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?

Good internet access in public places like libraries might help people who want to access free online learning. What are good cost-efficient ways of helping keen people learn?

Free reading lessons in libraries? I don’t really get why we push kids through school to go onto harder and harder material before they have mastered the previous stage. Is it more important to be solid in fractions, decimals and percentages or get 50% in an exam with geometry, quadratics and trig?

If MPs were compelled to send their kids to state schools, state education would improve immeasurably. Full Stop.

It wasn’t aimed particularly at you, sewingbee You weren’t the first to bring it up. But they always seem to make it into any debate into education or changing the education system.

If state schools were fully funded with highly trained staff, including the wider support staff, not just teachers, less people would choose private schools. State education needs better funding and management. Tories have not managed to fix it.

How abt keeping private schools but capping fees at the amount gvt puts into local state schools?

Because despite what you say the Finnish system is still an excellent example :
theculturetrip.com/europe/finland/articles/why-finlands-higher-education-system-is-the-best-in-the-world/

If MPs were compelled to send their kids to state schools, state education would improve immeasurably. Full Stop.

^ completely agree.

The results in Finland are beginning to fall, and I think there is a theory that the high results were actually more down to previous methods of teaching and the more relaxed styles now are now bringing down the results. Also there are some private schools in Finland.

If MPs were compelled to send their kids to state schools, state education would improve immeasurably. Full Stop.

Much is made of Labour politicians who privately educate their children but it’s always the same two names - Shami Chakrabarti and Diane Abbott. If there were others from Labour or Lib Dems who did so then I’m sure we’d hear about it.
Therefore I assume that the vast majority of Labour and Lib Dem MPs do send their children to state schools. Why aren’t they insisting that the schools improve?

When I’m in charge, one of the conditions of being an MP will be that you would not be able to use private education or private health care.

I agree that fewer people would choose private education if state schools were better funded, but they also choose it to get the type of education for their children that is not available through the state in their area.

I wanted a single sex selective education for my children. The state provides that free in some parts of the country. I didn't want to move, so I had to pay for it.

But it is about choices Sharon, choices that everyone makes throughout their lives. Your choices determine the outcome of your life. I chose to ensure whatever happened in my upbringing wasn't going to hold me back. I made a conscious choice to not indulge in the negatives that could of easily destroyed me and make my life into something positive. I have achieved that, I barely passed school, flunked college and didn't go to uni, but that didn't stop me starting up several businesses over the years and making my life a success. I have complete financial security and I choose to put that into my children's education because that's what's important to me. Why anyone thinks they have a right to tell me what to spend my money on is beyond me.
I absolutely agree the state education system needs a complete overhaul but abolishing private schools is not the way to do it. This should not be a race to the bottom, but aspiring to be better, to do better, to make better choices.

I know a child who's in private residential school paid for by the LEA because the state doesn't provide this sort of education. I assume that it would be exempt from this policy which imo would never happen as it would be far too costly.

I think we would see an explosion in home educated children taught in groups by ex private school teachers who may not have the teaching degree required by state schools. They would bill themselves like tutors or clubs like Kip McGrath and avoid the word school.

This policy would disadvantage those at state schools. Catchments would shrink and house prices near the best schools would rise even more. There is only so much physical room in schools.

If Labour were serious about educational inequality they'd sort out faith schools (why should taxpayers be unable to get a place!) , grammar schools or the inequalities between schools. State schools range from excellent to dire. Investing in the worst will surely help inequality more.

I’m never quite sure why people seem to think abolishing private schools so I can’t spend my money on them will magically improve state schools. If I can no longer decide how to spend my money on their education and that all must go to state schools I will reduce my working hours to academically support them at home (paying less tax) and will put any additional money I would have spent on their education into buying them a house. I won’t be going in to schools to raise the standards for all (not sure how really as surely that is down to the school and teachers, not me) and nor will I be devoting time to the pta - I will be focusing on my children, not the children of others who have supported my choices being restricted. So I can’t see how anyone benefits from this. Compared to the fact I wholeheartedly currently believe private schools should share their facilities etc with the communities generally /bursaries etc

If MPs were compelled to send their kids to state schools, state education would improve immeasurably. Full Stop.

I think that MPs would join the race for grammar school places or buy in the catchment of the best comprehensives. They would be pushing out children who might have benefitted more from the place. If their child has a hobby taught at private and not at state then MPs could pay for their kids to join the right clubs and have tutors so that their child gets the grades for top universities.

Iirc Kingsdale operates entry by lottery right?

