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?

The state school we moved dd from actually has a wider range of gcse and btec subjects than the private school! They do 3 year gcses and encourage lots, eg dds friend is studying for 12 gcses and btecs including sport and media studies, mainly because then you get more sports lessons . Dd will do 9 probably but sport is on the curriculum up to year 13 and year 9 is for breadth, music, art, dt, cooking, drama etc.

I don’t support doing loads of GCSEs- and neither do a lot of private and grammar schools, so for me that wouldn’t be a reason not to chose a school. But obviously you should move an unhappy child.

And now that the government expects all kids to jump through the GCSE hoop, however inappropriate it is for them, it seems entirely appropriate for a comprehensive school to have a focus on what low and middle ability children need to progress. I’m presuming that they still have top sets and that statement does not apply to them? But, as I said, a consistently unhappy child should be moved.

I agree with Labour and would like to see Private schools lose their special charitable tax loopholes and in contrast, have significantly more money pumped into the State system.

All children deserve a decent education and I'm fed up with children from wealthy parents getting preferential treatment throughout their lives just because of the school they attended. That's a major failing in this country.

In the news today, posh white kids escaping a jail term for battering someone because they managed to keep off the coke for 2 weeks prior to the court hearing. Had they been black from a council estate, they'd be given jail time.

This is beside the point but in my very limited experience I would not rate teaching in private schools over and above those of the state sector. My school was a top London girl's day school and looking back some of the teaching was abysmal! No effort put in to stimulate us, just dictation (this was the 90s).

The reason the vast majority of us got decent grades was because our parents expected it and we expected it of ourselves. So we learnt the material by rote and regurgitated it in exams. That is why university was a shock to many and why state school
pupils often do better at university.

'it seems entirely appropriate for a comprehensive school to have a focus on what low and middle ability children need to progress'. And this is why lots of parents still gravitate towards grammar or private schools. Yes, of course we need lower ability children to do well - but we do also need to stretch and challenge the high achieving. If we don't strive for real excellence, then where are our future super-scientists, engineers, philosophers and musicians going to come from? It's not more important than getting struggling children to achieve 6 GCSEs - but it's arguably not less important either. As a personal example, my son is set on doing languages - they fascinate him, and I can see him going on to be a linguist or translator or something. If we hadn't gone down either the grammar or independent route, then the other state option would only have given him the option of either French or Spanish during his time at school (not both), and last year they only had a total of 3 children taking a language at A level, and weren't sure whether it would continue as an option.

Incidentally I am no great fan of either the grammar or the independent system - but I think the only way to get rid of them without scoring a massive own goal to the country is to improve the comprehensive sector across the board to the extent that they become effectively obsolete. But that would take a level of financial input that British taxpayers would simply refuse to tolerate. So I really can't see a solution.

I agree chipadvisor. Higher taxes for all and plough money into state education so that it becomes good enough to supercede private. Improve discipline and add more sport - voila

“Yes, of course we need lower ability children to do well - but we do also need to stretch and challenge the high achieving.”
I did say that I was assuming the school concerned had top sets! And ir’s rated “good” the high attainers must do well too. All I was saying is that I don’t have a problem with a school making a “mission statement” out of its plans for the middle and lower attainers. I find the desire for the main focus to be on on the high attainers very depressing. And I speak as the “owner” of two high attainers.

Everyone wants excellence but noone wants to pay for it (through taxes)!

I’m a labour voter. I am quite comfortable with higher taxes.

I think the lib dems proposed a 1p increase across the board a few years ago? Makes so much sense to have a tax rise - NOT just high rate tax.payers but everyone.

Interesting statistic on taxes from a study I came across
'Income tax payments are highly concentrated with over a quarter of revenue coming from just 0.6% of adult population (300,000 individuals with income over £150,000 per year) and almost half of revenue coming from 3% of adults in 2017-2018.....Increasing reliance on a very small number of taxpayers for revenue also leaves the public finances more vulnerable to changes in their behaviour'.

