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?

I honestly don’t get this “no bullying in private schools” thing. The worst case of bullying I have ever come across started in a very well known London prep and followed the child to public school. It was relentless, well hidden and largely ignored by the school- the classic “he needs to toughen up and stop being so sensitive” line was taken in both establishments. But that was the responsibility of the school, not the sector.

Oh, grow up TwoRedShoes and stop being so ludicrously black and white in your arguments, or you'll simply encourage others to be just as extreme and to actually go ahead and abolish private schools. I have not argued to abolish private schools at all, nor have I drunk Kool Aid... If you are too dim to see that giving Eton charitable status has fuck all to do with whether or not people are free to buy luxury goods, there is no point debating anything with you, anyway. And which part of my saying that state education indicating to you that I think state education is currently fit for purpose?

*that state education is seriously underfunded

“@BertrandRussell never said there was no bullying at private school. We are going round in circles.”
You said you were forced to go private because your girl was bullied in a state achool. The inference is certainly there.
Which question?

And no, I do not get what dolphins have to do with education - that was just a facetious play on words of yours, because you can also call them schools. And given that you were effectively just saying, "this is how the world works, get used to it," I still say it's sleazy. You could just as easily argue that there should be no state provision of healthcare , or education, or benefits system, because why should anyone inconvenience themselves for anyone else and why should the state ever intervene in the marketplace? What has all that got to do with pure capitalism? Why did we bail out the banks? Why are you wanting more money for state education? Why not turn all schools into private schools paid for directly out of individuals' personal income?

Walk around - I don't understand what your link is between use of independent schools and voting tendancy, austerity and Brexit? It's clear that Labour's policy decisions lately have likely alienated quite a lot of people, including those who use independent schools!

Bullying and bad behaviour can happen pretty much anywhere where there are human beings. No sector has a monopoly on that, but someone's personal experience which has informed their choices is quite real, whereas generality, old statistics, heresay and second hand anecdote to try to prove someone else's experience is not valid?

All education is paid for by personal income - through taxes. Private education (independent schools, higher education etc) is paid for by individual payment, in addition.

Looking at youGov and statistics on tax is complicated but it looks like the upper 50percent taxpayers contribute 75+percent of total income tax; top 1percent contribute around 25percent?

DoubleTweenQueen - personal tax does not pay for everyone's state education. What about national debt, taxes paid by non-UK nationals, taxes paid by businesses, donations? If you want education paid for by personal income, then you need to abolish state education. As for Labour's policies - there you go, you have just proved why our behaviour and votes have a direct impact on what happens to schools, because private schools will not be abolished unless people vote Labour. The People didn't vote Labour when this wasn't their policy, either - they voted for austerity. There is now a risk the People will vote for more austerity in a different form, provided everyone suffers this time. You can't say none of it was predictable.

I really don't see what point you are trying to make though? I don't think it is to abolish state education, but that's as far as I can get. Labour would have a much stronger position if it brought more of the population along with it's policies. They are shooting themselves in the foot with a not-insignificant proportion of the population. As for voting for more austerity, what is the link with this thread? And Brexit - again what is the link with the thread?

I'm in favour of a level playing field for all, when it comes to core education. I think Finland has the perfect education model. I went to private school in the Home Counties - it wasn't a marvellous standard of teaching compared to the local comp (I did well, but I peaked at 16 tbf) but I left an entitled snob with thoroughly warped ideas of social classes etc. Even the parents would say, when we complained about the teaching "well, we're buying you the connections and opportunities" Thankfully I've managed to re-educate myself in those regards and my son will remain state educated, no matter my level of income. Private schools having charitable status pisses me off royally.

That seems to be more a criticism of parenting. Finland is not a role model these days. There seems to be a focus on the methods used in the far East these days.

My point is that extreme policies at this point in time are predictable. There are far too many very angry people around hankering for radical change to the status quo for a measured and honest debate on this subject - or on Brexit. Angry claims about lazy teachers wanting long holidays, etc, do not help. A refusal to discuss what the purpose of schools like Eton is doesn't help, either. Are they just luxury schools for the wealthy, in which case why do they have charitable status? Or is their actual purpose to educate an elite? If so, is the state incapable of doing this? And how separately should the elite be educated from the rest of the population if they should be educated separately? And how much inequality in a society is tolerable and at what point can it cause unrest? Should we be deeply relaxed about inequality? Do we even know what of society we want to live in, and if not, how can we have a coherent education system? I genuinely don't believe you can look at what the Labour Party is proposing on education in isolation. It is all part of a bigger picture - and the fixation in this country on just two political parties and tha apparent impossibility for any other parties to be taken seriously by the voter. People said they wanted radical change when they voted to leave the EU. Opportunists are jumping on that. If Conservatives and Labour are becoming extremist, then why is that? Where has the middle ground gone and why does nobody think that will win them votes?

Finland is not a good education model.

