How soon before the next step to privatising the state schools?

Privatisation is on its way - schools are being swept up by organisations (not necessarily educational ones) who want to run them as academies and suck them into their trusts. All schools will have to be part of multi-academy trusts (MATS) by 2030.

These trusts top slice the money that governments allocate to schools and use it to pay their CEOs, accountants and lawyers. They line their pockets at the expense of the children's education. This government has set things up so that profits can be made from state schools. It is a disgrace.

I don't see how removing private schooling is very close to communism . Socialism, maybe, but there is a lot more to communism than education. Closing them would ensure that all children got a reasonably equal start, and as that would include the children of government ministers, as well as the better off in every catchment area, it would ensure that more attention was paid to 'levelling up'.

Why do you all have these terrible inferiority complexes about private schools. They are academically selective schools, like grammar schools, and like grammar schools produce above average results. they also have the benefit of knowing that every parent is committed to their child's education and that affects the children's attitude to education

My grandchildren are at an excellent state secondary school and had a choice of 3 similar schools. Everything I see shows that they are as good at stretching their most able pupils as any private school.

Were they able to limit thier pupils to the academically bright with committed parents, they could produce results every bit as good as any private school.

It is getting very close to communism to make private schooling illegal, and I just do not see how it will bring about what those in favour suggest.

It really is a distraction from the OP which is about the real possibility of us going to the other extreme and taking away the aim and the reality of having high quality state education available for all.

Norah

Mollygo "I am fascinated by how posters on GN would plan to get rid of private schools. Should any government demand private schools are closed?"

Of course not, closing has no benefits.

Schooling, public or private, is a choice parents make for their children.

A choice which is just no choice for the vast majority- is not really 'a choice' when it comes to essential services which shape the future of individuals, and society.

Mollygo "I am fascinated by how posters on GN would plan to get rid of private schools. Should any government demand private schools are closed?"

Of course not, closing has no benefits.

Schooling, public or private, is a choice parents make for their children.

Dd teaches in a state c of e primary school in a small rural area. They are extremely worried about how they will be able to afford to keep the classrooms warm with the huge increase in prices of electricity and gas. They do not have rich parents. So as the op says how is this to be paid for?

I am fascinated by how posters on GN would plan to get rid of private schools. Should any government demand private schools are closed?
Yes, I think so - phased out, at any rate.

Or say that freedom of choice is only allowed to those and in those circumstances GN feels are appropriate.
No, of course not. I can't see any government citing GN as a source for their policies, and rightly so . I am not speaking as a representative of GN - just giving my own opinion, which will not be shared by many on here and will be shared by people who have never heard of GN.

Would parents deprived of private schooling be arrested for withdrawing their children from state schooling? Would they be forbidden to home school them in groups with other such children. Would teachers be penalised for accepting money to tutor those children?
No, I can't see there being differences made in the law as it applies to different groups of parents. Why would that happen? Anyone can homeschool their children, so that option would continue to be available.

I see what you're getting at with the idea that parents could pay teachers to teach in de facto private schools. I don't see how that could be prevented, really.

It sounds very like Finland to me, based on what I've read in the past.

Where is your proof of that Fleurpepper. Anyone can say anything if they don't have to back it up. Which countries are you actually talking about? Do you have statistics on how the private schools compare? Otherwise, that post tells us nothing.

In countries where State Education is well funded, with great facilities and small classes, for all- private schools are not forbidden- but are only used by some sections of the population, often British or US expats. And are seen as second-rate too.

Growstuff my educational background was state school, but at interviews or when I mentioned the name of the school it was obvious that people were impressed by my school. Sometimes the first part of an interview was all about the school, so it’s not just private schools.
Regardless of the fact that I think state schooling is underfunded and that there are unacceptably wide differences between schools depending on the area I am puzzled.

I am fascinated by how posters on GN would plan to get rid of private schools. Should any government demand private schools are closed? Or say that freedom of choice is only allowed to those and in those circumstances GN feels are appropriate. Would parents deprived of private schooling be arrested for withdrawing their children from state schooling? Would they be forbidden to home school them in groups with other such children. Would teachers be penalised for accepting money to tutor those children?

Joseanne

^Those who can afford private education have no incentive to improve chances for the vast majority because they're alright.^
That is true, other than the final "alright Jack" bit if that is what was meant. I don't think it has anything to do with not caring about everybody. Maybe they are somewhat self-absorbed, but they cannot be held responsible and disliked for their alternative choice of education.

I didn't say anything about disliking them, did I? You're using a strawman argument.

FWIW, I had a private school education. Do you think I should dislike myself? After I'd trained as a teacher, most people (including my family) assumed I would teach in the independent sector, but I deliberately opted to work in the state sector.

I have mixed with people who have been through both systems all my life and it's quite shocking what misconceptions people have. My own children went to state schools, despite pressure from my former mother-in-law, who would have paid school fees. I did have a choice about my children and I'm very glad I stuck to my guns. Both of them had a better education than I had, including achieving the same or better academic results. They certainly came out being more confident, resilient and happier than I was as an 18 year old, having mixed with a wider range of young people.

Nevertheless, it was nauseating that my educational background impressed people so much. All people knew was the names of institutions. They didn't have a clue what went on within them or why some seem more prestigious than others. Unfortunately, it's just a fact that it happens and will continue, so long as people are segregated by their parents' ability to pay fees.

