Labour Policy to Abolish Private Schools

[Outrider]

I disagree with a number of you about the rightness of being able to pass on privilege to your children while a very large number of children in our society are fundamentally disadvantaged in a startlingly unequal system.  If we had a more equal society, like say, Denmark's, providing options for individuals to exercise personal preferences would be OK.

I agree, if we had a more equal society - we don't, though.  Should I sacrifice my children's prospects for that, or should I bring them up with both the capacity (from their schooling) and the drive (from my parenting) to create a more equal society?

Currently, parents dissatisfied with state provision who are rich enough can save their children from suffering at its hands by paying.  I think this entrenches inequality in society and is unfair.

In many instances that's the outcome, but I'd suggest that it's rarely the intention - certainly, I don't come from privileged background, there is no significant privilege to entrench.

There would still be the opportunity to give your children unfair advantages over their peer group if private schools were abolished and there would still be inequality due to location and selection policies, but I still think it would be a change for the better.

This would be sacrificing some degree of access to better educational outcomes and restricting it to an even more select few; if the intention is to remove embedded privilege, making something even more exclusive is not going to achieve that, making it even more accessible should be the goal.

Standardising mediocrity is not necessarily the outcome.

It is.  Again, it's not the intention, but it's what the effect would be - if you remove from private education the freedom, improved funding and employment incentives that make it better, you just end up with more of the mediocrity that you already have in a system that is increasingly designed to attain mediocrity and is largely uninterested in anything more.

The products of Eton we've had running the country recently are supposed to be the cream of the crop, aren't they? I went to a comprehensive in the 70s and I don't think I could have made a worse job of it.

Eton =/= 'all of private education'.  If there are too many Eton old-boys in positions of power, let's look at why, let's not shut down all the other private educational establishments that do wonders across the country.

Of course where I went to school "be Prime Minister" wasn't an acceptable answer to the question "what do you want to do when you grow up?"

And there, right there, we have a prime example of the cult of mediocrity.  Why wasn't it an acceptable answer?  I'd guess it would be viewed with wry amusement in most state schools today, but why - someone has to do it, we can look at the likes of Theresa May and Boris Johnson and see that it doesn't take a member of MENSA, by any stretch.

O.

[Walter]

Christine
This concept of fairnes is is just a pipe dream , it doesn't exist .
One of my children has benefitted from a private school education . I wanted her to have an advantage over her peers and it has worked well  for her .
My other two (different personalities) went to state schools and have done equally well .

[ProfessorDavey]

Here's a thought about VAT. If the private schools were forced to charge VAT, their fees would effectively rise which means that some parents who currently send their children to private schools would, instead send them to state schools. This will increase the costs of the state sector. So the question is, would the extra VAT income for the government offset the extra education costs for the government.

I don't think it is that simplistic.

Over the past 20 years private school fees have spiralled, with average increase of over 5% per annum, way above inflation. So by your your argument you'd think that fewer parents could afford to send their children to private schools. Yet actually the reverse is true - pupil numbers have increased by over 10% since 2000.

[Outrider]

Over the past 20 years private school fees have spiralled, with average increase of over 5% per annum, way above inflation.

Genuinely, I'm not questioning the figures, but I've not seen that cited anywhere - can I ask where you found that?

So by your your argument you'd think that fewer parents could afford to send their children to private schools. Yet actually the reverse is true - pupil numbers have increased by over 10% since 2000.

Unfortunately as this Tory government continues to underfund education and interfere in teaching more and more parents are realising that, despite the financial impact, they can't afford to leave their kids in state education.

O.

[Udayana]

Genuinely, I'm not questioning the figures, but I've not seen that cited anywhere - can I ask where you found that?
...

The ISC census is a reasonable source for the summary stats:

https://www.isc.co.uk/media/5479/isc_census_2019_report.pdf

[ProfessorDavey]

Genuinely, I'm not questioning the figures, but I've not seen that cited anywhere - can I ask where you found that?

