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.

Of the 6% quoted to be privately educated, a very small fraction of the private schools are those which set up for a lifetime of privilege. These are the likes of Eton, Harrow, Winchester etc. The fees for these schools are eye-wateringly expensive (more than double the £15-20k pa you quoted) and those who are sending their children are not going to be affected by VAT. Their social circles and opportunities will remain the same. Privilege will remain untouched.

Exactly. Around half of private schools have fewer than 300 pupils (source: ISC). These are the kinds of schools that the vast majority of people unhappy with the VAT are involved with. Small, local independents that fill the gaps that the state system leaves. These are the schools that are largely just breaking even, that don't have millions in surplus (some don't even have hundreds in surplus at the end of each year). If we cut out all the big name public schools from all of these discussions, it would give a much more accurate picture. There are private schools, and there are private schools. One does not equal the other.

These schools are the ones that are on a fine line of going bust - taking with them all their pupils who will need to find new schools, and equally importantly, all their staff who will then be without a job. VAT is one thing, but there is also the pressure that's not being talked about of having to find the business rates - the relief of which is being removed. Plus NMW increase, and NI increase. The combination of these, and the impact of pupils leaving because of VAT will put many schools into the red this year. A school with fewer than 200 pupils needs very few pupils to leave to become almost immediately unviable.

The state schools are not the independent parent’s responsibility. It lays on the government. Also, there are plenty of rich people in state schools like Keir Starmer. Why they do not make them better? Abolishing the independent schools by making them going broke is an ideological plan to educate kids with left leaning tendencies without parents control.

We are in very dangerous hands with this government.

They should make private schools CHEAPER to reduce the burden on mainstream if they really wanted to make state education better.

Like they do with private healthcare, which in the UK system needs to be affordable to compete with NHS (the prices in US are eye watering, due to the private system)

Every child currently educated privately represents a mainstream school place the state doesn't need to budget for. MORE people should be given an incentive to use private.

But sure, everyone deserves to be in an over stretched system with too many children and not enough support for teachers.

I don't get how people can't see that abolishing private will punish the poor, not benefit them.

The private sector is a business, and if they aren’t willingly to adapt or make changes according to a shifting marketing and/or the needs of their customers then some may fail.
I thought private parents supported capitalism and the free-market?

Most people aren’t concerned whether or not certain private schools exist, or not.

This is the harsh truth that very few want to admit. That its parents ability and responsibility to improve their schools for their children.
More funding won't produce the huge improvements needed, until parents take responsibility for their child's behaviour nothing will change.
My youngest goes to an infants with comparatively very low funding due to being undersubscribed, but with a very engaged (and economically diverse) parent cohort and it's absolutely amazing, the behaviour and achievement is excellent. A couple of teachers have left for promotions in other schools, only to return a few months later back to our school on lower pay than their new job, because our school is a fantastic place to work. Higher pay wasn't worth it for the stress.
Oldest goes to juniors which takes from this infants plus some from another infants, in a similar demographic but very different attitude, and the disruption to their learning from the new children has been massive. They are higher funded due to higher intake, but the provision is much worse.

The single biggest factor in a child's educational experience is their own parents, followed by the behaviour of their classmates. People sending their children private are in most cases doing so to enable their child to study with children of parents with a similar level of commitment to their education. That is not wrong, and I am not unreasonable to want my child to share a classroom with children who are respectful and engaged in their learning. I do not care where they come from, what their parents do or how much they earn. But I do care that my child can learn from her teachers rather than being hit, shouted out and learning disrupted.

So yes, as much as i wholely disagree with the principle of it, we will tutor for the 11+ and we will take on extra work to pay for private if needed. And I will feel terrible for her best friend who is smart and respectful and can't afford either of these things and who is being let down by other parent not instilling good behaviour standards in their children.

‘They should make private schools CHEAPER to reduce the burden on mainstream if they really wanted to make state education better.’

They being the businesses that run them? It does sound as if they probably should, sounds like not many are good value for money anymore, with the much higher than inflation rises in fees they’ve been charging for 20 years.
But that isn’t going to change anything for ‘mainstream’ schooling, there’s lots of room as the birth rate plummets, and I’m fairly certain that private schools do t really give a damn about what happens outside their own little privileged world.
Why would they?

I would never use them because me and dh are both teachers so no need to as we can help dc with any work for school.

I never said it wasnt, just trying to explain partially how Michaela is achieving such results.
None of their students take triple science - only double.
In lots of communities many parents wouldn't be happy with their child only being permitted to take 7-8 GCSE's and wouldn't want them to be restricted to double science either.

If private schools don't pay vat then less money for state schools. This means more grow up to be criminals so more likely to be mugged or burgled and country does less well as paying for prisons instead of businesses doing well

All schools should be private. Give parents some tax relief so they can afford to pay. Set a fairly low maximum fee that schools can charge without being taxed, and tax the hell of out of those that charge more.

If parents had to pay out their own hard-earned money on their childrens education they'd take it a hell of a lot more seriously than many do at present where it is just seen as free daycare.

I think the poster meant "they" being the government. Offer - like many other countries - incentives to use the private sector, further reducing the burden on the state system. Instead of the reverse, which is what Labour are doing now.

Not a bad idea actually. People don’t value what is “free” and it is to those that don’t pay
much tax.

You contradict yourself by implying that private education is excellent and then acknowledging that some private schools are poor and some state schools are better. I have nothing against people throwing their money at a system that provides an education. I do, however, baulk at the reality that the private schools system still disproportionately furnishes the politicians, high level civil servants and other privileged strata in our society.

