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.

And do you donate the £20k/year/child you are saving plus the £7k/year/child you are costing the state to your children’s school and maybe other state schools*? Or are you just sponging off the state system and adding to an already stretched teacher’s workload?

*otherwise an inequality would then develop between your children’s school and the nearby state schools.

It’s hyperbole but just because you can afford it but chose not to use doesn’t make you better.

I would hope most of us can agree that all children have a right to warm homes, full stomachs AND decent education.

Visting libraries and museums isn’t a basic right, some of your other examples are. I would argue we don’t need to make sure all kids can go on a UK holiday do Cornwall - but we should ensure they’re all warm, fed and educated.

I can't get my head around being a governor of a school that I would not send my kids to. I mean that's quite a damning indictment of the effectiveness of the institution you are supposed to be a critical friend to isn't it?

I was also a governor for many years but of the state schools my kids actually attended. I can't imagine the head wanting my input if I simultaneously sent my kids private. How can you do that role whilst clearly not believing in state education I just don't get it.

🤮

I am against then because I believe all children deserve an equal decent education. In the last 14 years funding for state schools has dropped dramatically compared with private schools. Normal kids should not lose out because of this

Also, they teach how to play the game and make connections rather than teaching to be smart well rounded people. That was generally the case in my old job with mostly privately educated co workers. They knew how to get ahead but they weren't actually very smart. I was forever fixing their mistakes while they mocked me for going to a comp

I sort-of agree but (a) it can be difficult to get people to volunteer to be governors. Our church is supposed to supply 2 governors to the board of the local church secondary school and I was asked to do it. I said I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it because I was sending my own child to a private school and it would seem patronising. But the post went unfilled for months as they couldn't find anyone to do it. However (b) as governors aren't in control of the budget of their school I don't think it's an "indictment" for a governor not to choose it for their child. A school can be doing the very best that can reasonably be expected with the money available and still not be the best option for a particular child.

@iamtheblcksheep why such an extreme view? No state school good enough?!

I honestly think that people just need to have more faith in themselves and their kids. Stats show that the majority of children's educational attainment is down to their parents anyway and set before school age.

To me selective independent schools seem like some kind of confidence trick. Take an intake of clever middle class kids with motivated parents and voila quelle surprise they come out with decent exam results! Surely they would mostly have done so anyway?

I did all the reading with them nightly and taking to libraries, galleries and museums and interesting places that someone mentioned upthread and it's my genuine belief that it would have been hard for school to mess them up given the advantages they already had. They really didn't need me to spend money giving them more advantages they have enough already.

I have posted my DC school stats upthread and it was RI for many years all the time DD attended (just last year achieved good) 40% FSM and 50% GCSE pass rate so I am not speaking from a position of having chosen a grammar or a particularly good state school. They just went to the nearest school to our house. I made the choice I made based on ideology which I think is a good way to make life choices.

97% of children are state educated. Lots of them do really well and enjoy their school. I feel as though there's an irrational fear of state education on threads like these and a pressure that if you can afford it you ought to go private or you are depriving your kids and they will fail and be bullied. It's just not been our experience even at a pretty big standard comp. Often in work circles people just assume and ask which of the local private schools my DC attend. It can be quite awkward to say neither.

I don't want private schools abolished as it's a free country and people can spend their money as they choose but I do agree with the VAT decision as that money is sorely needed to be invested in state education for the good of all.

All over this thread people make the spurious argument that because life is generally unfair and kids already have unequal life chances it's therefore not an issue to make it even more so.

Life is unfair and unequal but that does not mean that we should therefore carry on perpetuating that and exacerbating it.

I actually wish that children who are in adverse life circumstances could have an even better education than those who are more fortunate to make up for it. The state system tries to do this a bit eg with pupil premium funding although it is a blunt tool.

Currently it's like the education version of the inverse care law that those most in need of a very good education are probably the least likely to receive it whilst those who would be OK anyway have all the resources lavished on them.

i just wish more people were honest when they talk about this - its a luxury that only some can afford. if i could afford to take my family on holiday every year then i totally would, because it would enrich their life experience. If i could afford to pay for private education then i probably would for the same reason! But i cant. its a luxury - and should be taxed as such.
im not "against" family ski trips, so im not "against" private schools, but i cant understand the furore about the VAT?

@sadmillenial I am being completely honest when I say I object to private education because I think it is wrong to hard wire privilege by money into a society.

I would hope most of us can agree that all children have a right to warm homes, full stomachs AND decent education.

Yes and some are not getting a decent education.

Great if your child has a good educational experience and achieves GCSEs results that reflect their potential.

Not great, if you child is (to quote some examples from PPs) has endless supply teachers that are not trained in the subject, have to teach themselves the subject, are in fear whenever they are at school, do not have their learning needs met.

Doesn’t matter whether that is state or private - but until the state sector can provide uniformly good education in a safe environment across the board then children are not having their rights of a decent education met by the state and VAT on fees will not address that.

Honestly, I don’t know how how any government will address the issue, which overwhelmingly seems to be related to parental engagement (or lack of) and pupil behaviour.
Private schools can be selective but non-grammar state schools can’t and it’s really tough on the latter to engage such a potential range of pupils and can be really tough for the vast majority of parents and children who are engaged in education in the state system.

