The Student Room Group

Would you like Private schools to be banned? (POLL)

Scroll to see replies

Original post by muddywaters51
Will someone who wishes to actually BAN private schools say whether this includes homeschools, private tuition, private special needs schools, faith schools, language schools


I'd want a ban on private schools, it wouldn't include faith schools (as long as they are state funded), it wouldn't include special needs schools (again state funded), and I don't think you can put a ban on private tuition- after all if your parents have doctorates they could give their children tuition even if it was illegal.
Original post by lukewarm3
I'd want a ban on private schools, it wouldn't include faith schools (as long as they are state funded), it wouldn't include special needs schools (again state funded), and I don't think you can put a ban on private tuition- after all if your parents have doctorates they could give their children tuition even if it was illegal.


Why wouldn't you want a ban on faith schools? They are state funded, yet most still refuse access to education based on the faith of the child's parents (would you ever dream of labeling a child by political views?). About a third of taxpayers paying for schools their children aren't even allowed to attend, now that's a disgrace. Education should be opened up to as many people as possible.
Original post by R.P.Everything.
Why wouldn't you want a ban on faith schools? They are state funded, yet most still refuse access to education based on the faith of the child's parents (would you ever dream of labeling a child by political views?). About a third of taxpayers paying for schools their children aren't even allowed to attend, now that's a disgrace. Education should be opened up to as many people as possible.


nope dont think so. I go to a state funded catholic school my parents aren't even Christian.
Original post by lukewarm3
nope dont think so. I go to a state funded catholic school my parents aren't even Christian.


More specifically, I was relating to state funded Muslim and Jewish schools, which are basically 100% exclusive to their respective religions, but there are large numbers of Christian state funded schools who refuse access to all taxpayers too.
They save an awful lot of money!
The issue really isn't the standard of teaching being any better at private schools than at a state school. The bigger issue is the relationships that form between the groups of the richest in society at private schools. These relationships mean that once they have left school and go into the world of work they are going to have greater opportunity to find jobs through these relationships at the expense of those who were not able to go to private schools but may actually be more able to do that job.

This is also a huge problem in the world of sport, more so rugby, cricket and tennis than football, but private school often have deep seeded relationships with sports academy's meaning that their students are much more likely to get selected than their state school peers (certainly non-dependant on their ability). I've seen this first hand.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Reply 1006
Original post by bm127
I can see your argument for making them state schools and integrating state/private school student bodies to reduce class sizes. But as the private schools often have far better facilities, there would still be an inequality surely? Also the cost would be bigger than simply meeting the average state spend for each of the extra 615,000 pupils.

- Spending the average spend of 5595 per student (2011, may not be perfectly accurate) for the 615,000 would cost 3,440,925,000 a year, which is a mere 52 pounds extra a year per person in tax, which doesn't seem too bad....

- HOWEVER, Private schools are businesses, all the government could do would be subsidise pupils who cant afford it, which would still leave inequality.

- If the government banned private education they couldn't force the now ex-private schools to keep running on state funding, and they wouldn't be able to integrate all of the ex-private school pupils into existing facilities, so they would have to buy them out. As there are around 2500 private schools in the UK, with considerable assets, this would be unfeasible.

I mean yes the system is inherently unfair and it would be great if everyone had equal opportunities regardless of background, but you can't create forced equality. It hasn't exactly worked where it's been tried has it?


The cost does seem reasonable.


- HOWEVER, Private schools are businesses, all the government could do would be subsidise pupils who cant afford it, which would still leave inequality.


The transition is never going to be quick. It's a step forward and better than standing still. The issue with inequality is already evident within state schools alone. I quote from another thread where someone said along the lines of "more than half of those that get into Oxbridge from the state sector are from grammar schools despite grammar schools being scrapped." This step is merely to take parents money out of the equation as much as possible.

