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

Hula, I've already said that moving etc is just as bad - it ends up with the same scenario in effect.

No of course you can't ban home ed or extra stuff or private tuition - there is never going to be that kind of level playing field and nobody would want it anyway - of course you can buy extra things for your children if you can afford. But I don't think you should be able to buy a whole better start in live.

No the money wouldn't go direct to the state system - but some of it should.

Its a fundamental difference of opinion and like so many issues of this ilk, I find I am saying the same thing over and over.

I know its not as simple as I'm making out - but neither is it as fair as you are.

I'm sure Alan's heart is in the right place - grammar-school-boy solidarity!

Thing is, how do you "ban" something? People who didn't like what was on offer from the state could always set up their own little exclusive academies if they didn't like what was on offer. And what do we do with the existing private school buildings?

I think one of the myths about private schools that people put about is that it gives DCs lots of 'opportunities'. I have a good friend who hankers after private school for her girls but can't afford. And when I asked her what she meant, she talked about tennis lessons and piano lessons and skiing trips etc. So I pointed out to her that if private schools today were anything like mine was, those 'opportunities' only come to those who can afford to pay through the nose for them on top of their school fees. I think that the truth is she beleives that sending her children to a private school will enrol them in some kind of unspoken club of the priviledged - which might the case at certain schools, but again, only if you are well off.

It does give you the opportunity to miss out on local friendships though - you get shipped out to a private school 20 miles away and are classed as a 'snob' by your neighbouring children...not a great recipe for fitting in

"Oh and of course we must also get rid of grammar schools and any state selective schools. Otherwise fairness will not be there."

I don't see the logci there at all.
there is a fundamental difference between selection on the grounds of ability and on the grounds of your parent's ability to pay.
one is elitist and unfair.
one (while not necessarily perfect) does at least have an element of meritocracy.
banning private schools would not make things perfect but it would make things better, imo.

@niceglasses "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."

Do you have a source for this statistic? IMO it's plain wrong. Oxbridge places are currently 56% from state schools and 44% from independent schools.

Now, you could argue this is still skewed, as about 92% of people are educated in the state sector. But it is broadly in proportion to the ratio of applicants. There is no evident bias in the selection system - what we need to do, if anything, is get more state school pupils having the confidence to apply to Oxbridge.

(Former state pupil and Oxbridge student speaking here! As if you hadn't guessed...)

our small town used to have two high schools and one grammar, surely if they could (though it would never happen) ban private schools, we could go back to that.

although we only have one comp now. the other high school is now a religious high school and the grammar a housing estate.

I think everyone deals in generalizations in these discussions, because it's the easiest way to proceed. Though the detail is always more complicated - and we all mostly know that because we deal with the detail every day.

UQD come the revolution led by the somewhat unlikely figure of Mr Bennett the buildings should be given to the state sector - though everyone has to keep a beady eye on the councils and make sure they don't sell off the playing fields. . . .

Orm. I think you are bang on actually. DH went to a not very good comprehensive, at which he did very well, but he says there is something about the privately educated which gives them a sense of confidence and entitlement to pursue what they wish - this of course often folds over into arrogance, and everyone hates that.

No I don't have a source.....plucked out of the air, or based on something I heard a while ago.I'll gladly hear the correct figure - I'm not claiming statistical integrity at all. Enlighten me.

Also, those could afford it would just go abroad.

But I don't see how banning priavte schools will make everything fair. I truely don't.

Whilst other things like selective state schools, grammar schools, private tuors or home ed still exist it will still be skewed.

And how do you make those people who were paying for private school suddenly pay part of that money into the state system? If you raise taxes then you affect everyone, even those already in the state system. And I don't trust this Government anyway - they tax plenty, it just isn't used in the right places on the whole. And don't forget those using state schools already pay taxes for schools, despite not using the system (thus meaning the tax has to go round slightly less people). If they go back into the system then they will still pay the same tax - but that tax needs to now fund even more children.

Sort out state education. That is the issue. Leave the other stuff alone, and sort out the actual issue here. If they sort out state edication then maybe not as many people will move to the private sector too. That is the way round they need to do it.

Banniong private schols first isn't going to work - it just alientates people to start with, and doesn't solve the problems in state education. All that has too be done first, or the inequality will remain.