The school environment my kids can tolerate is a private one. Small, calm, huge amounts of flexible pastoral care, place you can go and sit with a trusted adult and have a tea and a chat. It's not a luxury education, it's the setting that allows them to access any education. Them having that doesn't deprive anyone else of it and VAT won't change that.

There's also a massive cognitive disconnect here. On the one hand we gave lots of posters saying the majority of the 93% do fine and ps is a con but ALSO they are hugely advantageous and unfair. Which is it? The contacts thing is largely bollocks outside of the top few. Having confidence and self assurance can be taught anywhere, so it's not that either.

Anyone who thinks the VAT money will be spent on state schools is a fool. Not a chance it will be spent to improve them. They are being systematically run down. Low teacher pay, crumbling premises, High pressure, heavy administration, inclusion ( which is anything but), toothless behaviour policy. Nothing to encourage graduates into teaching or to keep experienced teachers there.

Yes this policy was all about ideology. Nothing will change for the state sector, maybe more overcrowding as kids leave private schools and some private schools will have to close.

The state schools where I live have a bad reputation and poor Ofsted ratings. In an ideal world I would send my DC to state schools, but since there aren’t any decent ones in my area, we are saving every penny to send them to the local (highly rated) private school instead. If we don’t manage to save enough (a strong possibility, especially with the new VAT charge) then we will move away, but I don’t want to do that if I can help it. I like where I live and lots of my family are here.

Yes this. I would add to this that if you then look at the statistics around how many MPs, barristers, judges, doctors and others in a position of power with decision making responsibilities are privately educated there is a huge imbalance. I would like to see people in these (and all) positions have a good understanding of people from all backgrounds which I don't believe private education can give you.

I get what you are saying but where do you draw the line? Some parents would argue that for their children being in a small class is essential for their mental and physical development especially if neuro diverse.

All kids clothes are VAT free. Should designer brands be taxed as they are a luxury?

Healthcare also isn’t targeted in the same way.

It could be said that those who can afford it should be made to go private to relieve the burden on the state. The PM has a lot more money than thousands of private school parents yet he’s taking the places at state school for his dc.

State schools should be much better funded - I’m talking billions- but I genuinely don’t think this is going to create the revenue they think it will and will make state schools suffer. I had three kids from a local private school join my classes yesterday. (Two in one class and one in another) I suspect they’ll be the first of many. I’ve no doubt come September I will have 32 in every single class I teach. Roughly I have about 29 per class now. I teach 10 different classes in a two week period. 3 extra per class is 30 extra pupils. That’s basically giving me a whole extra class to mark. And my LSA’s will be further stretched. We will need more books, paper etc. Things are so stretched in state school already we don’t need this extra pressure.

So if someone comes up from a sink estate and manages to enter one of those professions, how is that better? Will then be able to understand the background of someone who had wealth as a child? You can no longer walk into those professions on a handshake, no matter where you went to school. I used to teach in a leafy comp in one of the most expensive catchments in the country outside London. No way were those kids rubbing shoulders with "the poor". They were less exposed to diverse groups than my private school kids who are in classes with people from Eastern Europe, Syria China. Some of whom have fled war zones and have places funded by charities.
As for MPs...they have to get voted in. We choose them. If we're choosing Boris and Rishi and Starmer come to that who is hardly salt of the Earth, that's on us.

A good question. I guess I would argue that they'd have a far better understanding of the vast majority of people and yes, maybe a poor understanding of a very small elite. There will be a wide range of children from all backgrounds in state, including children from wealthier families whose parents have not opted for private.

The state system needs massive funding. Budget doubled. Give everyone the opportunity to learn in an environment that is right for them instead of the ‘inclusion’ mallet hammering square pegs into round holes. Inclusion for some is exclusion for the likes of my child who was targeted by violent, traumatised children who ought to have been taught somewhere that could give them the therapy they clearly needed.

But the failings of the state system aren’t the fault of those who choose private school. It’s not their issue to fix. We need to stop looking at private schooling as wrong, but instead look to how we can fix state schooling to give a similarly supportive education.

It’s not funding that’s needed. It’s not the schools fault. They are the ones dealing with the sharp end of our society. They have to deal with the raw material that comes through their doors. It’s parents that are at fault.

And yes those of us that can will do whatever it takes to ensure our own children’s education isn’t disrupted. We purposefully moved to an area with good single sex comprehensive state schools full of middle class children who want to learn. The other option is private. I wouldn’t send my children to the school my sister taught at. No bloody way.

People saying that funding isn’t needed have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Schools are literally falling down. They can’t afford to be staffed properly, or basics like textbooks and glue sticks. Of course they need more funding.

I don't see the issue with it at all.
The Head and the other Governors all know which school my DC went/go to. I am not a Parent Governor and was invited to join by The Chair who felt I could offer something. I knew some of the Governing body before joining and they voted me on knowing where my DC are at school. I am actually able to use my experience of Private school to make suggestions and I have spoken to The Head of my DC's school about forging closer links and seeing if there are ways the schools can help eachother.
Would it be better if I just sent my kids Private and then did nothing to try and help improve the State school? I DO believe in State education, there are good State schools but the one we could access just isn't and given that we can afford to send our DC Private I think I would be a crappy parent if I didn't do that just because of ideology.

State schools need good governors, no one should be stopped from becoming a school governor because of where they or their children went to school, that’s just silly.