You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
TJ on the point about Scottish taxation I was wrong you were right.
On the points you are making about NI and effective tax rate I'm afraid you are wrong. The 2% NI rate is what is charged on contributions over a threshold, the earnings below the threshold are still taxed at 12%. The effect of this is that, for the UK, the effective direct taxation rates are 32%, 42% & 47% when you add NI and income tax rates together. There are however a few "hidden" rates that kick in to reduce certain allowances. When you lose child benefit that one is effectively 100%, when you are losing your tax free allowance that is 60% and when the pension taper kicks in that is around 65% (this bit includes the employers contribution). Once you are through that it drops again to 45%. The tinkering makes a mess of the system.
I do agree with your point about being rich to afford private school. Some family members are considering this for their kids and there won't be a lot of change from 20k pa once all the costs are added in. Edit that is per child too.
Do you think that education policy is simply to close the doors of Eton and that’s that?
No, in Labours case it seems to be to close Eton *and* stop inspecting state schools properly.
Ta tired / gonefishin - thats news to me about the removal of personal allowances so I apologise to Dantz I called wrong.
Its still not a tax rate of 65% tho but thats semantics
the highest rate of marginal taxation is of course at the lower end when due to benefits tapers and the like you can get a 95% marginal rate
due to the top rate of NI the effective tax rate does drop again one you are rich as NI rate drops
Unless you think rich people are just more intelligent than poor people?
I think they probably are. I think they're better looking as well.
Natural selection, innit.
Attractive intelligent people aren't looking for poverty stricken losers to breed with.
OOB - actually its about inspecting them properly - ask any inspector - offstead does a much poorer job than the old school inspectors.
No one sends their kids to private school unless they are rich or well connected. To be able to afford the fees you must be in the richest few % of the country
I know couples that send their only child to private school. They earn on or around the average wage for couples both employed in full time work.
Some people are sacrificing plenty for themselves to be able to send a child to private school.
There are also kids at private schools on bursary's so they dont pay full fees.
I know the vast majority of people will be in the top earners and may have several children in private education, but this is not always the case.
molgrips
Do you think that education policy is simply to close the doors of Eton and that’s that?
Unfortunately, based on the absence of any other constructive strategy from the Labour party (ditching Ofsted not being constructive), er... yes.
No, in Labours case it seems to be to close Eton *and* stop inspecting state schools properly.
You assume they have started inspecting them properly!
I think they probably are. I think they’re better looking as well.
Natural selection, innit.
Attractive intelligent people aren’t looking for poverty stricken losers to breed with.
Did you see Peaky Blinders last night, you'd like that Oswald Mosley fella!
ditching Ofsted not being constructive
I think it could be, depends what its replaced with. Ofsted are just the government of the days attack dogs. I'd like to see Labour take education out of government control to a large extent.
Ofsted doesn't inspect schools properly. Labour are proposing replacing it with something that attempts to do it properly. Can't see a problem with that.
Molgrips
And as long as the rich can buy their way into better schools then the quality of everyone else’s education is not their problem so they won’t care about it.
'zackly
OOB – actually its about inspecting them properly – ask any inspector – offstead does a much poorer job than the old school inspectors.
I can't ask an inspector but I can ask a teacher and in their view OFSTED is already rigorous enough. Labour aren't planning on making it more rigorous, they're hoping to keep the teaching unions happy by relaxing standards.
It's not clear why OFSTED needs to be abolished at all. They could reduce standards by tweaking what's already there.
Plus, it's a vote loser, parents love OFSTED. Not just for schools but for Nursery care. The first thing we looked for was OFSTED outstanding. No parent is going to vote to abolish that.
I think they probably are. I think they’re better looking as well.
Natural selection, innit.
Attractive intelligent people aren’t looking for poverty stricken losers to breed with.
you’d like that Oswald Mosley fella!
You realise he was a wealthy bloke who had intelligent and good looking kids? ...and that's in spite of the dating handicap of being a swivel eyed fascist.
Thanks TiRed - as I said not after sympathy, but some people simply don’t seem to understand the hidden taxes many of us do already pay.
Where is the money to State Educate 650,000 extra pupils going to come from, btw? (Approx 4 billion)
its not about reducing standards at all - its about making the inspections actually meaningful. Ofstead inspections are not meaningful. they create huge stress for no gain. My father was a school inspector and thats his view. We don't have offstead in scotland - we continued =with the old approach which is nurturing and co operative not prescriptive and punitive
Dantz - did you spot my apology above?