How we see the education provision depends on what sort of economy and, therefore, politics you support. There are three choices, free market economy, mixed economy or command economy.

Those who want a command economy, banning private education, private health, etc., need a far-left socialist government to bring that about.

Those who think people should go without if they can't pay will back the current neo-liberal government. This government is pushing us ever closer to a free market economy with minimal state support for anything.

In mixed economies, based on the capitalist system, most decisions are made by the market. Additionally, under this system, some areas, such as health, education, national defence and welfare, road building, school and hospital construction, the supply of medicines in hospitals, etc., are state-run.

After the war, we moved to a mixed economy. It is what most governments have said they would maintain. However, this current government has made it clear that because of its ideology, it will drive us away from the mixed economy towards a free market economy.

I can see no proof that taking choices away from some, as you would in a command economy, improves the standard of state-run services. There is no evidence that those currently choosing to pay would care more if they were not allowed to make choices outside the state system. We see this argument repeated often, but with no proof, no example, offered.

Our current government stood on a platform of moving to a free market. That is why it is draining support from the part of the mixed economy previously funded by the state. They told us this is what they would do; it is what they are doing.

Those who can afford private education have no incentive to improve chances for the vast majority because they're alright.
That is true, other than the final "alright Jack" bit if that is what was meant. I don't think it has anything to do with not caring about everybody. Maybe they are somewhat self-absorbed, but they cannot be held responsible and disliked for their alternative choice of education.

GrannyGravy13

growstuff

Doodledog I certainly think that a way should be found to ensure that private schools and healthcare should pay for the training their staff have received.

Will you apply the same criteria to those who train here and then go and work abroad?

Will those who have trained abroad and come here to work have to repay the Country they have trained in?

Sounds like a recipe to disincentivise to me.

Yes, I would apply the same criteria. It’s not uncommon for employers who sponsor students through university to expect at least a few years of work in return, so I would see this as similar.

As for those trained abroad, I would leave that to their own governments to legislate for. Not all countries provide subsidised training, and those that do might feel inclined to chargeback for at least some of their outlay. That would be for them to decide and the staff to deal with, the same as it would be here.

GagaJo

If we had no independent schools, there'd be no issue. There would be no top loaded, imbalance of resources.

But yes. Nothing would surprise me. The Tories won't be happy until the poor are back in the workhouses.

Totally agree. If everyone had to send their child to the local school standards and the infrastructure would shoot up.

growstuff, To clarify.

I'm referencing our grandchildren and greatgrandchildren, not our children.

Taxation and priorities need to change, not private services.

In the case of schools (which is what this op was about), an increasing amount of money is already being leeched out to private providers from the state education budget, which is then not available for front line staff. Schools and the education system has become marketized ie it's nothing more than a few figures on a balance sheet for investors.

GrannyGravy13

growstuff

Doodledog I certainly think that a way should be found to ensure that private schools and healthcare should pay for the training their staff have received.

Will you apply the same criteria to those who train here and then go and work abroad?

Will those who have trained abroad and come here to work have to repay the Country they have trained in?

Sounds like a recipe to disincentivise to me.

Hmm! It's a difficult one, I agree. I don't know the answer. I do know that an allegedly first world country cannot continue as it is. We're turning the clock back at least 75 years.

Norah

Joseanne

Why would any parents who have opted for private schooling wish to give up the choice of a system that works successfully for them? Private schools fulfil their commitment to the parents/customers to deliver the type of education they require, and this goes way beyond the classroom.

Indeed.

Fees paid for private schooling works well for our family.

Takes nothing from the state system. More seats to fill. Taxes paid.

Same as private Healthcare. We pay our taxes, choose our own care.

So how about ensuring that everybody is able to access what your children did?

What your children took from the state system was the opportunities their (hopefully) higher qualifications produced. Those who can afford private education have no incentive to improve chances for the vast majority because they're alright.

Everybody pays taxes, but everybody doesn't have the same choice you do. They're not even receiving a satisfactory standard of care.

growstuff

Doodledog I certainly think that a way should be found to ensure that private schools and healthcare should pay for the training their staff have received.

Will you apply the same criteria to those who train here and then go and work abroad?

Will those who have trained abroad and come here to work have to repay the Country they have trained in?

Sounds like a recipe to disincentivise to me.

Joseanne

Why would any parents who have opted for private schooling wish to give up the choice of a system that works successfully for them? Private schools fulfil their commitment to the parents/customers to deliver the type of education they require, and this goes way beyond the classroom.

Indeed.

Fees paid for private schooling works well for our family.

Takes nothing from the state system. More seats to fill. Taxes paid.

Same as private Healthcare. We pay our taxes, choose our own care.

There are millions of people in this country, from all kinds of backgrounds, who have been successfully and well educated in state schools, gone on to university, including all the top ones and then gone on to havesuccessful and well paid careers (if that is what they want).

They out number many many times those who go to private schools. Many state schools educate children just as well as private schools and give them the same opportunities.

My grandchildren are state educated and their school takes part in a city wide gifted and talented programme that enables the brightest children in state schools to have chances to be challenged aat the highest levels as well as schemes for children at the other end of the ability scale.

It would be much more useful if all this grubbing in the soil like myopic moles was used to find ways to help state school children do even better.

Doodledog I certainly think that a way should be found to ensure that private schools and healthcare should pay for the training their staff have received.