With this in mind, I wander how they would react if there could not send their children to excellent private schools . Relocate I guess to follow their schools? From this week's Sunday times 'It is a straightforward decision for a boarding school to move from England to Dublin, Paris, Calais or Amsterdam. it would be the end of the great British boarding tradition'. Most of the posters here would probably think ' good riddance', but just imagine how much tax everyone would need to pay to fill 25% of tax gap left.

Bertrand, I just don't agree that the main focus is on the high achieving, outside the independent and grammar system. In my experience, the main focus is definitely on getting the maximum possible number to the expected level, not in encouraging the high achieving to excel. Certainly at primary level.

I got the impression that dd was a slight irritation at state school, there was so much emphasis on having to encourage those who weren't as sporty or academic. She could have won every sports match or got top marks in ebery test and wouldn't have been celebrated (unless she was a boy, success in sport was treated completely differently, no emphasis on encouraging others there). They'd made up their minds she was probably gojng to be successful in life anyway, so no real interest needed. So she's moved somewhere where achievement, even for the high achieving, is celebrated. It's probably done the state school a favour tbh.

Natalia175 - yes, and interesting it is this government's deliberate policy to skew things this way, by taking increasing numbers of people out of paying income tax altogether. Of course, paying less income tax does free up the less well off to pay more tax through the purchase of goods and services, although nobody seems to count any tax other than income tax in any assessments of how schools are or could be paid for, for some reason. Income tax is for those who want to contribute to a society worth living in, and those too wealthy to avoid it but not wealthy enough to find ways around it. It is not the only tax in existence, however.

Oh, and it is also for those who want to contribute to a better society but also think they are paying more than their fair share - but you know you're onto a bad thing when in one of the richest countries in the world, so many people think this at the same time as agreeing that many public services are currently being underfunded.

Hi everyone - to come back to this, Bertrand “Yes, of course we need lower ability children to do well - but we do also need to stretch and challenge the high achieving.”
I did say that I was assuming the school concerned had top sets!"

• the one state school option for us said it setted in yr7, loosely based on SATS and then assessments in the first term. For whatever reason, this didn’t happen, and I had a number of friends pretty disillusioned about this as they had very bored bright kids. Another thing with the school is that Science is taught as a combined subject up to moving onto focussed GCSE studies, and if the student shows aptitude they are able to take on the three separate sciences at GCSE, otherwise combined science. That’s the theory - until they found they had quite a number of keen bright students who met this criteria, but they could not accommodate them all in the separate science classes so some were asked to forego that route and stick with combined science. You can imagine what a ruckus that caused, but it had to be.

We went for the particular independent school because of this and more - knew lots of parents/kids that had had varying degrees of experience at the school - and went for one with a really broad curriculum, and selective. Lots of foreign languages was a big one for us. We are still in touch with parents at the other school, and a few have changed their view about independent school - after their experience and not being happy with how/what their child is learning - and applied for entry to year 9, but found that was too late as they had already fallen behind the level needed and places in yr 9 are fewer. I’m sure their children will do fine, ultimately. But just to illustrate, many Indes are simply very good schools and fulfilling a large need, in our particular area.

I would wholeheartedly approve of higher income tax - mostly because we are not in the higher bracket!!

The costs schools incur because they must go through ‘approved’ contractors is a scandal too....................across the whole public sector. The whole set-up of private companies making their fortunes out of the public sector is pretty rank.

I would wholeheartedly approve of higher income tax - mostly because we are not in the higher bracket!! i think EVERYONE should pay more tax.

Good for you! That’s the spirit.

It's a no brainer if we want the 'Swedish/Finnish/Danish model' often touted as the answer to everything.

If a school says it sets then it should do it, and do it properly, I agree. Apart from any other reason because it, by definition, it won’t beset up properly for mixed ability.

On the subject of combined science- obviously in an ideal world, any child able to should be able to take 3 separate sciences. But if financial choices have to be made and something has to go, then rather go to combined science than lose other subjects. Doing combined science does not practically disadvantage anyone- although it may not be their preference.

Dd chose to do combined science. She knew she wanted more time for her essay subjects.

Yes, triple science isn’t for everybody. Controversially, I think English Literature isn’t for everybody either- but that’s another story.