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

I live in an area with a local secondary school with only about a 3rd of the local primary children moving into it. There are 4/5 primary schools in the area whose Yr 6s would easily fill the Yr 7 of the secondary school. But they don't. Instead, a substantial part of the school population comes from a less desirable area to use the school instead of their less desirable schools.

The school just got an Outstanding Ofsted and more local people are beginning to use the school. I imagine, over the next few years, the amount of local people using the school will increase. Great for the local population but not so great for the children from the less desirable area who were happily using the school and who now won't get a place. Stopping middle class flight only helps the few that live in that local area and not the children who then fall out of the catchment area and end up pushed into another crap school.

I don't think you can use the argument that private ed is wrong because it gives some children better early opportunities.

That's like someone saying that you cannot read to your child or take them for country walks or feed them well because not all parents are able to do that.

FWIW, We're paying for private ed though I'd be happy to pay higher taxes to raise the standards of the state sector.

But, if fee paying schools were abolished, I wouldn't get the education I want for my kids.

1. They wouldn't be in classes of 18. 2)They wouldn't get the choice of a wide-range of musical instrument.
2. They wouldn't have the sports facilities. 4)They wouldn't have the amazing extra-curricular activity including worldwide residential trips for the older ones.

We can only have these benefits, and many more because we are willing to pay for them. I don't do it because I see my kids as 'better' than those at state school. I do it because I want my kids to experience those things. Even when the state system is good, it isn't that good.

I totally understand the frustration of parents whose only available school is rubbish. As I said, I agree with the idea of paying more taxes to improve the situation even though I don't use it.
But saying that it's unfair that my children get those things because we can afford them is like saying it's unfair that my kids have a 1 acre garden to play in. We live in a capitalist society.

The argument shouldn't be about removing the choice to pay, it should be about ensuring that no child is forced to attend a school that is sub-standard.

"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"

I'd love to think this was true. It's the Fiona Millar argument, isn't it?

How long would it take, though? Leaving aside the middle class=good/sensible/motivated children thing, it might take 5 years to turn a school around, by which time your own kids would have left. This is, I think, what stops people from doing it.

How much effect can parents have on the culture of a school? Can getting involved on the PFA and as a governor - even "just" as an active parent - make that much of a difference if the school is a rough one?

"because all those paying for private will pay for private tutors to ensure they get into the state selective/grammars wherever possible."
hula, they do that already. competition would be stronger, I agree.
but if all parents (or all of them except the ones who went abroad, set up their own schools etc) had a greater incentive to improve the state system, it would improve.
which would have huge benefits for all children and for our society.

Improve it in what way?

I just don't think it will. I can just see the divide between good and bad schools getting worse if anything. The competition for the good schools will be even worse than it is now, with the private school pupils taking up the places in them.

"How much effect can parents have on the culture of a school? Can getting involved on the PFA and as a governor - even "just" as an active parent - make that much of a difference if the school is a rough one?"
oh god, masses UQD. not just that, but the influx of children from homes where education is valued, who can play music to high standards, who have aspirations, can bu hugely influential.
also, harder to pin down, but middle class parents are more likely to exert political pressure at school, local, national level to ensure that money and funding is made available to build classrooms, provide equipment, pay teachers.....

Yes, but even with that there would still be parents wanting to pay. IME, there are 3 categories of parents who use the private sector.

1. Parents like those you describe, UD who go private because their local state school is not up to scratch.

2. Parents (like myself&DH) who opt for an independent school for the facilities and the experiences. This category also included parents who use this option because of the wraparound care offered which fits in with their working hours.

3. Parents who want the elitist atmosphere and do not want their chil schooled with certain groups in society.

IMO and IME, those who fall into category 3 are the smallest group. They will never want their child to go to school with Shazny down the road and will inevitably find a way aroung any ruling.
Those parents in category 1 (such as the north london parents that FM is addressing) deserve the option of a good state school and we should all be prepared to pay for it-rightly so.
Myself, and those others in cat2 have just made a choice, albeit a privileged choice, to opt for something that suits our needs.

Take your point, harpsichordcarrier, but it's hard work, isn't it? I don't blame parents for saying "I work, I bring up my children at home, why should I expend excess energy on 'turning round' a school when I can walk my children into a good one?"