In a variety of places, not least the Independent Schools Councils own report:

https://www.isc.co.uk/media/5479/isc_census_2019_report.pdf

See page 18 - the fee increases have levelled off a touch recently, but still are running way ahead of inflation.

You can see this here too:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-charts-that-shows-how-private-school-fees-have-exploded-a7023056.html

The latter also shows where much of that fee increase is going - an astonishing increase in Capital spending. In the words of the Independent article:

'The picture is unambiguous. Fees are rising fast, outstripping the cost of living and average wages. And private schools are spending a good deal of the extra revenue on sprucing up their already often impressive facilities.'

So more flamingoes for everyone, or is it Steinway pianos. Or rather, not everyone, just the select few attending independent schools.

[ProfessorDavey]

The ISC census is a reasonable source for the summary stats:

https://www.isc.co.uk/media/5479/isc_census_2019_report.pdf

Oo beat me to it.

[Christine]

Hi Outrider, I don't have time to answer properly, sorry (limited opportunity to access site etc) but a couple of things - I said mediocrity isn't "necessarily" the outcome because I don't think it is necessary, as evidenced by other countries' systems.  That it would probably be the outcome in our society is something that could be addressed along with the other problems we have, if there was political will. 

I know Eton doesn't equal the whole of private education. As I said, Eton alumni are the supposed cream of the crop, who've got where they are mainly on the basis of contacts, expectations and bias, regardless of talent or academic (or any other kind of) achievement. 

Walter - I expect people once thought women voting on an equal footing with men was a pipe dream.  Change and improvement is possible, even if difficult and unlikely. 

[jeremyp]

I don't think it is that simplistic.

It's not simplistic. Tax rises always have unforeseen consequences.

Over the past 20 years private school fees have spiralled, with average increase of over 5% per annum, way above inflation. So by your your argument you'd think that fewer parents could afford to send their children to private schools. Yet actually the reverse is true - pupil numbers have increased by over 10% since 2000.

Have you got your cause and effect the right way around? Maybe fees are going up because of the increased demand? In fact, that seems more logical to me.

The argument "fees have gone up and numbers have gone up, therefore adding 20% to fees won't have any effect" is obvious nonsense. Maybe the rise in demand will only be slowed by the sudden 20% price rise (I hardly think so) but that still means more children will be going to states schools than were projected to be.

[Udayana]

Not sure how forcing more people to choose state instead of public schools helps in any way.
There are two main considerations: quality of education and how fairly that eduction is delivered.
Wouldn't widening the gap between the two systems just exacerbate the inequalities?

Outrider (in #49) covered the main differences between the two kinds of school due to funding; clearly the quality of state school eduction can be raised to be closer to that of the public schools by reasonable increases in funding.

However, as Christine suggests in #47, if we lived in a much more equal society it would be much easier to ensure that all children fairly received an education of a quality that enabled them to achieve to the best of their abilities. And, surely, having a more equitable and fair society is a worthwhile objective in itself?

Another factor, as mentioned by Outrider, is the attitude of the children themselves. Although I don't agree that there is less bullying in private schools, the attitudes of children to the teachers and the value of education itself in public and grammar schools can be very different to those in many (not all) comprehensives due to parental influence, peer influences ....

Essentially, it is likely that educating those "middle class" children separately from other children contributes to the success of their schools and detracts from educational success in large comprehensives. This also has to be addressed by ensuring a fairer society and just more attention paid to family welfare and support.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not simplistic. Tax rises always have unforeseen consequences.

But you are portraying it as simplistic - add VAT, fees increase by 20%, some parents think it is too high and opt out. Those aren't the only potential outcomes, unless you are thinking in a simplistic manner.

Have you got your cause and effect the right way around? Maybe fees are going up because of the increased demand? In fact, that seems more logical to me.

The argument "fees have gone up and numbers have gone up, therefore adding 20% to fees won't have any effect" is obvious nonsense. Maybe the rise in demand will only be slowed by the sudden 20% price rise (I hardly think so) but that still means more children will be going to states schools than were projected to be.

