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 IMO the fact that 6% of British children attend private schools does not have a negative affect on society as a whole."
god you are soooooo wrong about that .
the fact that (say) the most affluent and powerful slice of society has no real investment in the state school system allows that system to become neglected and ignored.
in some (many) places, the absence of the most affluent 5% of the population from a school has a huge impact.
the fact that 6% of the population takes over 50% of the universoty places at Oxbridge and a very significant proportion of the places at other universities must be bad for our economy - are the brightest candidates getting the benefit of the best tertiary education? no, and that is a terrible waste.
moreover, the visible segregation and privilege has an impact on the rest of society - the remaining 94% know they are disadvantaged, some (not all) of them care about that, they don't have a choice, they feel powerless, they feel resentful.
I can't believe you think this kind of elitism doesn't affect our society. Wouldn't you prefer a meritocracy?

So, private schools should go as it means people with lower incomes are discriminated again, and get a better level of education/provision - and this isn't fair.

So, presumably we get rid of state selective and grammars too then - is it fair to discriminate against pupils who do not pass an exam based on academic ability? Generally grammars and thes selective states have better facilities and provision than more comprehensive schools. Is this fair?

"harpsi all of those points could be addressed without abolishing private schools."
er, no shit yes I know that, but they won't be, realistically, (and I am repeating myself here) while the most affluent, influential and powerful people have no real interest in the state school system because they don't use it.

Sometimes there can be too much emphasis on the infrastructure. I know a very good primary school with portacabin shitholes - indeed, the very reason it has portacabin shitholes is that the school is hugely popular, over-subscribed and they don't have enough classrooms.

On the other hand, the school where DW teaches has splendid buildings, dedicated teachers, good management and yet still comes bottom of the league table. "Go figure", as I'd say if I had suddenly become American.

It tends to be one of those things which, like replacing the head, are done because they can be and not because they should. Changing the culture of the school is harder and often won't happen without changing the raw material - i.e. kids and catchment.

IMO remember. I am allowed to have my own opinion, and t is equally as valid. I do not agree that abolishing private schools will make a positive difference to all state schools. I think it may further improve the good state schools. But I believe that it could actually make thinggs ever worse for the worst schools, as the divide between good and bad schools increased.

Right, hospital beckons for me. Will read later depending on how I am afterwards. NHS by the way - although after the lengthy delays, loss of medical notes, cancellations and the fact that this is now 2 years on from ferral, I am beginning to wonder if I made the right decision there too!

hulababy, people ar enot discriminated against on the basis of their incomes. that is just woolly thinking.
children are discriminated against on the basis of their parents' or family's income.
and no, that isn't fair.
regarding academic selection - I am not sure that is the best way to run an education system either but yes it is fairer (although of course skewed in favour of the most affluent) than on the basis of ££££ to spend.

But the people you are talking about are a small minority of the 6 or 7% who use the system. They generally fall into cat 3 of my list They are not the vast majority who use the sector.
Hula is correct, where do you draw the line?

of course you are entitled to your opinion hula and I am entitled to think you're wrong and vice versa

cushion, which people?

Whatever you do you will never stop those parents who want the very best education for their children and can afford it getting it somehow.

Simple fact of life

Well of course it isn't fair (regardkess of if it is a child or an adult TBH), but IMO it isn't fair that children who are more able (or rather who can pass an exam) should get a better quality of education provision either. Why should some child who finds academia more difficult and who struggles not be allowed the same level of provision and quality? Infact surely someone who is struggling ought to be offered more!

Hula, I totally agree with your last point.
Those parents that currently choose private schools are all going to send their children to the best performing state schools. Partly because they are unlikely to live in an area serviced by a sink comprehensive.

Shall we ban sports cars as well? Because they make me feel bad about my Vauxhall Vectra which I don't drive out of choice.

"The most influential, powerful people..." you referred to in your previous post.

Not everyone who uses the private sector couldn't care less about state schools. No way! I'm more than happy to pay more to make sure failing schools are given the help they need. Even those parents who are utter snabs must realise that those children not only have the right to a decent education but crucially, they will make up the majority of the society in which we live.

Utter snobs incase you were wondering if snabs was indi school slang for something!

I think AB should stick to writing bleak and mediocre observations on life in Northern towns. Apparently, he hated Oxford. He felt he was excluded because he was a butcher's son and from the North. I suspect he was excluded because he's a freakoid bit odd.

lol at snabs
cushion, I don't mean that people who don't use state schools don't care about state schools - I am sure some/many of them do, but if they are not present, they can't be involved and (realistically) don't have the same emotional investment. they don't have an insight in the same way as if their children were in the system. and they can't have any influence as "consumers" to improve things very locally.
speaking generally of course.

Odd, but got his priorities sorted imho.

Just cos your odd, doesn't mean youre not right.

Ban sports cars? Don't be bleedin daft. Bit of difference, buying car, buying priveleged start in life......

maybe it has been said already ... but on the same reasoning access to private health treatment should be baned as well. Everyone should be forced to use NHS, no? not even on the same pair with buying a car/house/whatever ... buying better health.

democracy is about choice, isn't it?

You're right of course, harpsi. Perhaps I feel differently because I teach in the state sector.

I think my POV comes from the fact that I grew up on one of the country's most imfamous council estates. I just want my kids to experience so much more than I did.

If the school wrote to me tomorrow to say they were using a percentage of my fees to either help fund something at a local state school or to offer free places to kids from poor areas then I'd applaud them. It isn't about elitism for a lot of us.

cushion - what's the school where you teach like? Do people send their kids there because they have to or is it one where people exercise "choice"?

iwannabe - democracy is about choice but also about making that choice meaningful and accessible. In theory I have a choice whether to buy a Rolls-Royce, but in practice that is dictated by matters other than my exercising a choice.

However unhappy I am about banning independent schools, I do sometimes wish people wouldn't go for that option without properly looking at state provision. All too often they are happy to go on hearsay. Or not even have state on their radar - any more than I'd consider having a council house by choice.

There isn't a choice tho - there is only a choice for those who can afford it. There is no choice for most of the pple I know. The most wealthy person I know has exercised her choice and moved to get in the best primary round here. She is the only person I know who has done this, because for the rest, there is no choice. Choice is a myth.

oh, I agree niceglasses, as I said above. It's a government buzzword designed to hide the fact that so many schools are below-par.

UQD, we moved last year and we now live in quite an affluent urban area. So, quite a few very good state schools (primary and secondary). I teach p/t in one of them. I'd say that people choose to live here partly because of the schools and choose certain streets because they're in their preferred catchment.

There aren't any bad schools locally so we're lucky not to have that problem. So, here at least, people do have a choice of 5 or so very good schools.

I still chose an independent school for my children because despite the schools all being good, they still didn't offer what I wanted in terms of facilities and experiences. I don't think abolishing independent schools will change that.