It has to made workable some way. Agreed banning private schools is not something that can happen any time soon. However we can work towards a scenario in which it is feasible. Perhaps we may not actually need to ban the private schools but merely integrate them with a rebirth of grammar schools.

The major challenge as you say is for the private schools to accept being state funded (mostly) independent schools.
Reply 1007
Original post by JayReg
The cost does seem reasonable.

The transition is never going to be quick. It's a step forward and better than standing still. The issue with inequality is already evident within state schools alone. I quote from another thread where someone said along the lines of "more than half of those that get into Oxbridge from the state sector are from grammar schools despite grammar schools being scrapped." This step is merely to take parents money out of the equation as much as possible.

It has to made workable some way. Agreed banning private schools is not something that can happen any time soon. However we can work towards a scenario in which it is feasible. Perhaps we may not actually need to ban the private schools but merely integrate them with a rebirth of grammar schools.

The major challenge as you say is for the private schools to accept being state funded (mostly) independent schools.


The cost for meeting the current average spend per student for the 615,000 does on its own seem reasonable. But that's just to get them up to average. The cost of taking over the private schools is the unreasonable part, they would have to be bought to be integrated, as the government can't just seize private business. They could theoretically ban private education on the grounds of inequality, but that just means the people who own the schools have to stop educating people, not give up the buildings etc their schools are located in. As there are 2500 private schools in the country, even if you say each one has assets to the tune of 10 million (a guess but I would think a very conservative figure considering the buildings/facilities some of these schools have), that's a 25 billion cost, and many schools assets will be worth way in excess of that. The other choice would be to expand existing schools or build new ones for the 615,000, both of which are expensive options that wouldn't improve education standards.

I think grammar schools are a good system, as they allow those who have potential to exploit it, regardless of economic background. I don't think that attacking the private sector achieves anything, if we banned private schools we would have to spend a lot of money to integrate the students/buy up the facilities without improving education standards by a worthwhile amount. So why don't we just spend the money that would be spent doing that improving the state education system?
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 1008
Original post by bm127
Its too expensive to fully nationalise the private schools due to their substantial assets. (paraphrased)


Well as I said, how about merely scrapping fees to parents and have them paid by the state. While still giving the private schools autonomy. That way we wouldn't have to buy all their assets. Similar to how universities are run in this country. Then create further grammar schools and try to bring the private schools slowly in line with grammar ones.
Reply 1009
I dont know if Id ban them but I think they should stop getting helped by the Government because that is just making the system unfair in my opinion... its not good to have them, but taking them away is a bit too heavy handed.
Reply 1010
Original post by JayReg
Well as I said, how about merely scrapping fees to parents and have them paid by the state. While still giving the private schools autonomy. That way we wouldn't have to buy all their assets. Similar to how universities are run in this country. Then create further grammar schools and try to bring the private schools slowly in line with grammar ones.


I can see the argument for that, perhaps with an 11+ style test which qualifies you for grammar school or funding to attend a private school (although this would be unfair I guess, having a bad day at 11 and failing a test could have a major impact on a childs life in this system)?

Wont this divert money away from the students who are still in the regular state sector? Also would rich parents or parents who choose to save still be able to pay their kids way into the school, or would they be subject to the same form of testing?

I guess my question really is how would you decide on who gets to have their way payed to private school?
why are people so keen to have freedoms taken away and introduce even more government regulation.
Original post by JayReg
Well as I said, how about merely scrapping fees to parents and have them paid by the state. While still giving the private schools autonomy. That way we wouldn't have to buy all their assets. Similar to how universities are run in this country. Then create further grammar schools and try to bring the private schools slowly in line with grammar ones.