Academies were bought in by the Labour government.
I would like to know if people think that the academy system has worked?
I live in South London about a mile away from Dulwich College, whose fees are over £21K per year for day pupils.
About half a mile from Dulwich college is a state secondary called Kingsdale Foundation school.
Last year, this school produced what they say, was the country's top performer in terms of GCSE result, and they reckon they have done so for the 5th year in the row.
www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/results-day-has-kingsdale-school-produced-the-countrys-top-performing-gcse-student-for-the-fifth-year-in-a-row/
I don't have a child who attends this school, but I have been to one of their open days and I must say that I was very impressed.

I have no idea what their secret is, but what I do know is that the head is aware of the private schools in his surrounding are (Dulwich College, Alleyn's, JAGs), and has therefore 'upped his game' and is giving those schools a run for their money,
Other Academy chains are shutting down their drama and music departments but schools like Kingsdale are thriving in this area.
Why would you choose Dulwich College or Jags over this school?

All academies/foundation schools are not equal and neither are all Independent schools.
Can you honestly compare Eton (£14K per half term) to a school like The Ceders (Independent just outside Croydon whose fees are £14460 per year)?

I don't think that the solution is to abolish Independent schools.
We need to understand why some academies are run better than others.
Why are these Academy CEO's getting paid so much money? Is it worth it?

Looking at the financial statements which are publicly available and show the salary ranges of teaching staff at these schools, I'm making an educated guess that the Heads at both Dulwich College and Kingsdale are paid relatively the same (around £200K).

The head of Brampton Manor in East London where his pupils attained 41 Oxbridge offers, is also on over £220k.
What is his secret?

The head of Holland Park school is on over £260K. Is that too much to pay for a head?

schoolsweek.co.uk/investigation-meet-the-head-paid-260k-to-run-one-school/

There is a bigger issue in our education system than Independent schools. Let the rich spend their money there.
There are obvious disparities between state/academy institution

I agree with Labour on this. We should just get rid and concentrate on providing a good and fair education system for everyone.

I'm still not voting for them though, mainly because of Brexit. I don't think they really want to be elected right now anyway, only a nutter would want to be in charge right now.

The results in Finland are beginning to fall, and I think there is a theory that the high results were actually more down to previous methods of teaching and the more relaxed styles now are now bringing down the results

Pretty much. They’ve managed to level off the reading scores but maths and science are still falling. I think the gender attainment gap and socio-economic attainment gap are increasing too.

It might be best not to encourage people to talk about Kingsdale. They’ve been known to take a ‘Queen Ethelburga’ approach to people posting comments about them on the internet.

David Cameron had to send his kid to a state school while PM but still allowed Gove free rein, pay freezes for teachers, cancelling new school building projects etc.

It kind of suggests that if they have to send their kid to a state school, they’ll still not give a fuck about education in general, they’ll just a) make sure their kid goes to the best state school and b) hire tutors and extra-curricular stuff to make up for it not coming through the school.

Sorry - Posted the previous message before I finished my rant.

I really think that there is a bigger issue here.
I know that I have only given a few examples in my area, and I'm fully aware of the 'London bubble' that I live in, but it's quite easy to see that Labour are playing on the emotions of people.
I'm used to be married to a teacher, and I have several members of my family who are in the teaching profession, and quite a few who have left the profession recently.

There are a lot of things that are wrong in our current education system, such as how recruitment agencies make obscene amounts of money from placing teachers in schools, and holding the schools 'hostage' with the contractual obligations attached to their employment.
This money could ultimately be helping to fund schools.

Hitting the Independent schools is just an easy target which will not really achieve much.

Disclaimer - I have not, nor can afford to send my child to an Independent school.

Rant over

@noblegiraffe - Exactly.
The Camerons just sent their son to the best state school they could find.
Have you seen the house prices in Fulham? Just down the road from Kensington where the house prices are amongst the most expensive in the UK.
If you can't afford to live in that area, then you have no chance of getting into that school.

Getting rid of Independent schools still will not solve the issue of catchment areas for the 'best schools'.

Don't be fooled by the attention grabbing headlines.

The majority of the good state schools in my area of South London, are in the most affluent parts of the boroughs (Lambeth, Southwark, Wandsworth).
These areas are occupied by the 'well to do', who choose not to pay for their childrens education.

See also Michael Gove. GCHS is hardly your bog standard comp and I think was still using admissions criteria that didn’t meet with the admissions code when he applied for his eldest.

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay, Yes - Great example.

His nearest state school had 67% of pupils on free school meals, versus GCHS only having 14%

Which one was he going to choose?