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

Do you think making state schools the only choice would mean those at the top would suddenly be interested in making all schools better?

If the government think that people are willing or even happy to pay for something, they won't provide it for free. We've already seen just this week that the current government are driven by dogma, not by improving people's lives.

So if they think that they can get away with not funding schools better because so many people think it's only right that they should pay for it, then state schools will just become a system of supplying the basics for the less well off.

I'm sure that there are good state schools and not so good state schools, but one other thing I know. This current government, in particular, are not interested in making sure that all people in the country get the same chance, and they will cut funding for anything they can get away with. Like DoodleDog I don't blame anyone for choosing the best they can for their children, given the situation we are in. But when people think they have to pay for education that then becomes the norm and good, free education goes out the window.

Very well stated volver.

Molly, I believe that having a 2 tier system means that those using private schools know that their children are going to do well. Unless they have just dumped them at Lowood or Salem House and never visited, they will be at parents’ evenings and so on, and are able to insist on getting their money’s worth or take them out and send them elsewhere.

Everyone else gets a lottery ticket. Yes, many middle class parents will try to use the best state schools, but that doesn’t always work either. The school near me has a very good reputation. Like many ‘small’ towns, ours is getting bigger, with housing being built on the outskirts, and as with many other areas the infrastructure is not being put in to cope. As a result people paying ££££ for a house supposedly ‘in’ Hometown, described on the builders’ literature as having excellent schools, are finding that there are no places and their children have to go to much less well-achieving schools in neighbouring towns. They are up in arms, but there is nothing they can do about it, unless they can find the money on top of the huge mortgages that they thought would ensure them a place locally.

If all parents knew that they might have to use a second (or third) choice of school, then of course they would push for all state schools to be better - some out of altruism and some because it might affect their children if they had to use them. Instead the only people who get real choice are those who pay for it, and not everyone can.

My friends children who go to private schools have it instilled with them they are better, they will do well, they will achieve and in turn they have that self belief in themselves, even if they aren't that bright. The private schools seem good at helping them pass exams at the right level. I've seen in my own children at state schools, in the past, it just isn't the same emphasis on self belief or confidence and maybe this is because of crowd control. Or maybe it's because the teachers don't need to make it feel like good value for money, I don't know.

As a university lecturer I found that it was usually obvious which students were from private schools. They tended to have better A level results, and the confidence mentioned by JaneJudge could make them seem brighter, but this was by no means always the case. The sad thing was that there were times when their confidence persuaded other students (particularly those who were the first generation to go to university) that they knew better. I can well imagine this transferring into other (non-university) exchanges too.

Is this an attribute worth paying for? Probably. It is highly likely to give the advantage in a number of situations. Is it a good thing for these people to rise to the top because they are confident, articulate and others defer to them because of that, and not because of any innate ability or intelligence? Probably not.

When our DD started Uni, having gone to the local comprehensive, she was amazed at how the friends she shared accommodation with could not organise their time for learning, revision and getting essays done by due date. She then realised that this is because at their private schools they had prep and teachers and tutors practically sitting on them until they got it done- and just did not know how to do it by themselves.

As we were heavily criticised by friends, colleagues and close family for not sending our kids to private or Public School- she felt and we felt, that in fact they had not 'been sacrificed for our principles' but in fact gained hugely from this in many ways.

Both also said that later in high ranking positions, they felt hugely advantaged by the fact they were able to communicate with all sorts of people, at all levels - which their colleagues who had been living in an elite bubble all their lives, found difficult and ackward to do.

However, our eldest has chosen to send our GCs to top private schools- as she and OH said their local Comprehensive were not great and they did not want their kids being bullied for any longer. They went to the local primary school for several years before opting out, with regret.

I’ve spent a long time collating the arguments on here for getting rid of private schools and sent them to my Labour MP with the request that they forward them to KS so that he can make that part of his new manifesto to help Labour get in next time.
I await a response, from either of them. Perhaps if all posters on here were to do the same, it might carry more impact.
NB KS is already having issues with his proposal to withdraw charitable status from private schools, so I’m not hopeful.

Thanks for doing that Molly. My MP is very definitely not in favour of private schools, so there would be nothing to gain by my writing to ask for support.

I agree that there is not much room for hope. It is never easy to take anything from the influential- that’s the point of having influence I suppose .

Thanks for doing that Molly. My MP is very definitely not in favour of private schools, so there would be nothing to gain by my writing to ask for support.
No but asking your MP to forward your request, backed up by their own anti private point of view would surely carry more weight.

That's great Molly. Perhaps you could share the list with us.

I have missed any real argument that proves those wanting to ban directly paid for education are right, and that it should be banned throughout the country. We were told that state education will improve if this is done but there is no trial that proves this.

I bet your MP and KS are very polite, but this is just not going to be top of their list although proper funding for state schools may (I hope) be.

But list please. I am sure we would all be interested.

I could sort that, though I don’t think any of the arguments prove “those wanting to ban directly paid for education are right, and that it should be banned throughout the country”
any more than arguments by those wanting the right to choose directly paid for education prove that they are right.
I would just like to see if I get a response and if Labour put it in their manifesto AND carry it out.

Even Jeremy Corbyn wasn't asking for Private Education to be banned. I think he might have wanted to remove their Charitable Status or charge VAT but certainly he wasn't thinking of banning them altogether.

