Private schools (in the UK)

[johnr]

Any good reason for not abolishing/banning them? I can't think of one.

[San Bernardhinault]

None.

[Toby Gymshorts]

Well, if we didn't have them, we wouldn't have the luminaries we have in the cabinet, or cheerleading for Brexit, or... No, wait, hang on. No, I can't think of a single reason to not take them all back and use them to house people in need.

[Bored Of Education]

None at all. Firstly, as opposed to private health (which, at the very least, lessens the workload of the public services), private and, indeed, any selective education creams off the perceived higher end of the 'talent'. Now, as it happens, this isn't always the case. Case in point is that friends of ours have a daughter who is exactly the same age as Bored Jr. They sent her to a private school where they effectively paid the same as my wages per term. She ended up with the same amount of GCSEs as Bored Jr - which wasn't many. So, effectively, they paid a fortune for their child to end up, depending on your view, just as intelligent or thick as Bored Jr. However, because she was in rarefied surroundings, she doesn't even have the ability of mixing with differing social elements of society that Bored Jr did. Now, as you will see from other threads, this may be a bonus but we have all seen what socially inept individuals these schools can churn out. Many of them may be in power in this country but would you really want your children to be similar adults?

Also, as with Free Schools, private schools are able to employ unqualified teachers. I am not sure what percentage are unqualified but what I do know is that, in state schools (well, not Free or private schools), all the teachers are qualified. If I were paying upwards of £10k a term on my child's education, I would want the best qualified, most experienced teachers. Also, one of the most damning things about private schools is that, for some bizarre reason, most - perhaps all - of them have charitable status. These are profit-making ventures servicing some of the richest people in the country and they have charitable status while state schools have to run raffles and quiz nights just to buy books and teachers have to buy resources for their lessons out of their own pocket.

Aside from that, they are fine.

[Amor de Cosmos]

The one argument that — theoretically — stands up for private schools is that they're able institute curriculum change and variety more rapidly than public schools. Most don't, of course, but a few do. I'm not claiming it balances the bad reasons, but is one "good reason" requested in the OP.

[ursus arctos]

You lot really want your kids to go to school with those people?

[Hot Pepsi]

The one argument that — theoretically — stands up for private schools is that they're able institute curriculum change and variety more rapidly than public schools. Most don't, of course, but a few do. I'm not claiming it balances the bad reasons, but is one "good reason" requested in the OP.

That’s the idea behind charter schools as well. The problem there is that, in some states at least, they’re spending public money irresponsibly and it’s not always easy to pull the plug on them if it starts to go bad.

[San Bernardhinault]

You lot really want your kids to go to school with those people?

They'll be less terrible if they're forced to interact with the peasants from an early age.

[HORN]

Ha. Mrs HORN worked 20 years in a state school in a poor part of the city. Her evenings were spent marking large piles of books while relating tales of ill-discipline from children from dodgy backgrounds, or incidents with parents who believed the lies of their children over the word of the teacher. Nights of broken sleep were the norm. I used to tell her “This job is going to kill you”.

She’s recently taken a sizeable paycut to join a private school. It’s been a good trade.

I’m really not convinced that redistributing a few rich kids around state schools is going to help the education system as much as a cull or enforced mass sterilisation would, though the latter options won’t be easy to get through parliament.

[Third rate Leszno]

.... any selective education creams off the perceived higher end of the 'talent'. Now, as it happens, this isn't always the case. Case in point is that friends of ours have a daughter who is exactly the same age as Bored Jr. They sent her to a private school where they effectively paid the same as my wages per term. She ended up with the same amount of GCSEs as Bored Jr - which wasn't many. So, effectively, they paid a fortune for their child to end up, depending on your view, just as intelligent or thick as Bored Jr. However, because she was in rarefied surroundings, she doesn't even have the ability of mixing with differing social elements of society that Bored Jr did.

This is evident in the posher bits of North Merseyside - lots of footballers and working class folk who have made a shitload of money are sending their kids to the schools that were previously the preserve of the moneyed upper middle classes. To be honest, it does mean that the kids are getting a much more mixed social experience than would've been the case 20 years ago, but as Bored notes, not all of these kids are going to be academically improved by it. This seems to have damaged the reputation of some of the schools as they're now seen as being places that prioritise money over educational standards.

