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

But presumably the rich would just home-ed with tutors and governesses if they didn't like what was on offer, or send their kids to school abroad.

Or do we ban them from doing that as well?

Can somebody explain to me why it would help state schools to have all private schools closed? Parents who pay for private education (who don't have an 'unused education' proportion of their income returned) would then take up places of an already underfunded system - we would all then have to pay more to accommodate the thousands upon thousands of extra children in each area. Their parents won't pay 'extra' school fees for a a state education so they stay richer and our children ALL suffer.

Who is investing money in private schools - it is not suddenly going to be added to the state sector if they all closed down. The private schools fund themselves - they don't get money from the govement (well apart from the charity staus thing - which I don't agress with). Those parents who send their children to private school would not suddenly start offering money to state schools.

AHh so its not everyone but politicians who cannot send their children to private school - I think you are right there...

I am not sure the upper classess would offer to improve state schools (they would get into nice state schools and probably find there is not that much difference between a good state and a priovate school) - apart from the class size!

we have a child at our school whose mum is an MP

Well I teach in a prep school (clearly disadvanging you all who send your children to state school) and we have no MPs children and only 1 upper class family.

Well perhpas pple would see the importance of education more if it were anywhere near a level playing field.

No-one and not even alan bannet has explaiined how banning private schools will improve state schools...

I think he's right - I heard him on Today, particularly with the sentence that Kathy quoted. He sounded very much in favour of selective grammar schools.

Though he then added that he was a hypocrite because he paid for private health care. You never know, he might have been a hypocrite if he'd had children too. I know I am.

1. The already advantaged - wealth etc, would not be advantage further.

1. All effort would have to go into improving state schls. If its all you've got your going to make it better and the well off may decide to contribute some of their money for the advantage of all.

1. The division of society would decrease. Less of the old boy network.

Loads more I'm sure

Sounds like he's watched too many repeats of Gattaca to me......only those with the best genes/brains get to go to a good school, and the rest of the peasants can suffer.

my dh (state educated) went to cambridge - now that really is old-boy network in terms of jobs...shall be ban oxbridge as well!

I'm not actually in favour of public/private funding partnerships (hasn't seemed to work particularly well in hospitals or schools thus far) but I would think you could almost guarantee there would be increased private funding in State schools if independent schools didn't exist.

Then it would be a case of regulating selection procedures to maintain a level playing field, and ensuring barmy Creationists weren't having an undue influence on the curriculum.

Nice glasses - I'm really sorry but surely the wealthy would decide to get a home tutor and 'share this with their friends' - lots of little 'wealthy homeschooled together' groups (not a private school honest gov!). I honestly don't think the wealthy would contribute more than everybody else for everybody else's children. 'All effort' is great, but with 1000's upon 1000's of extra children needing new schools built and/or larger class sizes it's an impossible idea. (said with all respect and luurve - not trying to be nasty!!)

tbh i think by banning privatge schools all you wikll do is increase the divsio between state schools in "nice" areas and those in more disadvantged areas...am still not convinced you will improve those schools that need it most! sorry.

I'm sure they all wouldn't but some would.

And the point is they should.......

Why don't we all just pay more taxes???

No you don't need to ban Oxbridge, but you do need to ensure 80 per cent of entrants aren't taken from the top PUBLIC schls.

I'd gladly, gladly pay more taxes. Scouts honour.

christ yes, quite right.

No - you need to esnure osbridge take the best..no matter where they come from...

Give me the same education as my kids get now and I will happily not pay. - at p[resent that just wil not happen

But they are only the best cos they go the best schls because they have the wealthiest parents ........and on and on and on

In my experience very few would. We would also be left with the problem of where on earth would we put all of these kids and who will pay to build the new schools, run them, teach in them - at the moment we are supplemented by those parents who privately educate - the system would collapse unless a radical strategy was put in place - enforced education tax depending upon income.

Well, I am quite passionate about all this and I know my views wouldnt suit many - but really for me it is a no brainer.

There should be no advantage in education purely on income. It should be level. If this means more tax, so be it - I would willingly pay. For me it has masses to answer for.

Money would have to be invested in a comp system or something equivalent. Of course pple who can afford it can always tutor at home. But they should still pay more tax for it.