Where is the money to State Educate 650,000 extra pupils going to come from, btw? (Approx 4 billion)
Tax increases on the rich, I'd expect.
Ofstead inspections are not meaningful. they create huge stress for no gain.
They are *very* stressful for Teachers, sounds like Labour are looking at reducing that stress to please the Teaching Unions. Hence I'm saying "less rigorous".
Meaningful? Gain? There's a deffo gain in the situations I've been aware of. It's taken me 20 years to come around to it but over the last five years or so I've seen OFSTED working superbly.
Again, I don't see the need to abolish, if they want to make it less rigorous I'm sure it could be tweaked and the name changed which would be far cheaper that scrapping it and starting again.
TJ - just read that as “analogy” so been searching back all your old posts !!!
Thanks - no apology needed - we generally only see the parts of the tax system that are relevant to our situation.
Doctors are in a very similar situation - doing overtime simply isn’t worth it money wise.
I think I can claim to have paid the highest proportion of my income in tax when I was active running a business in France. Excellent value for money as far as I'm concerned. I'd happily pay a bit more to invest in communities that need it more than mine.
Junior went to the local schools like all the other local kids. His contemparies are doing all sorts of things and doing well. He's still in the system and it's costing me just his rent, a grant (remember those), modest fees covered by a regional grant, an Erasmus year at the Humboldt under the same conditions (thank you the EU).
I don't bother with private health care or any insurance, I'm quite satisfied with what the secu provides.
The local swimming pool is ace, as is the white water center, the sports grounds, the subsidised clubs, the refuge collection and recycling, the parks and gardens, the local services... .
As with most things you get what you pay for, rejoice in your tax bill.
thegeneralist
Member
Molgrips
And as long as the rich can buy their way into better schools then the quality of everyone else’s education is not their problem so they won’t care about it.
‘zackly
Who are these 'rich'? There are plenty of people like me, who are nowhere near the top 20% of earners on here, let alone the country, who send their kids to private school. We do that because state schools are, by and large, pretty poor, and we forego many luxuries to invest in our child's education.
Before I get shouted down, I have a PGCE, have taught in state and private schools in the UK and abroad, and have a masters in education, so I have some experience of what I'm talking about.
I agree with the replacement of Ofsted, but abolishing private schools, or 'opening them up to state school students' (whatever that means) will only result in dragging everyone down to a lower level. It's typical old school Labour, and the results of similar thinking in the 70s were largely responsible for ushering in Thatcherism in the 80s. Be careful what you wish for.
JP
Yes, abolish them.
The 'many people work hard to send their kids to private school' argument is blinkered and arrogant.
Many people work equally as hard just to survive.
I see nothing positive in private education.
Divisive and promotes a sense of superiority which poisons our society.
Instead of 'dragging people down', why don't we aspire to lift everyone up?
Of course, that would mean people paying more tax.
I'm happy to do so.
You?
Of course, that would mean people paying more tax.
I’m happy to do so.
You already can pay more than you are required to, so I assume you do...
A different question. 🙂
If private schools were abolished, I'd be happy to pay more tax to fund the state sector.
You?
will only result in dragging everyone down to a lower level
Dear me, your education was wasted on you, JP. You didn't grasp the basics. My wife still teaches, she often comes out with the opposite expression "tirer vers le haut" to justify mixed ability classes.
The problem is come election time the majority votes for the “Ill make you richer” party instead of the “Ill charge you more for better services” mob.
I'd rather people had the choice, Rusty, rather than just proposing a ban for cheap playing to the galleries.
Obviously, this in no way means I don't want state education to improve. Far from it.
Also, every child who is educated privately has parents who effectively are paying for an untaken school place. Good funding model, shirley?
Rusty Spanner
Subscriber
Yes, abolish them.
The ‘many people work hard to send their kids to private school’ argument is blinkered and arrogant.
Many people work equally as hard just to survive.I see nothing positive in private education.
Divisive and promotes a sense of superiority which poisons our society.Instead of ‘dragging people down’, why don’t we aspire to lift everyone up?
Of course, that would mean people paying more tax.
I’m happy to do so.
You?
Self righteous and having a complete lack of understanding of the sector in one post. You're doing well tonight.
JP
You already can pay more than you are required to, so I assume you do…
So it can be spent on more illegal wars and tax breaks for the rich, that would be silly. You missed the proviso that the tax would be spent on a fairer education system, Flashy. But then you specialise in reading selectively and making provocative comments that demonstrate voluntarily poor reading and understanding skills. It that result of your education?
