Did anyone see the tweet of conservative commentator, Charlotte Gill, this morning about private schools? She said:

If you scrapped private schools it wouldn’t make as much difference as the Left thinks. That’s because educational performance has high genetic component, meaning it can only be socially engineered so much. Private schools facilitate genetic potential better. If you think I’m wrong, read Robert Plomin’s book on DNA, Blueprint. It has long passages on this concept….

I seem to recall Swift proposing we eat babies in order to address the issue of poverty too. He made it sound perfectly reasonable and scientific…

Eff me. What a perverse world we have encouraged these last few years. 🙁

She writes something extreme in the hope it goes viral and generates hits. It works.

If she’d written something sane it wouldn’t have been shared on a cycling forum.

educational performance has high genetic component

Has it not then?

I’m betting she was educated privately which, if that is the case, is a strong indicator that the abolition of state funding for private schools is an excellent idea.

It may be true that genetic potential plays a large part but “Private schools facilitate genetic potential better.” isn’t necessarily true at all. At an individual level or otherwise – because your genetic potential isn’t contingent on your parent’s will or abiltity to pay for an education and what’s the point of of only some people reaching their potential.

Its in my selfish interest that all children get the best education they can, not just my own ones- one day they’ll all be in charge.

What a perverse world we have encouraged these last few years.

Its a shame that we’ve come to measure schools competitively on their performance in terms of outcomes. But the measures of output take no account of the input.

The theories have been around for years, they tie into race theory and all that crap

Anyone who espouses this tripe just needs to be quietly ignored whilst pointing out that as a nation we don’t go in for nazi ideology

As far as I am concerned the schools can stay. But they shouldn’t be allowed to charge fees, and every school can get the same funding. Then we’d see about ‘genetic potential’ wouldn’t we?

Its a shame that we’ve come to measure schools competitively on their performance in terms of outcomes.

I thought Offsted had changed to a value-add metric some years back?

For me the question is simple. Do state subsidies for private schools cost more than the equivalent cost of providing state education to those pupils?

I do not have a problem with private schools, I have a problem if they cost the public pound more than equivalent state education

It’s an interesting idea, it would massively change the way the UK works in a generation or two.

I wouldn’t really work though, what are they going to do? Bulldoze Eton? Or make entry based purely on performance? It would still be full of Toffs kids who were all taught the entrance exams buy their very expensive tutors.

I can see why Labour leaders aren’t as keen as Labour Party Members, well, lets be honest Momentum are. It’s all very Eastern Bloc.

Just remove the ridiculous charity status and get some tax to support state schools.

….which they do (see Nick Davies’ ‘School Report’). Plus they subsidize wealthy foreign students. Plus the Cambridge International exams are easier than the ones allowed in the state schools. Plus… I shall shut up and go away.

Corbyn was privately educated.

He’s still thick as mince.

I do not have a problem with private schools, I have a problem if they cost the public pound more than equivalent state education

An interesting point and a Liberal point of view in that you don’t think it matters what people do with their own money.

I think it does, however. People should not be allowed to buy an advantage for their own kids. This means that people who don’t have money end up disadvantaged, which I think is abhorrent. Money should not define your potential for achievement; lack of it should not reduce your chance of success. So if this means certain freedoms of the rich are curtailed, then so be it. They have enough other advantages as it is they don’t need any more.

What a load of nonsense! she has absolutely no understanding of genetics

the paper she seems to be talking about is here

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-018-0019-8

its conclusions (and caveats) talk about selective schools rather than private, so it pretty much contradicts everything shes saying

the Daily Mail has the largest responsiblity for the MMR hoax being spread,

Charitable status at the least must be under pressure, when (at least our local one) seems to tout for business from China and Russia. Not sure where the charitable benefit is there.

I’m in two minds, having seen the amount of money being donated by parents to a very highly rated state school (two individual donations of £50k) you are never going to even out the playing field, especially where 12+ still exists and fee paying foreign students is a good earner for the UK, maybe remove charitable status if schools don’t offer a certain percentage of bursary places? In another country my nephews school openly stated that 10% of fees went to pay for pupils where parents faced financial hardship.

Whats nice about Labour’s position is that revoking charitable status is now seen as moderate, so some of the imbalances will be addressed & that one seeming particularly unfair

People should not be allowed to buy an advantage for their own kids

But if we stretch that further…..
I can afford to take my kids on interesting holidays. They therefore learn more about cultures, travel etc. That gives them an advantage. Should I stop?
I pay for my kids to do loads of sports, drama, dancing, music lessons etc. That places them at an advantage, should I stop?

maybe remove charitable status if schools don’t offer a certain percentage of bursary places? In another country my nephews school openly stated that 10% of fees went to pay for pupils where parents faced financial hardship.

this seems very sensible.

she has absolutely no understanding of genetics

What on earth are they teaching them at Sutton Valence these days? It’s 20 grand a year, you’d think that they’d at least touch on the value (and limitations) of polygenic scoring.

I wonder if it would also lead to the creation of home schooling groups bringing in tutors for a small number of students, certainly something we would consider.

A bit bemused by the plan to redistribute private schools’ endowments, investments and properties to the state sector. Is this made possible by their charitable status?

Be interesting to see how they are going to find 615000 school places in an already overstretched state system.