While this is a feasible idea, there is something wrong with the idea of the government forcing private schools not to take fees from parents. I'm not sure about how the private school system works in the UK, but here in Australia the government actually funds private schools in part to keep fees down so more kids enter the private education sector. A more just solution that doesn't restrict consumer choice of parents in a legal sense would be for the government to refuse to fund private schools at all if they accepted parent fees. However, the problem with this is it would truly make private schools for the rich and powerful, whereas at the moment, middle class families which work hard can afford to send their kids to private school. This would likely lead to a mass exodus into the state system, thereby stretching state resources and resulting in lower overall investment into education as fewer parents are paying fees.
Reply 1013
Original post by bm127
I can see the argument for that, perhaps with an 11+ style test which qualifies you for grammar school or funding to attend a private school (although this would be unfair I guess, having a bad day at 11 and failing a test could have a major impact on a childs life in this system)?

Wont this divert money away from the students who are still in the regular state sector? Also would rich parents or parents who choose to save still be able to pay their kids way into the school, or would they be subject to the same form of testing?

I guess my question really is how would you decide on who gets to have their way payed to private school?


Yeah there are concerns that age 11 is too early, so maybe at the end of year 9. In time to change schools for their GCSE's. With further opportunities to join for A levels etc.

Why would it divert money away?

No, all kids would have to take the test. You couldn't buy your way in. Just like with uni places. I was thinking everyone would have their places paid for them. Though there could be a system where higher rate tax payers have to pay an extra sum for each child of theirs in private/grammar schools.
Reply 1014
Original post by JayReg
Yeah there are concerns that age 11 is too early, so maybe at the end of year 9. In time to change schools for their GCSE's. With further opportunities to join for A levels etc.

Why would it divert money away?

No, all kids would have to take the test. You couldn't buy your way in. Just like with uni places. I was thinking everyone would have their places paid for them. Though there could be a system where higher rate tax payers have to pay an extra sum for each child of theirs in private/grammar schools.


Ok I can see that working, although still one test in year 9 which decides on the limitations of your education is still severe, it would be better if it was based on reports and performance at school between year 7-9 rather than a singular test. What do you do with the large number of prep schools currently operating though?

Also up to year 9 the state system would still need to improve.

It wouldn't divert existing money away from the state sector, but if the government was choosing to invest extra into education by paying for private school places, then there wouldn't be anything left to invest in the normal state schools that would still be where the majority go to school.

The higher rate tax payers paying an additional sum for the same right everybody would now have wouldn't be fair. The children of higher earners don't get charged extra for university they just get less help. Paying 1000 pounds extra a year as a tax vs getting 1000 pounds less help a year may amount to the same cost, but it comes across in a completely different way.
(edited 11 years ago)
Whilst I do not like private schools, certainly banning them is not the way forward...
(I'm in private education at the moment). I mean private schools do provide scholarships and bursaries for the less well off. Private schools aren't there to make sure the rich get the best education they are there to make sure that the teachers a) get paid well so they teach well and b) help the best talent develop. And anyway, just because your school is private doesn't make it any better than a state or grammar school.
Reply 1017
Original post by bm127
Ok I can see that working, although still one test in year 9 which decides on the limitations of your education is still severe, it would be better if it was based on reports and performance at school between year 7-9 rather than a singular test. What do you do with the large number of prep schools currently operating though?

Also up to year 9 the state system would still need to improve.

It wouldn't divert existing money away from the state sector, but if the government was choosing to invest extra into education by paying for private school places, then there wouldn't be anything left to invest in the normal state schools that would still be where the majority go to school.

The higher rate tax payers paying an additional sum for the same right everybody would now have wouldn't be fair. The children of higher earners don't get charged extra for university they just get less help. Paying 1000 pounds extra a year as a tax vs getting 1000 pounds less help a year may amount to the same cost, but it comes across in a completely different way.


Agreed, one test is much to severe. Though I'd imagine there would be several tests, like the SAT's.

Not really sure what actually happens at prep schools, don't really know anything about them so can't really comment. From a guess, I think they should be fully absorbed. I don't know the value of assets they hold though.

Since kids from all backgrounds would be in the state schools, there would be universal motivation to improve the education. Furthermore on a more local level parents who value education would try to improve their own local school. These efforts which were previously lost to the state sector to the private would now be able to benefit from.