I know, but if so many people think it’s a good idea, KS might like it as a vote catcher, as long as the media don’t portray it as denial of free choice.

I think the time is ripe for KS to give it a whirl. His professional background should tell him how fraught with legalities the notion of removing charitable status actually is, (it really is), and whether it would be far too complicated and time consuming. If after consideration he feels it is achievable, then no doubt he will include it in his manifesto.

The role the media plays is an interesting one in either supporting or bashing private education Mollygo. 20 years ago many journalists had their children educated at private schools and so remained pretty quiet on the issue. Nowadays far fewer journos can afford the schools fees and so of course they become more outspoken and critical of a system they can no longer enter due to costs.

Or because they don't approve of it for reasons other than jealousy? They do exist, you know .

Where was jealousy alluded to Doodledog?
More a case of their earnings are not what they used to be in comparison with 20 years ago.

Mollygo

I could sort that, though I don’t think any of the arguments prove “those wanting to ban directly paid for education are right, and that it should be banned throughout the country”
any more than arguments by those wanting the right to choose directly paid for education prove that they are right.
I would just like to see if I get a response and if Labour put it in their manifesto AND carry it out.

That's okay Molly. It would still be interesting to see the list.

I would guess Labour has enough on their plate and would find it a vote looser with the centre and centre-left voters they need to get anywhere near winning the next time.

Joseanne

Where was jealousy alluded to Doodledog?
More a case of their earnings are not what they used to be in comparison with 20 years ago.

Oh. My mistake then. Jealousy appeared to be implied with 'of course they ('they' being people who used to use the public school system) become more outspoken and critical of a system they can no longer enter due to costs.'

Or were you actually saying that they were suddenly and collectively possessed of a desire to criticise the system at a time that purely coincidentally coincided with a decline in earnings that left them unable to make use of it? Apologies if so.

Doodledog

Or because they don't approve of it for reasons other than jealousy? They do exist, you know .

They do as opinions as Molly said, Doodledog. However, on this thread we kept being told that banning such schools would improve the state school. As people keep declaring this as a fact, I would really like to see the proof. Finland has gone the furthest, but it has not banned such schools. It has put huge amount of money into state schools.

I doubt a Labour government, which could be left with a crashed economy, would be able to find such money straight away - although I hope they could. In 2017 (the latest I could find) fee-paying schools generated £4.12 billion in tax revenues (equivalent to the city of Liverpool's contribution to the economy) and supported 303,000 jobs.

Labour will need the centre and centre left votes. In a poll in 2019, 68% thought parents should be able to pay for their children’s education. Perhaps Keir Starmer will not worry about this. Perhaps he will. 68% is a really decent majority and no one wants to throw votes away.

It can only be proved if or when it happened. Even then, what is 'proved' will depend on who is demanding the proof, as well as who is providing it and who is telling the story. Facts are notoriously fluid things.

Incidentally, I think it goes without saying that pretty much anything any of us say on here are opinions.

'Could' only be proved.

Several things in this thread that are true stand out for me.
1. Re Academies, the brainchild of Tony Blair in 2000, as some have pointed out, they skim money from school funding.
2. Not all decision makers send their children to private schools.
3. We need to increase taxation and pour money into education. (We need to ensure that the money poured in isn’t siphoned off to pay the salaries of the Academy chiefs.)
I’ve read really unpleasant implications that children with disabilities are not provided for in state schools and that state schools can be held responsible for lack of parental commitment.
I read a really funny criticism of those who spend money on school fees because they could spend their money contributing to the education of all children, but, “They’re not really in favour of sharing.”
Funny because second home owners could give their homes to the homeless, two car families could give their second cars up to a family who needs one and multiple holiday people could give one up to a family who has none or can’t afford one because of the single supplement. But when it applies to us, rather than all those paying private school fees . . . Do we do it?

Mollygo I read a really funny criticism of those who spend money on school fees because they could spend their money contributing to the education of all children, but, “They’re not really in favour of sharing.”
Funny because second home owners could give their homes to the homeless, two car families could give their second cars up to a family who needs one and multiple holiday people could give one up to a family who has none or can’t afford one because of the single supplement. But when it applies to us, rather than all those paying private school fees . . . Do we do it?

Good point

Always easier to criticise others.

I'm not sure that whataboutery is ever very useful. As I've said, I think it's understandable that people faced with the choice between a poor school and going private will choose the latter - for me it is the system that I criticise, not the parents who use it.

I also think that there is no basis in the suggestion that it is hypocritical not to give up everything over what is needed for basic survival if you favour a more equal society. That way of thinking just excuses doing nothing at all.

The concept of so-called 'champagne socialism' sits perfectly well with me. It's not all or nothing, and if you do your bit while you wait for what you campaign or vote for to come to pass, there is no need to do it in sackcloth and ashes.

Yes, the 2nd.
Probably for another thread, Doodledog, but I was thinking that in the past, top journalists were traditionally privately educated, (then went on to Oxbridge), and subsequently sent their own children to independent schools.
The face of journalism then drastically changed around 20 years ago, and the demise resulted in far fewer current journalists now being able to afford a private education for their children.
Maybe that makes them more vociferous.