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

GagaJo

By the same argument, anyone using private healthcare is adding to the problem with the NHS. Allowing the government to underfund it, because anyone that is anyone can afford to go private.

It's basically a massive F- you to the poor and the working class.

I agree 100%, but if I or my loved ones risked going blind, losing the ability to walk, or something else that was preventable if we found the money for private medicine, I would pay for it.

That should not be an option, as if nobody could take medical staff and equipment out of the NHS the queues would be shorter, and the sharp-elbowed would ensure that healthcare was available to all. It's the same with schools and housing.

No, it wouldn't be quite the same.

Private healthcare takes staff away from the NHS, so that those who can afford it can jump the queue. Private healthcare doesn't shorten the queues - it makes them longer due to a shortage of staff.

Labour should have nationalized the independent/public schools in 1945. Some state schools may be better than they used to be but others are failing for a variety of reasons. The Tories don't care because their kids don't go to failing schools.

And private schools take many good teachers and wealthier parents out of the state system, and provide many less able children with the chance to get the qualifications that set them up to be in charge of business and politics in the future, and sell it as a meritocracy at the expense of able kids from poorer areas.

Doodledog From experience, I don't agree that private schools have the best teachers. In many cases, they have teachers who couldn't cope with the demands of state schools. When they "take" teachers, they don't leave state schools with a shortage in the same way private healthcare does.

PS. I've been for a blood test this morning and discovered that my "named GP" has left to join a growing private GP practice and apparently the practice is struggling to replace her, so I'm feeling a bit raw about private practice stealing NHS GPs.

Grantanow

Labour should have nationalized the independent/public schools in 1945. Some state schools may be better than they used to be but others are failing for a variety of reasons. The Tories don't care because their kids don't go to failing schools.

They did take some private schools into the state sector (and some still exist). Don't forget that before the 1944 Education Act, most grammar schools were fee-paying. Church schools were also essentially private schools. Unfortunately, the private school lobbying groups were just too strong.

growstuff

Doodledog From experience, I don't agree that private schools have the best teachers. In many cases, they have teachers who couldn't cope with the demands of state schools. When they "take" teachers, they don't leave state schools with a shortage in the same way private healthcare does.

PS. I've been for a blood test this morning and discovered that my "named GP" has left to join a growing private GP practice and apparently the practice is struggling to replace her, so I'm feeling a bit raw about private practice stealing NHS GPs.

That's why I qualified my comment by saying that they take 'many good teachers', not that they necessarily take the best ones.

I'm not minimising the drain on the NHS - I think that what we've seen in dentistry is likely to become the norm in general medicine, and it is very wrong - but I do see parallels with education and housing, in that removing a vested interest from those who have the means to get a good experience is likely to result in a poorer service for those without.

I wonder whether having entirely separate systems of health and education would work? If private versions had to pay for the training of their staff, build their own facilities etc (so taking nothing from the public sectors), would that restrict their affordability to too small a pool to be viable? As it is, teachers and medical staff are trained at a cost to the public (training is way more expensive than student fees) but are free to work in the private sectors, which I see as a huge imbalance.

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.

I agree with you that when a small section of society can afford better services for themselves and their families and are also the people with power, they have no incentive to improve services for the vast majority. I wonder if some of them even have any idea what people who have to use public services are experiencing.

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! They wouldn't want to give up a privilege. Who on earth would? But how about ensuring that everybody has the same choice and level of service?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

growstuff, To clarify.

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

Taxation and priorities need to change, not private services.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.