The rest of the state sector (after year 9) would have more money simply as a product of having fewer students to teach. The overall education budget would have to increase though.

Children of higher rate tax payers shouldn't pay more for going to university since they are adults at that age and shouldn't be penalised based on their background. Though that's another discussion :smile: No extra cost then :smile:. The idea was merely a random thought based on the fact that richer kids are more likely to get into grammar schools than their poorer counter parts. Though general taxation can be used to help with social mobility. An extra charge isn't necessary perhaps.
Reply 1018
Original post by JayReg
Agreed, one test is much to severe. Though I'd imagine there would be several tests, like the SAT's.

Not really sure what actually happens at prep schools, don't really know anything about them so can't really comment. From a guess, I think they should be fully absorbed. I don't know the value of assets they hold though.

Since kids from all backgrounds would be in the state schools, there would be universal motivation to improve the education. Furthermore on a more local level parents who value education would try to improve their own local school. These efforts which were previously lost to the state sector to the private would now be able to benefit from.

The rest of the state sector (after year 9) would have more money simply as a product of having fewer students to teach. The overall education budget would have to increase though.

Children of higher rate tax payers shouldn't pay more for going to university since they are adults at that age and shouldn't be penalised based on their background. Though that's another discussion :smile: No extra cost then :smile:. The idea was merely a random thought based on the fact that richer kids are more likely to get into grammar schools than their poorer counter parts. Though general taxation can be used to help with social mobility. An extra charge isn't necessary perhaps.


I doubt the government would continue to give the rest of the state sector the same amount of money with less pupils, they would reduce the budget proportionate to the number of students. Even if they did that paying the private school tuition for some students would still push the overall education budget up as you have said. If they kept the same budget for the reduced size state sector AND payed for some students to go to private school the budget would have to increase enormously.

Also it may well be that there would be more motivated kids in school, and that parents would attempt to improve their local school (although I fear some may not out of bitterness at the loss of the private school system).

As you said the richer kids would be more likely to get into grammar school/the new private school system as they tend to be more motivated/their parents push them harder (that's a debate all in itself). Rich parents would also be likely to pay for extra tuition etc to ensure their kids get into either a grammar school or private school under this new system. So then you would still have a disproportionate number of children from wealthier backgrounds in the better education system, albeit there would be an increase in those attending these schools not from wealthy backgrounds due to the increased opportunity. But if there were still more wealthy background children in the better schools, more would still get into the better universities, and the problem isn't solved.
Reply 1019
Original post by bm127
I doubt the government would continue to give the rest of the state sector the same amount of money with less pupils, they would reduce the budget proportionate to the number of students. Even if they did that paying the private school tuition for some students would still push the overall education budget up as you have said. If they kept the same budget for the reduced size state sector AND payed for some students to go to private school the budget would have to increase enormously.

It depends on whether the private schools would demand the same amount of money per child that they currently get. Or whether they could be brought down slightly, closer to state sector levels.

Yeah proportionate to the number of students.

Spoiler

Though spending would increase, taxes may also as well since the wealthy parents have more money than before (though I generally dislike higher taxes, so money could come from reduced spending elsewhere). I expect the budget to increase by the amount spent on paying for private school fees. With some extra due to there being increased demand for higher quality state schooling.

Also it may well be that there would be more motivated kids in school, and that parents would attempt to improve their local school (although I fear some may not out of bitterness at the loss of the private school system).


Even if they are bitter they wouldn't take it out on their own children. Especially when they were paying for them because they cared so much.

But if there were still more wealthy background children in the better schools, more would still get into the better universities, and the problem isn't solved.


This problem can never be solved since you can't give everyone the same home environment/upbringing bar stopping poor people having kids :rolleyes::tongue: Even then it wouldn't stop variation between upbringing. So yeah that problem can never be solved, only reduced. So we must try to make it as fair as reasonably possible.

Quick Reply

Latest