Firstly you are making an assumption that if VAT was imposed fees would instantly rise by 20% - that isn't necessarily true because:

1. VAT could be added at a lower rate or tapered in, and more importantly ...

2. These schools are operating in a market and can choose the fee levels they set. If they think that market cannot stand a 20% rise in fees they have options to reduce the base fee, ex VAT so that the overall fee inc VAT doesn't rise by 20%, indeed could even stay level if that is what the market force dictates.

How would they do that - well by reducing costs and driving efficiencies. That could be reducing staff costs by slightly increasing staff/student ratios. They could reduce spend on bursaries and scholarships or they could decide to ditch the flamingoes and buy cheaper pianos. Or they could look to raise income via other routes, e.g. more fund raising from alumni, more commercial letting of facilities etc.

Given the huge amounts independent schools are pouring into enhanced facilities there is plenty of slack in the system if the school feels the need to be more efficient as they don't believe that parents will stand the 20% fee increase if the total value of the VAT is passed onto parents.

If on the other hand if the market will stand 20% fee rise then that is likely to be applied, but by definition the school would anticipate that parents would pay that higher fee - and indeed they may well be right as they have good evidence of raising fees by way above inflation and still seeing more parents wanting to come to their schools.

[Outrider]

Outrider (in #49) covered the main differences between the two kinds of school due to funding; clearly the quality of state school education can be raised to be closer to that of the public schools by reasonable increases in funding.

Whilst an increase in funding could improve the situation of state education (presuming it was spent wisely?) I'm confident that there's a range of opinions on what might be considered 'reasonable' and whether it would approach what would be required; however, to listen to the various teachers I know tell it, unless there's a fairly fundamental change in mindset around the role and methods of Ofsted, that's not likely to help very much.

However, as Christine suggests in #47, if we lived in a much more equal society it would be much easier to ensure that all children fairly received an education of a quality that enabled them to achieve to the best of their abilities. And, surely, having a more equitable and fair society is a worthwhile objective in itself?

Agreed, but if we lived in a society that was actually interested in that we wouldn't have had Tory governments for over a decade.

Another factor, as mentioned by Outrider, is the attitude of the children themselves. Although I don't agree that there is less bullying in private schools, the attitudes of children to the teachers and the value of education itself in public and grammar schools can be very different to those in many (not all) comprehensives due to parental influence, peer influences ...

I'm not sure that I'd say there's less bullying - perhaps I didn't phrase it particularly well - but the nature, extent and types of bullying are different.  There's less physical abuse, and more 'institutional' bullying - the sort of enforcement of privileges for older pupils, generally distasteful name-calling of entire year groups rather than individually targetted (although that's still there, to an extent).

Essentially, it is likely that educating those "middle class" children separately from other children contributes to the success of their schools and detracts from educational success in large comprehensives. This also has to be addressed by ensuring a fairer society and just more attention paid to family welfare and support.

I'm not sure what the answer is - there are working class families' children at private schools who thrive and fit in, and there are middle-class families' children at comprehensives who are absolute shits... I'm not sure it's a class-based thing at all, and certainly not entirely.

O.

[Udayana]

...
I'm not sure what the answer is - there are working class families' children at private schools who thrive and fit in, and there are middle-class families' children at comprehensives who are absolute shits... I'm not sure it's a class-based thing at all, and certainly not entirely.

O.

I didn't put my point very well, it wasn't about how different children do in different schools, just that pupils arrive with a different set of behaviours and attitudes that influence the other children and teacher performance. Parent involvement is also key. eg:

If you took a comprehensive school and from every new years intake you take, say, the 15% of the pupils with the most affluent and/or well educated parents and move them to a school only for 15%'ers, even if the schools have equivalent funding and the same quality of teachers and facilities, you will end up with two different schools: a sink school and an elite school that does well academically.