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

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Very well stated volver.

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.

I don’t disagree that a two tier system comes without detriment to those at the bottom end, in any area, but with schools, outwith private schools, there is already a two tier system.

Do you think making state schools the only choice would mean those at the top would suddenly be interested in making all schools better?
Have you seen those ‘at the top’ who choose state schools now, do anything other than choose the ‘best’ state schools?
Have I missed seeing them lobby the government to do anything to improve the lot of schools in poorer areas?
It would be lovely to think that either ‘at the top group’ are so altruistic, and maybe they do talk about what’s right just as we do on here.
Who would deny there is a pressing need for more funding in state schools?
One example; teachers are getting a pay rise, but there’s no extra funding for schools to support that pay rise, so schools have to choose whether to cut down on support staff, equipment, curriculum experiences etc. That hits poorer schools harder in the same way that increased heating costs affect poorer people.

GrannyGravy13

Perhaps I am just totally over the blame game

You do not have to be poor to be empathetic or to have a social conscience

I don't disagree. Saying that would be as facile as saying that so-called 'champagne socialists' are hypocrites. You can want a better system and still enjoy the good things in life while waiting for it to happen.

I don't blame parents who are faced with a poor state school for choosing a private one, any more than I blame people faced with serious health issues for going private. In fact, getting the best for our children is even more of an instinct than protecting our own health.

I do disagree that having a two-tier system comes without detriment to those at the raggy end though. This is why I would get rid of it - not out of envy or because I'm a communist (I'm nothing of the kind), but because of the reasons I've already given.

If everyone had to use the state system, the rich and powerful would ensure that it was good for everyone.
Is that your opinion or a fact?

It's my opinion, based on what I think is a fact - namely that everyone wants the best for their children, and if the children of the powerful used state schools they would ensure that they were kept up to scratch. Why wouldn't they?

DaisyAnne. I'm so fed up of the way you post. So fed up.

I'm away to my bed.

volver

If that's your interpretation of respect I'm glad you don't look down on me.

I have no time for those who think paying for a better education is some kind of human right and I will never change my mind. Irrespective of anyone who thinks I'm a communist or an extremist. They're just going to have to think that and I can't do anything about that.

Many of them probably don't have time for you either. So what? Where does that get you? Even so most people want the best state education we can provide, if only for purely selfish purposes.

No one thinks you are a communist but the views you express are verging on the view that would need communism to bring them about. It is very extreme to force people to only use state anything, including schools.

However, this thread is not about you although you seem to make to want it so. It is about what the government is doing to state education regardless of the very small number who don't use it.

Perhaps I am just totally over the blame game

You do not have to be poor to be empathetic or to have a social conscience

In all sincerity Volver, do you mean you don’t think that’s what would happen? Do you see well off people handing out their earnings to benefit those worse off in any situations? If you are better off than some people, do you do that? Do you do less for your family in order to support those who are less well off.
People want to do the best they can for their families. Are you saying you don’t?

They'll have to make sure someone is looking after their children 24 hours a day and feeding them 3 meals a day. (Isn't that the minimum of what all parents sign up for?)
Well it could be. It is for me, how about you? Some parents, either because they can’t afford be stay at home parents, or because they work unsociable hours, or because they choose to send their children to private schools, pay other people to do some of that.
Re the premises.
Don’t you think they’d keep them as schools or turn them into state schools with boarding facilities like those that already exist. Guess who’d have the best chance of getting in there.

GrannyGravy13

volvet I respect you as a poster, but that was just full of bullshit, bollocks and prejudice…

I don't think it was full of bullshit, bollox or prejudice.

Some people find it difficult to accept.

I don't think you are extreme volver

If that's your interpretation of respect I'm glad you don't look down on me.

I have no time for those who think paying for a better education is some kind of human right and I will never change my mind. Irrespective of anyone who thinks I'm a communist or an extremist. They're just going to have to think that and I can't do anything about that.

GrannyGravy13

volvet I respect you as a poster, but that was just full of bullshit, bollocks and prejudice…

not the 'B' word I was thinking about.

volvet I respect you as a poster, but that was just full of bullshit, bollocks and prejudice…

Mollygo

*If everyone had to use the state system, the rich and powerful would ensure that it was good for everyone.*
Is that your opinion or a fact?

IMO
The rich and powerful might well be more interested in how NFF works but I don’t see them dipping their hands in their pockets to fund other people’s children even though they’re saving money on fees. They will have to find the 24 hour care their children get currently as boarders, or organise three meals a day and extra curricular activities that are currently included. I have visions of specially set up after school clubs to ensure ‘homework’ is done with support before the children come home.
If every school received the same per pupil funding, that wouldn’t make it fair. If you add in extras like pupil premium -that still wouldn’t make it fair. School premises are another example of ‘unfair’ that would be difficult to change, simply because of land.
Those who could afford it would make sure their children went to ‘the best’ state schools i.e. those in nice areas and would raise money to support anything extra they thought their child’s school needed, just as happens now.
But that’s only IMO.

In all sincerity MollyGo. Can't you see how this looks?

Better off people won't want to contribute to us having a more equal society.

They'll have to make sure someone is looking after their children 24 hours a day and feeding them 3 meals a day. (Isn't that the minimum of what all parents sign up for?)

They'd have to pay for extra-curricular activities. (OK then. The clue is in the title - extra curricular. Not core educational.)

What would they do with all the lovely playing field or premises? (Sell them off, like other schools have done. Or open them to the general population. Imagine, ordinary pupils in the hallowed grounds or portals.)

Those who could afford it would still bend or break the rules to get unfair advantage for their children. (I'd best not comment about that.)

I don’t see them dipping their hands in their pockets to fund other people’s children even though they’re saving money on fees.

No. Most of them probably aren't that kind of person at all. Not at all. IMO.

Going by this thread, my money was not put to good use as our privately educated kiddie winks have after other paid positions now work in the family SME