But school isn't just about reading and writing, it's a whole learning experience to develop social skills, awareness, practical skills etc. My oldest is thriving academically, but is becoming more and more withdrawn and reluctant to attend school due to the aggressive behaviour of other children.
Attending private school for many isn't about academic achievement, it's about the experience as a whole.

Remember @Halfemptyhalfling that all private school parents are already net contributors to the state system as they pay for places they don't use.

The answer is to fund state education properly. If it costs a private school £8k a term to provide a quality education for one child how on earth can a state school provide the same for £8k a year.
Further equality is not the answer; we need to strive for equity. This means providing the right resources for every child to thrive and achieve their potential.

@Makingchocolatecake - sorry but are you really a teacher? Your reply is not what I would expect/hope from a teacher for two main reasons.
One being is the reason that you give for not using private school does not answer the question.
It’s like me saying, I don’t use private schools, because I pay tutors to supplement my child’s learning, send them to sports clubs, music lessons and orchestra. I also do not need any after school provision.
Would you use private schools if you and your DH could not help DC with their work?

I hope you're not an English teacher.

Nevertheless, as you're a teacher, I'm sure you know that school is about far more than just the academic work. There are some state schools that will outperform some private schools, but parents will still chose those private schools for many other reasons - sporting facilities, nurturing environments, SEN provision, outside space, extra curricular offerings etc etc.

Some of the comments on this thread are ridiculous.
private schools mostly accept the top achieving kids who are put through entrance tests to get in. They are always going to be high achieving no matter who teaches them. The teachers in private schools aren’t necessarily better than teachers in state schools.
What children in private school get is smaller classes, a hard working peer group, access to top facilities and connections re Oxbridge and American universities.
In terms of lesson content, they’re practically the same. The difference is the children in the class. Put them in state schools and they still do well though will have to suffer the non-academic children slowing the class down, the messing around that is generally seen in state schools, the lack of facilities etc. it not much different to me paying for my daughter to attend ballet, violin, karate lessons after school. Lots of people can’t afford to do this, but does that mean I shouldn’t pay for my child to do these things?? She doesn’t attend private school, but if I could afford to send her I would, for the smaller classes, the facilities and opportunities. Not for the lesson content. I don’t think anyone sends their kids to private school thinking the actual teaching is better than state.

I'm not against it but I don't believe they should get charitable status. Most do very little for state educated children. I don't see why they should have the financial benefit when in reality very few children attend.

My dc are very privileged. They live in a comfortable house in a lovely area, have books and computers needed for learning, go to dance and music lessons, have trips out to interesting places and go to a good state school due to us affording to live in the catchment area. IMO private school is just a different kind of privilege. If I had a cheaper mortgage and lived in a not so good area, I’d probably have paid for private. A lot (not all) of people against private are just paying for privilege in a different way.

We've both worked in a failing school and plenty of children did well. I think my child would be ok wherever they went to school because parents ultimately have more impact on the children then the school. I'm not saying I would want them, or any child, to go to a failing school though.

Don't agree with paying to segregate children, this is mostly what private school is imo, paying to keep your child away from certain people in society. But that's just my view.

As an adult, would you chose to be around people who hit you, shout at you, steal and break your stuff, stops you doing your work and then feel OK when your boss tells you you have to put up with it as there isn't anything they can do about it, and tells you off for not doing your work? If you got assaulted in the street and then told that your attacker was going to sit at the desk next to you in your office, would you be fine with that?

I know I wouldn't, but we expect our children to somehow be ok with this?? Why? No wonder so many women struggle to escape DV, they become ingrained at a young age to believe that males can hit them and authority figures won't do anything to stop this. And makes learn they can get away with this.

My daughter and her female friends are being hit almost daily by a couple of disruptive boys in her class. And their stuff is stolen and broken and then they get told off for not having the right stationary. So yes, she has told me she wants to be 'segregated' as you put it. 'Segregated' from disruptive violent boys who hurt her and stop her learning. We can't really afford private (but will have to stretch to it) so are tutoring for the 11+ as all girl only schools are either grammer or private near us.

I don't really believe in single sex schools, or grammer, or private. But strongly believe in my daughter not get used to being hit by males, I strongly believe in her feeling safe in school and in her being allowed to learn.

I hope you are not teaching children English!

We moved DS to a private school this year (P6) after years of being in a disruptive class where a small group of boys ran riot. My DS was used as a 'good influence' and has never not sat next to a disruptive child. So he spent his days not being able to concentrate, having things thrown at him and generally hating school.

After a year of using a tutor which helped make up for the things he wasn't learning at school we decided we couldn't carry on with him hating school.

Now at his private school he's learning all the same things in the school day that the tutor could have taught him. But he loves school. He loves learning. He's enthusiastic. He's happier.

Don't regret it for a second. I didn't do it to give him a 'network' or because I think I'm better than everyone else. I just wanted a happy child who wants to learn. And I'm sad that his local school couldn't do that for him.

Still convinced that Labour focus on Private Schools being “the problem” has been a successful strategy to focus hate on the “working people” …
with a silly plan they say “reduces inequality”.

At least British Public have not lost the freedom to educate their children privately. It just costs more, most likely widening the so-called inequality and in no way reducing it.

Most people in this chat know what makes some state schools fail to produce active contributors to the (legal) economy. But it’s just not Labour politics to shine a light there or focus policy on trying to motivate the bottom half upwards.

For all those still looking towards Finland as the educational model … look at the trends of the last 20 years. There have been large drops in attainment which tax rates won’t fix. Big gaps in performance based on socio-economic status, immigration. Sure, they do better than many in their study, but not so different. Has the attainment gap in Finland widened because the bottom has become lower???
Their politicians can’t blame “private school” for their staggering gaps in attainment.

www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2022-results-volume-i-and-ii-country-notes_ed6fbcc5-en/finland_6991e849-en.html