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.

Agreed

For the person asking 'why?' Well to me this is so self evident that it's hard to explain why but basically because it's unfair and entrenches inequality.

I don't want to live in a world where it is impossible or very difficult for children from poorer families to succeed in life because the rich have hoarded all the wealth and opportunities and private schools are a way that rich people do that (so are grammar schools and tutors)

It often isn't the quality of education or the facilities that are being bought. It's the connections and depressingly not having to associate with people deemed 'lesser'

I completely agree

Because I know at least 3 parents who will tell you it's so Clara can learn some obscure instrument on a Wednesday afternoon but actually it's because they don't want her associating with the riff raff, aka, our kids.

@Brananan , exactly this. My boys were state educated until the elder had his first year at the highly competitive local state secondary school. Discipline was dreadful and we were all fed up of having to contend with the feral offspring of useless parents. It’s very often not money that makes independent schools better.

i have 3 DC - one an adult , I have experience of 4 different state primaries , 1 private , 1 grammar state school and 2 non selective state schools . The state Grammar is head and shoulders above all the others . The private is being used because DC crumbled in the massive state secondary school .

The aim should be for all schools to give children the opportunities of the best schools - in my experience that’s the state grammar ( or perhaps the schools Starmers kids go to ). The private isn’t that great - it just suits DC .

However, people generally want to buy better if they can afford it. Just look in style & beauty; people recommending dresses at £200 quid from 'boutique' brands, not Primani
Where is your incentive to earn to buy the things you want, including health and education, if you are not allowed to spend your money where you want?
If I were a teacher, I would choose private anyday; at least when parents are buying education, they are incentivised to support their child doing their work, and less likely to disrupt education by whipping them off on holiday during term time. Less likely to abuse teachers too

Because it gives rich kids an advantage over poor kids, which isn't fair. It's not complicated.

Students at Michaela only do 8 GCSE's instead of the 9 or even 10 that's standard in most state schools, which allows them to devote more timetable time to maths and English. Its not rocket science. They also give the students very little choice about what is studied, its carefully planned so that the results really max out the progress 8.

I went to a crappy state school and left school at 16 with very few qualifications. I got my degree much later on but do send my son to private school. The local state school is terrible and as much as I might want to make it better I was very much in a minority so it wasn’t going to change.

Alternatively I could have moved to a significantly better catchment area. Houses are much higher priced and the parents much wealthier than me. I choose to stay where I was and my son goes to private.
Despite the stereotype that all private school children are posh pricks they aren’t all like that.

Abolishing private school will still have a two tier educational system, driven by money due to catchment areas being flooded with richer parents.
Iamshocked hits the nail on the head, children do deserve a great education and I would use the state if the provision was anywhere good enough but it just isn’t.

@Unsrr this article explains it well. It is a source of unearned privilege and deepens divisions in society.

inews.co.uk/opinion/private-schools-morally-unjust-harmful-labour-dismantle-2001709

All this above
Well said

Any public service which allows wealthy people to opt out becomes worse. If all wealthy people used the NHS, state education and public transport, you can be damn sure it would improve in no time.

The argument is not against good schools. No-one is against good schools.

I am against good schools only being available to those who can afford them.

It blows my mind there’s people who can’t realise this by themselves

I have nothing against them, if they didn't exist, education still wouldn't be equal for all. In fact it may be a worse divide than it is now.

I agree that all children should have the same opportunity and access to a good education. However I understand that some children, due to family circumstances and jobs-military, diplomats etc find the stability of a boarding school important. These schools are businesses not charities and should be taxed as such. The old boy network of the top independents can be a real barrier for some young people getting first jobs and experience but I'm sure business contacts of parents do the same thing and it can't be removed completely.
The Sutton Trust does loads of good work to try to create an even playing field and encourage children from poorer schools.
Until all state schools have decent results and day to day social experience there will always be a demand for private education. If that's how people want to spend their money that's ok, but no tax breaks, no charitable status, use blind CVs etc on job applications.

@ThePure but what's stopping their local school from giving them access to a brilliant education, for filling their potential and meeting wonderful friends and connections?

Yup. And who then do whataboutery about postcodes and gaming the system and how state schools aren’t equal.

But that isn’t necessarily the case. I grew up in a very poor family but I went to a private school. How? Because I got a scholarship, some of which was paid by the government, I think. So, rather than destroy private schools, why not widen access by means of scholarships and assisted places?

Life isn’t fair and picking on private schools seems daft. Poor families struggle to eat well; they often don’t have a car; they don’t have tablets or laptops for their children to do their homework on; they can’t afford to travel in the U.K. let alone take their children abroad…….and so on.

State schools in richer areas are usually very different to those in poor areas. Should we get rid of those good state schools too? And don’t anyone say it’s not the same because those schools are free because it’s the cost of housing around them that’s keeping poorer children out.

Better to look at the reasons why state schools are generally worse and see what can be done to help this.

BTW, I didn’t vote as I wasn’t sure which was which.

I have little issue with private schools, people have a choice of how they spend their money. I do have an issue with Grammar schools though. As they receive tax payers money the entrance exams should be designed in such a way that you can't tutor for them and geographical distance should not be a barrier to attendance. They should be there for the most academically able in society not who can afford the best tutors.

I used to be against private school because I felt like people are more invested in services they have to use and banning private school would force the elite to be interested in state education.

I don't mean the middle class doctor is going to join the PTA and make an individual school better. I meant the judiciary, parliamentarian, mega wealthy business owners who lobby parliament, journalists who influence voters. I suppose people with big political/economic power being invested in the system as a whole.

I now don't think that would happen as I think there would just be some elite state school the judiciary happened to use. They'd chase 'good' state schools with tiny catchment.

I also think that private school is a symptom of privilege not a cause of it, so remove that and you'd still have the same set of privileged people finding other ways to use it.

I think that 94-96% of people use state education and it' should be there for anyone that wants to use it and that's good enough.

@RobinStrike that's what grammar schools did in the old days, they gave people a chance to succeed on the same level as old type private educated people.

Unfortunately now the teacher element is removed it's abandoned bright children from families who for whatever reason don't value education.
. So yes, now grammar have become a bastion at the very least of the invested parent.

The Sutton trust highlighted this years ago and said disadvantaged child needed more help to access grammar.

I'm not against them existing but they should be treated like the businesses most of them are.

@Diorchristian some state schools do- it it's dependent upon who attends your local one doesn't it? If most of the families don't have useful contacts, you don't get them. If most families scant afford day trips/residentials/trips abroad then the school can't offer them. There are always inequalities. What the government has to do is try to mitigate them and enable the poorer schools to put systems in place to help. Enthusiastic teachers make a massive difference, but in the end a lot comes down to money.

@Frowningprovidence and what influence would you like to see them bring if they could?

How can state schools be improved?. What difference would it make if mega wealthy people had to use them?