Alan Bennett: Ban Public Schools

[DaDaDa]

Have we done this one yet?

In an ideal world, I agree with him.

lights blue touch paper, retires to safe distance with nice cup of tea and digestive biscuit

Soapbox - Outside of London, there are academically selective secondary schools which have appx. a 50% intake of state school pupils. I don't think it is true that people without the means to pay will not make the grade come secondary school entrance exams, in all areas. How is that going to work if schools become income blind? And what about non-selective private schools? How do they fit into the income blind thing? Or indeed, primary level?

Todaytoday - I really don't know the answer to those questions and what impact 'income blind' has at those schools.

My guess is that most of them will lose their charitable status if that is the case.

Do the selective schools take 50% state on point of principle or are they selected on interview/entrance exam? If it's the latter I don't see what difference it would make.
Non-selective private schools would no longer exist of course

Just because some people can't afford something, does not make it morally wrong for those who can to buy it.

I just thought I would point that out.

These discussions are not motivated by any genuine sense of fairness or equality of opportunity. If you genuinely believed in equality of opportunity you'd abolish public schools, faith schools, home ed, outlaw home tutoring (make it a criminal offence?) and start bussing. It really is the only way to ensure that educational opportunity is uniformly fair.

It also means that all schools will be uniformly mediocre.

Most private schools have no foundations and money. A few schools like Eton do but many private schools are not in that position at all. The new charity rules probably mean that most of them as long as they have some bursaries can continue as now although some may choose not to be charities. They don't pay tax anyway as they don't m ake profits so it's just a question of whether parents would pay 17.5% vat. indeed it might be cheaper to scrap all bursaries and swallow the 17.5%. Labour needs to watch out because certainliy something that's considered - lost the complex charitable regulation and be free of that. Some like the Cognita and I think Gems schools are profit making (supposedly though it's not a very profitable business to be in ) companies but they are very rare.

"do you think that we should guide our children into well paid careers that will, in turn, allow them to earn enough to pay for their children's education?"
If we think state provision of anything is usually worse than private provision and want in as many areas of possible to be rid of state provision because the state never does anything very much very well then yes it woujld be brilliant if more parents could pay because when you pay for something you value it more and then the school has paying customers and has to do better in a market situation. Yes, we need more that. We should privatise schools and give parents a voucher to spend where they like. So let';s not abolish the private schools but let's abolish state education then...

And then just hope they don't go they same way as privatised prisons, Xenia?

Hear hear Alan Bennett.

I'm a nice middle class parent and I fundraise like shit for my local primary. As no doubt would thousands of existing private school parents hence raising facilities and standards.

If you had to go to the local state school then you would have a choice, especially in London. At the moment in London you can live in an area pushing up house prices but send priscilla private. So the locals can't afford to live their and have to send their kids to poorly perfoming state schools. If you had to send your kids to the local schools then you would either invest in where you lived, the school which is the hub of the community Or b***er off and maybe normal people could afford to live in decent housing in their area.

Its just a win win situation as opposed to the current shambles.

I do have a huge chip on my shoulder about private education so I will go away before I start to foam at the mouth.

If they try to introduce a lottery system in my city there will be a bourgeois revolt. Take to the streets! Overthrow the council!

Well it wouldn't be win win for me Kaz because I wouldn't then get the education I want for my children.

I think the situation in London is very different from the rest of the country. The percentage using private ed is above the 6% quoted thus meaning that less than 6% use the private sector elsewhere. In London, the prep schools often offer no more space than the local primary so people are clearly paying for exclusivity. Bizarre situations where you have to register children at birth to even get a look in. How many rational people want that? People are paying just to be there. That does not reflect the vast majority of parents using independent schools across the country.

'These discussions are not motivated by any genuine sense of fairness or equality of opportunity.' - I find that a pretty sweeping statement to make. Maybe it's difficult to accept that not everyone takes a standpoint based on their own individual situation - 'what's in it for me?'. Bue I believe there are some people out there who do - call it having a more evolved sense of social responsibility, or belittle it if you choose to, but it is there. I know a number of people who believe that although we can never achieve total equality in society, it's a good place to aim for, in fact, seeing as we're all in this thing called 'life' together, perhaps the only thing to aim for. No, just because one person doesn't have the money to buy something doesnt make it automatically unfair that someone else does. But many people believe that education is different from most other 'commodities' - it's too important to treat it that way. And that means that children should get the education they deserve - all of them, and should be able to get where they are capable of getting in life on their own intelligence and other personal qualities, not because they happened to have parents who paid for their schooling.

