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?

Yes, so would I, Bertrand. I have a suspicion that it is '(relatively) poor middle class' other than anything else. That's probably not surprising, given that I imagine it simply wouldn't occur to most people to apply for Eton for their son

I think that's probably more true of Eton than any other school, simply because of its image, but I suspect it's true of all independent schools.

Bertrand,its really not difficult to find out about some of the boys on 100% discounts,theres been plenty in various papers..

Could you point me at them? My google skills have failed me.

The point about Eton bursaries is that they are only available to candidates who at 13 can pass common entrance or scholarship exams. This rules out anyone not already at a prep school so means they are not open to anyone whose parents are not already shelling out between £15000 and £30000 for a prep school.

They have three or four (I think) for boys from the state system. But these are for highly intelligent boys who almost always have an outstanding extra curricular talent - so again boys who would have done well anywhere.

Some bursaries go to ex cathedral choristers - where the boys are already receiving subsidised education (in return for an unpaid working week) and where choir school prepares for CE. But these are boys Eton needs to maintain its high profile musical offering - and they will be expected to put in the music hours during their time at Eton if they are to retain their bursary. So the school is buying in talent to sustain its own reputation rather than offering a free education to genuinely deserving cases.

So lets not be taken in by the needs blind narrative.

Both Harrow and Eton have pretests where state school boys can apply. The bursary used to cover 2 years at an approved prep school, though presently I can't find anything about that on the website. Eton also sponsors a state boarding school.

Taxi,maybe only comment on subjects you have some knowledge of,your post is almost complete and utter tosh..virtually everything in it is wrong..From your first sentence where you state incorrectly that bursaries at 13 are only available to boys who can pass common entrance or scholarship,you do not need to go to a prep school,you do not need to be paying prep school fees, they do not all have glowing academics or co curricular indeed the new sixth form scholarships are aimed at boys who haven't got the best results but have potential that they maybe need help fulfilling
Eton really doesnt need to buy in talent,its not Harrow
Bertrand-Try harder ,its good for you, but top of my head and for one example try googling -Hasan Patel

Actually I think its over 90 boys on full 100%+ bursaries this year and aiming for 100 next year..

My sister has recently removed my nephew from his state school, because he was very unhappy and lonely. It got to the point that my nephew was refusing to go to school.
She then reluctantly put him in a small private school. He has thrived, in fact he is like a different child.
As others have said all private schools are not the same and all state schools are not the same. My sister did not put her son in private school so that he could mix with a ‘better class’ of people. She put him in a particular private school because she believed that it was the best place for him.
She made the right decision
Getting rid of private schools will not improve the state system. It would just mean that there would be more ‘ competition ‘ to get into the good state schools
Private schools may contribute to inequality in education. However, I know many wealthy people who put their children in state schools and then pay for private tutoring. Their dcs also have an advantage, despite attending a state school

Thats really great for your nephhew but what about the people that don't have choice @areyoubeingserviced? and don't have that kind of cash to throw at their children?

I'd be intrigued to see what happened in our area. We are desperately short of state school places locally and we have a huge number of private schools. If they were all closed and the state suddenly had to fund places for the thousands of children who hadn't been their responsibility, I imagine the crisis would get worse, not better.

Why feel guilty? It's a business transaction and you choose how to spend your money. It shouldn't be anyone else's business. You do what you think is right, as do most parents (whether it is move house to be beside an outstanding state, buying them the most fashionable shoes, or send them to an afterschool club).

I find it odd that people say “I had to move my child to private because X happened at their state school” The assumption seems to be that a) all state schools are the same and b) that X never happens at private school.

Bullying does occur at private schools too.

The sheer ignorance on this thread. Private schools don’t make state schools bad, they just highlight their inadequacy. Abolishing them will not improve state schools by forcing good families into the state sector (I would also dispute the assumption that privately educating makes you an involved pushy parent, we privately educate, partially for the reason that we don’t want to have to drive our children around to clubs, supervise their homework, hire tutors etc.). Many private school families will see the writing on the wall and get the fuck out rather than risk getting stuck in a far left shit show.

With regards to the Finnish system, it’s far from ideal. They stream very early and their economy is poorly managed in an attempt to fund all their programs. The people I know who have come out of that system seem like they’ve really been let down. I wouldn’t send a child to Finnish style school.

Overstretched and under-appreciated.

“You are already bought into your opinion so you will not be swayed - but you do your research on a private school in the way you do your research on a state school”
Of course you do. But the assumption that there will be no, for example, bullying at a private school is wildly wrong.

“Please stop reducing it down to such unhelpful statements like above.”
I’m not. The unhelpful statement is “I had to move to private because X happened in state”

I agree that behaviour is usually better in private schools- as it is in all selective schools. But bullying happens in ^all* schools regardless of sector - and I would be very wary of any Head who said it didn’t in theirs”

I’m sorry- I wasn’t meaning your child -obviously you moved her to a school which you felt would meet her needs-and I am very glad it did. It’s just the underlying assumption- not just by you, but frequently made- that in order to escape bullying you have to go private. And you did say something about a child “not suited to the state system” as if all state schools are the same....

In the last 10 years, only 17 out of 400,000 teachers in state schools were dismissed due to incompetence.

You what? This figure is horseshit.