In Defence of Private Schools

[Wayland1]

What do you think of Labour's private school plans?

Yesterday, Labour delegates voted for plans that would abolish private schools, with plans to remove charitable status and redistribute their endowments, investments and properties to the state sector. In addition, a new social justice commission would be tasked with integrating private schools into the state system.

This amounts to unlawful seizure of private property. Government, in a law-governed society, cannot simply seize private property in peacetime.

Also, you do not improve education by destroying what are some of the UK's best educational institutions. I agree that our education system isn't perfect, and that we may get frustrated at, for example, the excessive fees and running costs of most private schools nowadays. But in my opinion, the way to improve the situation is to have more choice and competition, not less.

What do you think?

£40,000 per year on one person's education?

Eton is boarding so presumably not all of it goes on education.

TwoRedShoes - suck on this then... Life is unfair, so who should care about your children being bullied in state schools? If enough people vote to abolish private schools, then that's the way the cookie crumbles. It's just another type of unfair. People can vote for whatever form of unfair they want, or for sharing the unfairness more fairly, or however they fancy perceiving it - because there isn't really a black and white right or wrong, here, is the there?...

Some of the key things that are different in grammar schools, from living in a grammar area and knowing lots of people at lots of different schools, including comprehensives outside the grammar areas (though admittedly we ended up going private on a bursary). Subject choice, particularly in languages, where provision is increasingly woeful in the non-grammar state sector. Being cool (or at least acceptable) to be clever and work hard. Classroom behaviour that doesn't involve regular disruption and inattention (from violent incidents to kids just chatting, on phones etc). There is no reason why these things can't be achieved outside the grammar system - but the fact is, they're currently often not.

It’s disingenuous to imply that private schools contribute anything to broader education beyond serving the elite. However at least they are not like in Ireland and part state funded. The fees are only 5k here!!

chipadvisor - so you are talking about attitude, not intelligence.

Absolutely. If my son had a school option that was truly comprehensive, where a 'brainy' kid would totally fit in and be respected, where behaviour in class was consistently conducive to learning, and where he could do Latin, three sciences, and two or three modern languages, then I would prefer not to use a grammar school, let alone an independent.

Why do we always talk about education as if it should be geared solely for the benefit of high achievers?

It absolutely shouldn't. But it shouldn't exclude them either. The problem with the dream of a comprehensive system is that it's incredibly difficult to properly cater for the needs of high achieving academic children, moderate to low academically achieving children, children with SEN, and children with behavioural problems, in one school.

Abolishing private schools won't do away with privilege in education but it would be a start.

Why is it difficult? They are in different sets for academic subjects- and a true comprehensive (not a non grammar school in a selective area) will have top sets containing the kids who would have gone to a grammar school.

chip Absolutely. If my son had a school option that was truly comprehensive, where a 'brainy' kid would totally fit in and be respected, where behaviour in class was consistently conducive to learning, and where he could do Latin, three sciences, and two or three modern languages, then I would prefer not to use a grammar school, let alone an independent.

Move to Hants. Our 'good' comp (note, not even outstanding) enables all you desire. Plus it has very good SEN support and pastoral care.

That's great. Unfortunately my job is not in Hants. And my experience of talking to friends in other parts of the country suggest that not all areas are so lucky. I didn't say it was impossible to achieve this in a comprehensive school, but the fact that many don't, suggests it's difficult. Actually, we did have one non-grammar option a bit like you describe, but it's a church school, and I refuse to play that game.

How can anyone have watched the news over the last few weeks and still believe that the state would be good at organising ANYTHING!

My dd wasn't bullied in state school, she has no SEN. Her year 8 report was absolutely glowing. We still moved her to private school in year 9, because we preferred it to the state school, single sex, almost no disruptive pupils and 2 hours of sport a day. That suits us better and we can afford it. I'm a well off professional woman and a Cambridge grad. I didn't do anything to help the state school lessen the impact of the disruptive pupils and the boys smacking girls on the bum other than complain about it. Not sure how my privilege could have made a difference, so I bought my way out of it. I'd love to know how my dd not being there any more makes the blindest bit of difference. My dd is now back to her old, funny, confident self and it's been worth every penny. I realise we are very privileged but other than hating myself for it, what do you suggest?

@BertrandRussell I agree with you so much.

Education isn't just about sat in a classroom "achieving"

Education isn't just about sat in a classroom "achieving" completely agree. Which is why all the extra curricular available at private school, and the encouragement to try things you wouldn't have considered, is so valuable.

If, in some alternative universe, I was to pay directly for education, it would be for the experiences and cultural capital that can be provided by a school with lots of money.
However, generally speaking they are the experiences and cultural capital that the sort of kids who go to private school get already. The irony is rht the sort of kids who would most benefit from private school are the sort of children least likely to go to one.

The irony is rht the sort of kids who would most benefit from private school are the sort of children least likely to go to one

How on earth do you know this? What experiences are you talking about?

Sorry- that seems to me to be both clear and incontrovertible. The children who would benefit from the experiences offered by a good private school are in general unlikely to get most of them anywhere else. Unlike the children who go to good private schools, who would get most of them anyway.

What experiences are you talking about particularly?

Do you mean small class sizes, motivated kids, team sports? Yes they benefit kids but not sure where you think children can "get most of these anyway"?

No, I’m talking about the important stuff. The cultural capital- music, drama, opening their eyes to the world of art. A wider range of sport. All that sort of stuff. Teachers with enough time to go round subject and help them follow up particular interests. That sort of stuff.
There are motivated kids in state schools and smaller class size for NT children is a red herring.

@BertrandRussell is right. The sort of children who go to private schools have amazing cultural capital in a way that some kids don't. It's not exclusive to private schools, but all children at private schools have it whereas lots at state schools don't. And that affects your life chances. It affects your job prospects. It affects everything.

My dc went to the local comprehensive, as did almost all of their friends. Because they are from a relatively well-educated, affluent background they had social opportunities which other kids don't have.

I always remember when ds2 was about 8, we were watching a documentary about the Rosetta Stone and the translating of the languages, and DS2 was fascinated, even though it was aimed at adults. So the following weekend DH took him to the British Museum to see it for real, we got a book out of the library about it, DS learned about other stuff in the museum etc. DH said to me at the time something along the lines of, DS is really lucky because another family whose child had watched the programme wouldn't necessarily be able to afford to go to London to see the Rosetta Stone. I pointed out that the luck really lay in him being in the sort of family who watched documentaries about the Rosetta Stone. Lots of children are just not exposed to a wide range of experiences, that's not a criticism of other families, it's a fact. I know this could sound like intellectual snobbery, but it's not meant to be.

@Answerthequestion
I understand your point about ten students in a class potentially being a red flag
However, my dsis put her ds in the private school in Year 10 . He already had three years experience in the state school and wasn’t happy. She felt he would thrive in a very small private school and he has thrived. Be rest assured that my dsis did her research about the school.
She is considering going private for her younger dd but has said that she would put her in a private school with bigger class sizes because that would suit her dd.
If going private, one has to choose the right school for each child

Teachers with enough time to go round subject and help them follow up particular interests so where do the kids who don't need this get it from? "They'll get it from somewhere". Where?

There are plenty of involved parents who take their kids to museums at state school?