I think those views of people are misguided and to make your child a guinea pig for wrongly help socialist views is a moral wrong when you could afford to pay for a better education (and when inequality in so many other areas exists anyway from looks to personality to brains to family income etc)

If they introduced a lottery system then you might get more parents going private which could be a good thing.

There will always be inequalities that people are born with, sure. Some people are nicer looking than others, some people are cleverer, some people are sporty etc. But many people believe that life is about trying not to create other inequalities, which ultimately don't benefit society. TBH i think there are so many views on this thread that are extremely narrow. Yes, going to certain schools are more likely to push a medium ability child up to higher exam results (probably won't make any difference with a very bright child), going to certain schools may increase your chance of going to oxbridge, just as having a father in a certain profession may increase your chances of getting into it. We all know that. But do these things make people 'better' or even 'happier'? I know people who went to private school/oxbridge who are miserable sods! And not even hugely bright. I know people who earn shitloads of money, but have crap relationships and whinging children.

There will always be inequalities that people are born with, sure. Some people are nicer looking than others, some people are cleverer, some people are sporty etc. But many people believe that life is about trying not to create other inequalities, which ultimately don't benefit society. TBH i think there are so many views on this thread that are extremely narrow. Yes, going to certain schools are more likely to push a medium ability child up to higher exam results (probably won't make any difference with a very bright child), going to certain schools may increase your chance of going to oxbridge, just as having a father in a certain profession may increase your chances of getting into it. We all know that. But do these things make people 'better' or even 'happier'? I know people who went to private school/oxbridge who are miserable sods! And not even hugely bright. I know people who earn shitloads of money, but have crap relationships and whinging children.

if they were banned, do you think the state schools would miraculously become wonderful? or would it just be fairer if we all had to cope with the same shit? wouldnt parents who could afford it still pay for tutors etc?

i went to shit state schools and i believe they let me down appalingly. me, my siblings and my peers. and i was jealous as hell of those who went to privileged schools with wonderful resources etc. i do wholeheartedly wish our state schools were better. but now im a parent, and i (their dad) can afford it without sacrifices, i dont have a moments doubt about sending them to the privileged schools with fab resources.

Of course people would still pay for tutors. I'm not naive enough to think that people wouldn't. There will always be some parents who want to push their child further, or lack confidence in their child's ability so feel they need extra input to achieve. But there's a world of difference between paying for a private tutor and having an educational system that promotes inequality. No, we shouldnt all have to cope with shit, but then I don't think all state schools are 'shit' and neither do I think all private schools are amazing. Seems a very black and white view to me!

course theyre not all shit/wonderful. 2 brief paragraphs is not the sum total of my thoughts on the matter. was just wondering if abolishion of private schools would neccessarily mean improving the state schools. it would depend where you lived anyway, wouldnt it. if you lived in a rich/poor area that would effect how much the parents pushed the schools to perform to their liking.

fwiw, in an ideal worl i completely agree that we should all have free access to great education and mix with everyone around and i agree the current system is unfair and elitist. i think it shouldnt exist at all. i have all sorts of ideals i wish were true, but they arent.

But as I keeo saying, not everyone who pays for school does so because they are elitist. In act, IMO, very few make the choice based on that. I don't even do it because my local state primary is bad. Far from it, it's graded 1 across the board. I do it for the small class sizes and the facilies that my money pays for. Even if private schools were to be abolished, the state sector could never offer that.

BTW, it's also very black and white to suggest that parents who use the state sector are supportive of it and parents who opt out couldn't care less about state schools. I would bet my house on the fact that many parents who privately educate care more about state schools that a great many parents of children I have taught in deprived areas.

Nobody is disputing that both money and effort are required to bring many state schools up to scratch. Nobody is disputing that all children, regardless of their circumstances deserve a decent education. It just isn't as easy as saying that abolishing private schools will raise the standard of state schools.