[Aitch]

Not a single reason to keep them, but why restrict the bonfire to public schools. The royal family, the CofE, the House of Lords, Ascot, polo clubs, morning suits, Trident, the collected works of Nancy Mitford, gentlemen's clubs, RP, country houses, ... There's lot of kindling out there that could keep the country warm.

[Nefertiti2]

I'd be sorry to lose the collected works of Nancy Mitford.

[Benjm]

I'm not sure that abolishing or banning private schools would be desirable, which isn't to say we wouldn't be better off without them. What should unquestionably happen is that they lose their charitable status for tax purposes so that the rest of us aren't effectively subsidising them.

The quality of education that they provide is a bit of a side show. On the one hand given the spend per pupil compared to the state sector you would expect it to be pretty good unless the schools were entirely incompetent, but really the point of sending your offspring there is to gain access to networks of influence and opportunity that are by their very nature exclusive and all but corrupt in their hold on national life.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

The charitable status of schools is an interesting one. If they were limited companies, would many of them make that much of a taxable profit anyway? Every penny spent paying the staff and upkeeping the buildings and equipment would be offset as an expense anyway. There's no rule saying a company has to make a profit; that's only driven by shareholders demanding one or if the company needs to make money for investment. If schools didn't have shareholders and could generate sufficient funds for investment through raising fees, who would drive a need for profit?

[Benjm]

TBH, I just work on the basis that their voluble opposition to losing charitable status suggests that it works for them and, on the basis that theirs is a racket based upon unfair advantage, that ought to be reconsidered.

I haven't checked this first hand but reporting tends to suggest that the pupils at the top end public schools are drawn from wealthier and more international backgrounds than would have been the case say 50 years ago. There's nothing wrong with that per se but again it does call into question the schools' view of themselves as part of the wider educational ecosystem rather than just an exclusive, gated enclave. Anecdotally, my mum went to a well known Catholic boarding school back when genteel poverty was still a sustainable lifestyle option and the last telephone fundraising appeal she received from them led on installing under floor heating in the stables, so the girls could keep their ponies at school all year round. I've got nothing against ponies but choosing that as the focus for an alumni whipround didn't suggest an institution or customer base fallen upon hard times.

[johnr]

Thanks for your replies. I've always had a bee in my bonnet about private schools for all of the usual socialist reasons, but something has struck me over the past couple of years; I train hundreds of teachers a year in a particular creative field, and for various reasons private schools have started to get involved in it. Almost without exception - and maybe it's just confirmation bias - the teachers from the latter are less able to grasp the concepts/be creative/understand delivery than the former. It's been a real eye-opener - I thought that what parents were paying for was the quality of teaching as well as the networks etc, but now I'm not so sure.

What they are paying for - in one of the private schools I visited - was 6 bottles of very fine wine being open/drunk during the 3-course lunch break in the staff refectory.

[ad hoc]

It also should be noted that education policy and funding would almost certainly go to the top of the government agenda (any government's agenda) if all the children, nephews, nieces,grandchildren etc of the rich and powerful were actually attending state schools. For me this is actually the biggest argument for abolishing private education (and private health for what it's worth)

[Tubby Isaacs]

John, the teaching is frequently underwhelming in private schools. They don't tolerate people who can't control a class, but there are lots of mediocrities who can coach sport.

[Benjm]

Yes, and seeing things through the prism of personal experience of an elitist institution doesn't help them to grasp the realities of the policies that they espouse for everyone else, even if they are sincere (big if). Teacher qualification is a good example. "We had some wonderful unqualified teachers," says public school alumnus, thinking of the chap who taught history for a couple of terms before taking up his place at All Souls, or the time when Ranulph Fiennes came along to bring Geography alive for them. Do they really think that this is what will happen at a typical school in Wolverhampton if the requirements for qualified staff are weakened?

Edit: to ad hoc.