My child is at a private school on an academic scholarship, but I am a Labour party supporter and actually I agree that it would be better to have a system in which, as in most European countries, most kids went together to local state schools. But I do think this is only right if it's part of a wider initiative to make an excellent education available across the board. We live in a part of inner London that has good primary schools but far more variable secondary schools. Many people are not keen at all to send their kids to our immediately local state secondary schools. Our experience is that local middle class parents deal with this in a variety of ways. Some, and they have my admiration, decide they will support those schools regardless. However, many pursue a variety of strategies to find places in better-regarded alternatives - long trips to grammar schools, training kids up for music and other types of scholarships in more popular comprehensives, moving into catchment areas of more popular schools, sometimes only temporarily while apparently carrying out building works - one way or another very many more privileged people dodge the unpopular local secondary schools. Drawn by a scholarship,and also the fact that we could not find anywhere that offered anything like the musical education we hope for for our son in the local state sector, we opted for a very local and surprisingly diverse private school - a far cry from Eton by the way, and with very few Oxbridge entrants and a good number of kids who for various reasons have not managed to settle in state schools. I can't say I feel good about this, or that it's really compatible with my political values, but in the end we just didn't feel our child was going to be happy in one of the two local state schools in which he was readily going to get a place, nor did we feel that sending him across London to take up the place he obtained in a super-selective grammar was right either. So I think that opting for private education is only one of quite a number of strategies more privileged people pursue in order to avoid less well-regarded schools, and all of these need to be considered if our educational system is to change fundamentally. Considering how to do this is surely a piece of policy making that requires considerable time and expertise, as does assessing legalities and unintended consequences of "abolishing" or integrating private schools. Pending this, removing charitable status seems a much more straightforward strategy for shifting the balance towards the state sector, bringing in some new resources and making things a bit fairer.

The majority of people I know and mix with want a fairer society where each is rewarded on merit and talent. There is more that binds us together than divides us - until as you rightly say the current situation where we are being pitched against each other. Also I would like to add I have never voted and am even more unlikely ever to vote for the Tory's - unless that's what you consider most parents for independent schools do politically? I see the years of capitalism enriching those at the top and creaming more and more away from the workforce including there rights - blue collar and white collar. More and more pressure is on the workforce from both sides - income and costs. I hate the political stagnation, the cancer and potential harm of Brexit, but I don't see the direct link of this to the existence and strength of independent schools. You keep mentioning Eton - that is an extreme example, but incidentally offers a great education for those with the aptitude (and generally lots of funding, granted). Is this because the architects if the current political 'game' are from Eton? How much has their upbringing also had on attitudes and lack of connection to the populace? Is the crass political gaming of a handful of old Etonians - having gone through that school 30 years ago - a sound reason to abolish independent schools generally? I don't know, but Eton aims to provide a great education for the brightest and the best - you call an elite, which is used in a negative way? Society needs a highly educated, incredibly bright, questioning, critical thinking element, I would think. If that were to be the result of a fantastically broad and properly state education system, I don't expect anyone would object to that? I am possibly naive though, the admit that. I wish you all well.

@DoubleTweenQueen bingo - a criticism of parents that send their kids to private school for the extra opportunities and contacts - read nepotism. Which does exist, and should not exist. Amongst criticisms of the whole shebang: I'm in favour of private schools being abolished altogether. Not overnight, and with an improvement in the state sector first, but eventually I would like them to not exist. I am not a deep political thinker and pretty simplistic, admittedly, with my understandings and interpretations (like I say, I peaked at 16 ). But I am a socialist at heart, so inevitably I will think this way, and I'm a happier labour voter with Corbyn's proposed policies than I was with, say, Blair. They are much more aligned with my beliefs.

Can I ask you though - in the home counties, is there still the 11+ and Grammar schools? What do you think of selection? For us, we have one catchment school. County has suffered decades of under funding. Our very popular and increasingly oversubscribed independents serve a much needed

Oops - additional provision. I won't be voting Labour. Our area is majority Libdem and green. Pressure was built on our mp because of the dreadful situation of our state schools and a backlash against Brexit. So much so that they left their party and are now independent. We are trying our best to represent and push for change.

Don’t think you are supposed to admit that you are on the wind-up, two. Still, it explains your thick as pig-shit posts about state education.

DoubleTweenQueen - do you think it is necessary to spend £40,000 per year on one person's education? Is that something which merits charitable status? What is the purpose of such a charity, because it clearly is not simply to ensure we have good doctors, lawyers and academics. It seems to be aimed at a whole different level of "elite." Is this how and where society wants world leaders to be educated? As for grammar schools and lesser private schools - are they really necessary and why? Is it impossible to educate the notionally brightest 25% with the remaining 75%? How about grammar schools for the top 1%? Is it really dim people that those desperate to get into grammar schools want to avoid? What characteristics are grammar schools really looking for and what are they actually getting? What are they trying to achieve that other schools are not trying to achieve for their children? Is 11 an appropriate age to decide someone's potential and then act on that by sending them to a school with a different purpose to that of other schools? And if the purpose is not different, then why separate them?