It's a bit like buying a wreck, when you can get a house which needs nothing doing to it for the same price.

Imperfect analogy, I know, but I am just trying to point out the logic of how some parents think.

Also worth considering is the fact that we would be removing choice. Do we want to live in a society where people don't have choice? Because if you remove it from one area of life, then it sets a precedent for other areas.

Of course it makes a difference, harpi. If it didn't, we wouldn't have fabulous state schools. Despite being excellent schools, they still don't offer everything that some families need or want.

Although "choice" has become an abused word. I don't want choice in education where that means a choice between a good school, a mediocre one and a crap one. I just want all the local schools to be good.

And Hula doesn't agree with me but I don't consider private school a "choice" in the sense I understand it.

But I'm still not in favour of banning them. What I'd like to see instead is improvements in the state sector to the point where it isn't seen as the poor option.

oh I do understand UQD, believe me. the pressures on parents, including social and economic pressures.
this kind of change would take enormous amounts of money and will never happen! for lots of reasons
but it is fun to play with the ideas just to challenge the kind of reasons some people put forward in defence of the indefensible.

Bans just wind the English up, though. We like to think things were our idea in the first place. So, even though it's never likely to be reality anyway, and while I see the reasoning, it wouldn't work because one of the traits of the English character is bloody-mindedness.

So what would improve state schools?

Well I'm happy to have my mind changed if someone were to assure me that the 'new order' would mean that I'd still get what I was looking for in the state sector.

Hula, I think it is perfectly OK to limit or remove "choice" from individuals if those choices damage society as a whole.
for example, we removed the choice to chase after foxes with hounds (trivially).
it might be the choice of some parents not to provide an education for their child at all. we limit that.
the majority of rules in our society represent a form of choice.
I am with UQD: I think choice has become a bit of a fetish concept, but in many ways it is pretty much meaningless in this context

Agree with harpsichord about influence of middle class or educationally minded parents on schools. The fact that social segregation starts at school is so depressing. It's damaging to society as a whole, not just to the kids who end up in the sink schools.

Agree with armadillo though too that abolishing private schools just won't happen. Think sorting out segregation within the state sector should be a priority. The lottery system of allocating places seems to me better than most alternatives.

Not sure as the state system has been in decline for a while now. But we need to look at the best schools and see what is working right there and try to share te knowledge across the schools.

I don't think it is teaching standards. IME you get just as many good teachers in poor schools as you do in the better schools.

In the poor school I worked at discipline was an issue, a real issue. Discipline and classroom behaviour needs to be looked at, and there needs to be clear workable sanctions that are followed. Schols seems cared to do anything with naughty children, and this needs to change. Teachers and Heads need to be in chare,. not pupils.

We need more flexibility in the curriculum. Stop forcing all children to follow the one same, maninly academic curriculum. Introduce (or reintroduce) vocational training for less academic children. Give schools more say is what they do.

Yes "choice" is an infuriatingly meaningless concept in this context. As with the NHS.

"So what would improve state schools?"

I think that it is very hard to make generalisations, all schools are different (tritely).
but:
an investment in infrastructure - some school buildings are appalling and can be a barrier to learning e.g. portacabin shitholes.
more parental support for reducing disruptive behaviour.
higher expectations for pupils in terms of academic and other success.
more support for and status for teachers.
fewer behavioural issues for teachers to deal with.
abolition of SATS and the National Curriculum

harpsichordcarrier - but IMO the fact that 6% of British children attend private schools does not have a negative affect on society as a whole.

We need to look at the real problem here - and that is not private schools. it is the state education system, which has been allowed to fall into decline. That is what needs to be sorted out, way before we think about banning alternatives.

harpsi all of those points could be addressed without abolishing private schools.

But Hula, even if we were to do all that, state schools wouldn't suddenly offer the level of extra curricular stuff and the wraparound care that make so many parents opt to pay.

I'ma teacher too. I've taught in a beacon infant school and a junior school in SM. The difference in the quality of teaching between them was nominal. I'd only say that the teachers in the BS taught better because they weren't constantly under the pressure of SM. And,of course, the beacon school was in a far more affluent area that the other soless social work tobe done.

Harpsi, those points could and should be addressed without the abolition of private education.

However,there is always going to be far greater budget constraints on schools in the state sector.