But if we stretch that further…..
I can afford to take my kids on interesting holidays. They therefore learn more about cultures, travel etc. That gives them an advantage. Should I stop?
I pay for my kids to do loads of sports, drama, dancing, music lessons etc. That places them at an advantage, should I stop?

I bet you can afford a nice house for them as well. Maybe even a safe, economical and environmentally friendly car. You capitalist pig dog! All of your property and earnings will be appropriated by the glorious state and distributed “fairly” among those far more worthy than you.

In another country my nephews school openly stated that 10% of fees went to pay for pupils where parents faced financial hardship.

From the web site of our local private school:
The bursary funds provide financial support for new pupils
joining the School at Removes (Year 7) and for Sixth Form. This
year we will be spending over £500,000 supporting over 50
families with the cost of fees, many of whom would have been
prevented from sending their children to ….. because of
financial circumstances.
We are committed to helping low and middle-income families
with bursary support from 5-100%, means-assessed based on
net disposable income

I wonder if it would also lead to the creation of home schooling groups bringing in tutors for a small number of students, certainly something we would consider.

Unlikely, Corbyn will have probably politicised social services – so they’ll come knocking on your door. Can’t have anyone having a non state directed education now can we?

@P-Jay

it would massively change the way the UK works in a generation or two.
</bockquote>

… except it wouldn’t, as you tacitly admit a few lines down.

If it were part of a concrete plan to massively improve state education then fine but it looks more like a “politics of envy” stunt.

The charitable status is fair game to attack in my view but the “redistribute their assets” part is going too far and I suspect will backfire in any election campaigning.

You capitalist pig dog

Organic, free range pig from local farm shop and pedigree dog actually.

People should not be allowed to buy an advantage for their own kids

Does that mean that private health is next on the chopping block?

Be interesting to see how they are going to find 615000 school places in an already overstretched state system.

…. that the parents of those children already pay for but do not use.

pedigree dog actually.

Your dirty dog racist.

Private schools are linked to the lack of social mobility in this country but bringing in fees to universities is probably even worse.

I wouldn’t scrap private schools, I’d just take away the charitable status, as others have said. People can and always will pay money to assist their children’s education where they can but removing private schools seems like it would cause as many problems as benefits.

Now scrapping funding for the royal family…..

Oh and the eugenics stuff from the MP is ludicrous…

😀

Does that mean that private health is next on the chopping block?

In Canada, private health care is illegal. So actually, I would not mind seeing private health care go to the chopping block either.

I bet you can afford a nice house for them as well. Maybe even a safe, economical and environmentally friendly car. You capitalist pig dog! All of your property and earnings will be appropriated by the glorious state and distributed “fairly” among those far more worthy than you.

It’s terrible isn’t it, council estate scum expecting their kids to be educated to the same standards as those who’s parents drive expensive cars. I bet some of them are even struggling with the stable fees for their ponies, bunch of workshy scroungers.

It seems that a big chunk of the ‘subsidies’ are the payment of fees for the children of MoD/foreign office staff who move around internationally – so the children get a stable education [so probably 100% boarding schools].
I’m not sure how they’d deal with this if those schools did not exist.

Does that mean that private health is next on the chopping block?

…and after school clubs. Some children are disadvantaged because they can’t go to all the clubs, it’s abhorrent. (My daughter can’t do maths club because we get home from work too late – why should she be disadvantaged? None of the other kids should be allowed to do it, either.) And football. There are kids with no legs and meanwhile other kids are out playing football! It’s abhorrent they need to be stopped!!!

council estate scum expecting their kids to be educated to the same standards as those who’s parents drive expensive cars

Yep, I’d far rather see that happening. Sadly, shutting down private education won’t do anything to improve state education.

For me the question is simple. Do state subsidies for private schools cost more than the equivalent cost of providing state education to those pupils?

That’s my question to, I’ve not looked into any research but if a private school (inc. savings from charitable status) costs more per pupil to fund (from the government) than a state school then something is very wrong and it should be addressed.

I’m fine with private schools as such though, whilst I understand Molgrips arguments against them I’m not sure in reality such equality is ever going to be possible. Just as we have the option to buy healthcare privately instead of using the state offering why shouldn’t parents be able to purchase education privately? It might be perceived as better (as with healthcare) but that’s not necessarily the case and if it is better then the issue is with the state provide option (i.e. the answer to improving the nation’s overall education isn’t to remove the best performing part of it but to address the worst performing parts – but this is where the question of funding comes in, if private schools cost the government/tax payer more than state schools then the private school funding does need to be reduced and the savings diverted to state school funding).

Also what about parent’s who fund additional schooling/teaching outside of normal school time – should that be banned lest parents with money be able to give their children an educational advantage?

I know a lot of people are against boarding on these forums but many private schools do also offer a boarding option which, in certain situations, is important. I boarded for secondary school, the reason being by father was in the forces so we’d move around every 2-3 years. With the myriad of curricula out there if I’d have gone to a state school not only would I have had the general disruption of changing schools 2 or 3 times but I could had repeated stuff I’d already learnt between terms and missed completely other stuff.

But hey I know some people are under the illusion that all private boarders are part of some elite society with masonic handshakes etc.

Sadly, shutting down private education moving private school provision abroad to places where it’s still legal won’t do anything to improve state education.

Corrected for you.

Meanwhile some kids aren’t doing as well because they are surrounded by gormless undisciplined **** who hold education in contempt and who smoke in class or abuse the teachers (like my old state school before I went to 6th form).