itself, I do object to the way it's been brought in. Especially because children having to leave private schools for financial reasons won't be getting a fair shot at a decent state education, with the good, the bad and the ugly. They'll either be stuck with the dregs of whatever local authorities have to offer or (worst case scenario) will be left without school places altogether in some of the most oversubscribed areas. It would have been fairer to apply the policy prospectively so parents could have made informed choices about schools at the proper application time.

If you're against private schools because children's standard of education shouldn't depend on how much money their parents have, are you also against private healthcare for the same reason?

I said this on another thread. Not one person who opposed private education responded.

i suggested a method of a blind ballot to make schools genuinely inclusive and, not determined by very slim catchment areas.

But certain posters on this thread ,who can definitely afford private school but wouldn’t send their child to on because of their beliefs, woulds lose their shit. They are just buying privilege via a different means 🤷🏻‍♀️

@FrodisCapering I disagree. I didn't see anything vindictive about her when she presented her budget. It is clear cut. Generally all the bursaries are to try to prove charitable status, not out of the goodness of their hearts. The use of facilities similarly to prove community links. Some use of facilities are hires rather than free. I'm not saying they can't have some good links with state schools, the one I worked in did, but it's not for the added value they give the community, it's to ensure they keep their charitable status.
Everywhere does have free education in this country. It's not essential to pay, it's a choice, and one that should be taxed like any other service.

To be honest, on the SENd argument - I’m biased.

My brother and nephew are both dyslexic and thrived in state secondary, with some intervention.

I have also got a DSs with significant, complex needs. He’s in a state SENd school that meets his needs and would be moved to another school if they couldn’t meet need. That’s also fully funded, because of his needs - so quite why we’d need to pay for it is beyond me.

Best answer in the thread. @Unsrr does
this answer your question?

I am yes in the same sense that there should be no need for private healthcare in a properly funded system.

I think the biggest difference is that this government only has one minister who attended independent school right through (I'm not getting into the debate on KS). They see the value in having all state schools improved and don't have a commitment like all previous governments to maintaining the independent sector. If you want to call that an ideological difference, then yes, that's what the Labour Party is about. They aren't demanding the closure of them. Just that they pay for what they get. Not a problem as far as I can see, but obviously it is if you want to maintain the current system.

Because currently there are school buildings that are literally unsafe for pupils to study in. Did you not hear about the RAAC crisis? Pupils having to study in temporary classrooms without access to things like science labs for practicals? Or learn remotely from home? Other schools are in a terrible condition for other reasons and are in urgent need of rebuilding. Let's not even get started on the asbestos being disturbed as schools fall apart because I don't think there's a plan for that at all.

As for more teachers - are you aware of how many classes don't actually have teachers? Children who are having to teach themselves the syllabus because the adult in the room doesn't know it themselves or who are just left learning very little? The recruitment figures for secondary teachers are catastrophic.

Schooling starts with a school building that is safe for children to learn in, and with a qualified teacher in front of the class to teach them. You might think these are pretty basic things, but the state system is currently lacking these for every pupil.

So when you are wittering on about 'more teachers than classrooms' and 'fresh paint', you are just showing that you have no idea how dire the situation is.

i think the current economic struggles is exacerbating the private school hate.

in a perfect world many of the features offered in private schools would be available in state schools.
but not all area's of the country are the same and some small village schools probably replicate a close knit private primary in many ways.
secondaries and sen need serious tweaking and it has zero to do with actual grades leaving secondary but with behavior and a teachers ability to teach.
if sen and behavior help for children was easily available with excellent options for those children there would be little appeal for private secondaries.
personally i think the appeal for grammar schools is similar in an attempt to limit the effects of antisocial behavior on children who's parents can afford/prep for that system.
help for sen and teens struggling and displaying behavioral issues should have been dealt with first.

That's only half an argument though.

Should anything else [not] be predicated on how wealthy the parents are?
Food, gifts, holidays, houses, clothes, wellbeing etc?

If not, then is the solution to ban everything above an arbitrary point and then make everyone have the same?

The reason your kids are in a RAAC school is because Michael Gove, as Education Secretary, diverted funds from school maintenance towards creating academies. That's why schools are crumbling. It's not the fault of private school parents, is it? It was austerity and a political choices made by the Tory government, which has left schools in dire straits. This type of thinking - 'Why should they have normal classrooms while the roof us falling down on my kids?' - helps nobody. If you are upset about the state of the crumbling school estate, get politically active and lobby your MP for more school funding. Wanting other children to be in an equally terrible situation is neither here nor there.

I agree with this to a certain extent, but the plain truth is that literally everything in a child's life is predicated on how much money their parents have.

And somehow private schools are to blame?

To repeat, I would expect Labour statements, to tell us how bad it is, and how intend to fix. More teachers and fix crumbles, still doesn’t do it for me. This is not what our LEA is complaining about … the schools aren’t crumbling not heard about “no teachers” and the same bad schools have been the same for decades. In fact, they’ve closed schools over past 8 yrs. Tell you what is growing …. The private school enrollment, working people are the parents, many both parents working & done second jobs … want better for their kids.

if the same jokers are running the schools, local education … now with more money to mismanage …… situation same …

For the Finland crowd … funding per pupil very similar to UK.

You are of course correct ideologically. However if I had £50,000 in assets and my life, or even achieving a pain-free quality of life depended on an operation that I would either have to wait 2 years for or never get at all on the NHS then I'd certainly pay that money to get it privately ratter than die or suffer a life of pain for that ideology.

Ideologies are fine in theory or when applied at a population level. On an individual level if the state is failing to provide a reasonable quality of service then I can't say it's unethical for someone with the resources to go private to do so. The sin lies with the government choices that let the stare provision get so bad.

The sin lies with the government choices that let the state provision get so bad.
well put @CrabSignalArmy
and based on what i've heard some schools were dire in the 1980's so it's not something that's slipped in the last 8 years.

I think if you've not heard about 'no teachers' or 'crumbling schools' then you can't have been paying very much attention?

Or that most schools are now academies and nothing to do with LEAs.

People were upset about the crumbling schools and political choices of the Tory government and they didn't just lobby their MP, they voted them out.

You're now unhappy with the political choices of the Labour government. Have you tried lobbying your MP?

@sweetestpotato not really as it’s not reality is it? Of course in theory it’s nice to think children would be considered ‘all our children.’ But that’s not true is it? Capitalist or not, we do and should have loyalty first and foremost to our own. And in fact it’s the lack of taking ownership of that which I believe leads to such poor parenting and the awful state of many state schools… it’s not someone else’s responsibility to parent your child. That’s just a fact. So no it doesn’t really answer the question when faced with these realities.

Yes I’m completely on board with you and agree that money needs to be pumped in!

So do you genuinely believe that where parents are struggling, or failing - we should therefore just let their kids fail, because they’re not yours?

All the time. I lobby for more funding, write to MPs, support my union (NEU) and work extremely long hours with limited resources - in a state school, I might add.