[Bored Of Education]

Even if you don't feel that the children from public schools would add to the talent pool of state schools, were private schools to be abolished, you have to look at the argument that you want to provide the best preparation for life in schools for all children. If you separate children from the types of people they are going to meet later on in life (or, more importantly, have responsibility over) by choice of religion, gender, perceived academic ability at 11 or parents' income, you are going to take away this important form of development (I say this as someone who does teach in religious schools and, of course, academies). You would still get segregation by postcode, of course, but there is no way around that - although stricter catchment areas and enrolment by lottery - would help. Of course, as a proponent of research-based education policy, this is all a theory but, without that research, I would point to Cuba. Although there is an emerging private education sector in the form of after-school and weekend tutoring, since the revolution all education in Cuba has been free, publicly-funded and comprehensive up to graduate level and, for an incredibly poor country, has produced not only literacy and numeracy rates comparable with the US and UK and way above the surrounding LAC countries but it also produces excellent graduates. There are loads of other factors, of course, but it is an interesting completely public model to look at.

As far as private schools being able to change the curriculum quickly, again as an advocate of research-driven education policy, I find it bad enough that the likes of Gove can change the curriculum at a whim so private school heads and Free School/Academy managers being able to do the same does not fill me with confidence.

[Bored Of Education]

reporting tends to suggest that the pupils at the top end public schools are drawn from wealthier and more international backgrounds than would have been the case say 50 years ago. There's nothing wrong with that per se

Er, there very much is.

[ursus arctos]

Why are people assuming that all/the majority of public school pupils would go to state schools?

The international students surely would not, and I would expect that a significant majority of the Brits who board would leave the country. There are already British students at every “elite” private schools I know here, and I would expect that trend to accelerate around the world.

[San Bernardhinault]

It also should be noted that education policy and funding would almost certainly go to the top of the government agenda (any government's agenda) if all the children, nephews, nieces,grandchildren etc of the rich and powerful were actually attending state schools. For me this is actually the biggest argument for abolishing private education (and private health for what it's worth)

I was about to come back in and make this point. And it's not just the properly rich and powerful who run countries. At the moment, the wealthier parts of the middle class also enclave themselves off from the state education system. These are the interfering class (which is not a behaviour I'm normally charmed by). They are the people who often have time and inclination to write letters to newspapers, the people who know how to lobby MPs and local authorities, who are generally more willing to join boards of governors. It's this group which can apply pressure to a poorly performing state school and to the bodies that fund and administer it, rather than let it plod along. But they won't do it if their kids safely at St Rees-Mogg's School That Conflates Large Playing Fields With Decent Education. They will if their kids are at that local underperforming comprehensive.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I don't think that follows.

As Ursus suggests, Rees Mogg Jnr won't be going to the local run down comprehensive. And for those (highly paid solicitors, say) who send their kids to local schools, why do we assume their response will be "I'd better pay a load more tax so every kid here gets a fantastic education"? How about "I'd better pay a load of money for my kid to have special private lessons and join a rugby club"? Having these parents within the state system will likely create much more pressure for grammar schools, social segregation, expulsions, curriculum they like. You don't want to be relying on "parent power" too much.

[Pérou Flaquettes]

Yes, and seeing things through the prism of personal experience of an elitist institution doesn't help them to grasp the realities of the policies that they espouse for everyone else, even if they are sincere (big if). Teacher qualification is a good example. "We had some wonderful unqualified teachers," says public school alumnus, thinking of the chap who taught history for a couple of terms before taking up his place at All Souls, or the time when Ranulph Fiennes came along to bring Geography alive for them. Do they really think that this is what will happen at a typical school in Wolverhampton if the requirements for qualified staff are weakened?

Edit: to ad hoc.

Yep, this YT clip below is what could happen for instance to your posh-hopelessly-disconnected-from-reality smug history teacher (historian David Starkey, who has "quite considerable experience as a history teacher – over 15 years lecturing in the subject at the London School of Economics" taught history to – small – classes in Jamie's Dream School, 2011, with not particularly massively disruptive kids either, Christ you'll find far far worse than that bunch in any school, even "outstanding"-rated Ofsted ones):

These people wouldn’t last 1 week in your average comp, never mind one in Wolverhampton. They boast of having "considerable experience of teaching" but they know fuck all really about teaching in an ordinary setting, their have a far narrower breadth of experience than they think, or thought as it was a reality check for Starkey of some magnitude. Starkey was quite shocked by the experience and he only taught there for a very short time. His "considerable teaching experience" was of no fucking help.

I’m in a good mood today but I really really really feel like going on a rant.