Oh and FWIW, I don't see education as that sort of commodity either. But, if we reached a situation where all schools were good then you cannot possibly say that it's ubfair that some parents choose to pay for extras on top. Saying, 'my child deserves a decent education,' is one thing. Saying its unfair that some children can benefit from other things above and beyond an excellent education is not credible. Unless you think it's unfair that some people live in far bigger houses than others or have better holidays or can take their kids on more days out etc.

Facilities!

i agree cc. i hardly send my kids to the school they go to to keep them away from the rif-raf

in fact, im pretty sure that if there is such a thing, at that school, we're it.

Regardless of what education system is in place, there will always be 'good' schools and 'bad' ones. Whether you have to pay for the good ones, or live in the right catchment areas, or hot-house and tutor children furiously so that they pass entrance tests, to think that abolishing private education would bring the general standard of state schools up is crazy. Like saying that abolishing the monarchy would make us all richer. Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.

That's the point as satine says it. You will never get pure equality because people and parents are different. Wherever it's been tried in communist russia and elsewhere it's always failed. People, the world, markets, individuals do not work like that. There will always be the tribesman in the Amazon with the biggest penis gourd or the girl with the prettiest face. That does not mean anyone wants state schools to be poor but I bet whatever resources were put in for example the London S/E schools will always do better. The best schools for exam results in the state sector even are in the SE because people with better jobs are there I suppose and may be better teachers want to work in Hertfordshire than Scunthorpe or inner city Liverpool.

If people get cross and see what some of us as parents are choosing to buy for our children surely the answer is just to ensure your own children remove the sin of envy from their souls and plough on with whatever you have been able to afford given the career you happened to choose (or more likely the man you happened to marry given how many women marry men who earn more).

The comment about some people will alway push their children to achieve more seems to be said as if that were wrong and yet most of us as parents from when we say choose to breastfeed (better for brains and health) than bottle feed to whether we read good night stories or whether we smoke at home and drink and ignore the children are all the time trying to help our children hopefully not in a way that makes them so pressured they have a nervous break down but certainly the desire to help our children is a hugely commendable thing which if it were no in us then in evolutionary terms would probably mean more children would die and fewer would thrive. If we gave them up to state creches or kibbutzim where they slept at 2 as I think happened in parts of Israel for a time yes you might get closer to equality but it is not a model which suits most people or works very well. Although you might say that is little different from giving them up to boarding school at 6 or 7 to be moulded for life.,.... all good fun.

Still very pleased my sister's just passed the exam they worked so hard to pass for their school and fingers crossed for my other nephew shortly. It will make a huge difference to their lives over the next 10 - 13 years and beyond.

Xenia, I just have to say, though, that the part of Cheshire we moved to last year (Wilmslow) is at least on a par, price wise with the SE. We have lived in Herts and Surrey and found we got no more for our money by moving north. Contrary to popular opinion, there are areas of affluence outside the SE.

I know there are some. My brother moved to Harrogate from Surrey but on the whole most of what I say is right and isn't Cheshire filled with thick footballers' wives types anyway so may be rich but not clever or is that a hopeless generalisation?

Yes, of course that's a generalisation. There are a lot of them in this particular part of Cheshire but there's not enough of them to fuel the housing market. Anyway, they tend to buy 8bed new builds rather than settle for a 1920s house like ours.

The banking industry is well represented in the N.W and DH only need to go back to the city once a week. Most couples we've met are professionals working in Manchester. I love it up here and I wish we'd moved years ago.

Cushioncover, you are not far from where I work, except I coud never afford to live in your area!!!!

Anyway, back to the debate. Banning independant schools (how I HATE the word private) will never work. I would not send my children to a state school. Not for any reasons of elitism, but because I have fundamental objections to the current system of state education. I have been a governor at a state primary school, dh works as a peripatetic teacher in various state secondary and onr primary school so we hev seen it from the inside.

I have seen dedicated, hardworking teachers and headteacher sin tears because of what they are asked to do.

Ban indy education and all that will happen is the non elitist type people will home ed, then a group of like minded parents will get together and perhaps pay for a specialist tutor, someone else will decide to join the group and before you know it, what will you have?????

A private school.