But I guess as ever with private school discussions - people will never agree. And it does just go round in circles and nothing evry resolved TBH.

In the ideal world everything would be fair and equal. But it is never going to happen; utopia doesn't exist.

oh you did enlighten me. Well that is better, but yes still skewed and unfair.

Yes, but grammar schools are divisive aren't they. Why should a child be streamed off at 11 and told they aren't fit for a more academic education?

for niceglasses

It's 54-46 actually, but I wasn't far off!

I agree with you there Hula. They don't use the tax in the right places. It needs ringfencing for the things Blair promised right back in the era of hope........

Thing is, niceglasses, it isn't skewed. As I said, the ratio of applicants is the same as the ratio of successful applicants. Where the imbalance lies is in the lack of state school pupils applying - which if anything is the fault of the schools, not Oxbridge.

harpischord - because all those paying for private will pay for private tutors to ensure they get into the state selective/grammars wherever possible.

oooo I don't know about that. I'd say it has something to do with what a100times said about confidence etc being instilled in private sector.

Would it really make a difference? I don?t think so. Parent apathy over education and inverted snobbery hold children back. The wealthy of the country would begin to dominate grammar school areas, faith schools and expensive catchment areas (like they already do). To make it completely fair, there would have to be no grammar schools and no faith schools and school places would be allocated by a lottery. I imagine you would see a rapid increase in home education and/or parents setting up their own mini schools if they felt they had no choices.

How do you level out the discrepancy that by the age of three, the children of educated, involved parents are one year ahead of their more deprived peers? A lot of resources have been put into that without making any difference.

What about the differences in housing and inherited snobbery? How do you get rid of that? I think it is a bit naïve to think that abolishing private schools will have any great impact or eradicating the class system.

Oh, well, I wouldn't disagree necessarily about the confidence thing. It's just that there are obviously a lot of state pupils out there who would benefit from an Oxbridge education and would get in, but don't apply for whatever reason. This could be a) lack of confidence b) lack of school contacts/resources c) lack of time in curriculum for extra coaching d) teacher with chip on shoulder about Oxbridge... etc.

I went to Oxford and so many myths about the place were exploded for me when I finally got there.

Inverted snobbery? I'm not sure I get that one. So someone who maybe goes against the tide of moving to a better area etc.

I'd just call that common sense.

This is true of dh UQD, though I think family background pays a part. With his A levels he could have waltzed into any Oxbridge college, but it certainly wasn't in the culture of his school to even think about it, nor in his families. Though maybe things are different nowadays. I don't know.

Of course the detail is more complicated too, when you look at the Oxbridge entrants. Not all candidates from the private sector come from Eton (I bloody hope not anyway) - some will come from the schools like the King Edwards schools, which run off foundations, keep their fees low, select on ability and both their parents will have worked to send them there. Is it right that child shouldn't be given a place?

Niceglasses, I think inverted snobbery about education means viewing learning as being swotty, geeky and uncool, and in a similar vein, not speaking a broad version of the local dialect (if there is one) being looked down on. Both pupils and certain types of parents perpetuate these views, and it certainly impacts on children's education, holding back children who would prefer to 'fit in' with their lower acheiving friends, than stand out and be ridiculed for their educational acheivements.

Yes, I could see that being very limiting, and a lot of Today's post I'd agree with, but I wans't advocating abolition of the class system - well, I would like that but thats a mahoosive task, but just abolition of public schls. There may never be a level playing field, but there can be a more level playing field.

hoppybird - that happens in private schools too. My school was quite academic although I did get in with the 'bad' crowd for a while and my work suffered. But my DB went to a supposedly good private school which was dominated by thick-necked rugby playing hoorays! Not being one of those he suffered and for a long time acheived nothing. It took the hard work of one inspiring teacher to capture his interest and in the end he left with reasonable qualifications. If it hasn't been for that one teacher my parents might as well have chucked their money down the drain.

I can see his point, it really frustrates me that parents in our area move their children from state primaries to private secondaries as it does have such a negative impact. Having said that I would oppose a move to abolish private schools, parents should be free to choose how to educate their child and should not be dictated to.

Perhaps if more middle class parents were prepared to play an active part in improving state schools rather than opting out, standards in state schools would improve and there would be less demand for private school places.