Question from a Scottish perspective: my understanding is that all teachers used to be expected to engage in extra-curricular sports/societies etc, but after the mid-80s strikes this arrangement broke down in the state sector and now only continues in the private sector (despite private teachers being paid pretty much the same). Was that the dynamic and is this still the case? If, all else being equal, private schools were abolished/nationalised I guess extra-curricular would cease across the board?
Sod it. Not worth the effort.
I’d rather people had the choice, Rusty, rather than just proposing a ban for cheap playing to the galleries.
I don't think it is just playing to the cheap seats. I see it a fundamental step to ensuring equality of opportunity.
Self righteous and having a complete lack of understanding of the sector in one post. You’re doing well tonight.
I see it as a counterpoint to the arrogance and entitlement displayed by some of those who are pro public school.
You can take it any way you like. 🙂
Flashy, happy to engage in a debate without getting personal.
It's a topic that needs airing.
Rusty, I get the ambition, but have to disagree. I cant see how this would help state education. More pupils flooding in, increased postcode pressure to buy property in catchment areas etc.
It's just cheap point scoring bashing Eton toffs, sadly. There are no proposals to actually improve anything, just keep banning and taxing.
(Edit - nothing personal pointed at you, Rusty old fruit! I wouldn't, and hope you know that! Please accept my apologies if I overstepped somewhere)
jjprestidge how much are the fees you pay? I'll bet you are in the richest 20% of the country if you would reveal your salary ( I won't blame you if you don't but I would be interested in how much the fees are)
CFH - it would improve state education by getting all those active interested parents involved and thus they would pressure the school system to improve - and those motivate middle class kids would be an example to the others and even mentor others from less advantaged backgrounds
I have seen this work - I was one of the middle class kids in a comp.
CFH – it would improve state education by getting all those active interested parents involved and thus they would pressure the school system to improve – and those motivate middle class kids would be an example to the others and even mentor others from less advantaged backgrounds
There is mileage in this argument. There are studies suggesting that the presence of high attaining kids in classes can help the education of those that are lower attaining without adversely affecting their own education.
Self righteous and having a complete lack of understanding of the sector in one post.
Whilst you throw all the pedagogical content in your various courses out of the window because it conflicts your gung-ho-private-schools-are-ace personal crusade, JP. I suggest you spent too long in them, Stockholm syndrome. There was one elitist on the PGCE course I did, but most teachers were intent on doing their best for the whole of society, and some revelled in working in the poorest inner city schools because that was where they felt they were needed the most and got the most out of their work.
TJ - I looked at Private for my youngest. It was 14000/year. He was offered a 40% academic scholarship, but wanted to go to the Grammar he got offered a place at.
14000/yr is about standard for a “normal” private school. Top tier ones are up to 40k
No offence taken Flash, it wasn't aimed at you.
More pupils flooding in, increased postcode pressure to buy property in catchment areas etc.
The buildings and infrastructure will still be there, so a moot point.
It would involve a fundamental change in approach, taking into account all we've learned in the past century or so.
It would have to be undertaken with the cooperation of everyone involved with the objective of benefitting society as a whole.
Sadly, I think we may be beyond that now, the cult of the individual has bitten too deeply.
Something encouraged and promoted by those already in a position of privilege.
The building and infrastructure is owned by a private company. Are we turning into Zimbabwe?
A concrete example, Athray. Junior did German and as there were enough kids for nearly a class they were all put together. This created something of an elite class because the bright kids tended to do German, which given where we are isn't really acceptable. So the remaining places were taken by difficult kids I'll politely describe a socially deprived.
It worked really well, kids that might have caused trouble were caught up in generally positive mood and the doctors and dentists' kids got to mix with kids who weren't from a privileged elite. Win, win. The problems start when you have classes with a majority who don't want to be there or exclusively a self-serving elite with contempt for anyone 'below' them.
'Charitable Foundation' surely? 🙂
Perhaps we could attempt to turn into a society where equality of opportunity is something to aspire to, rather than something to be mocked by those who would rather benefit at the expense of the most vulnerable.
No offence taken Flash
At yet with the exception of his jolly jolly contributions to ski, posh car, posh holiday, posh travel, posh tat... threads that's mainly what he's here for, to provoke and offend.
He's watching this thread but making no contribution beyond provocation about tax and yet his whole STW persona is built around the public school p... . A sort of STW JRM. And therein lies the problem with British society from where I'm sitting which is why Flash never communicates with me other than to try and take the Micky and I play the role I assume he expects me play.
In an ideal world equal opportunity for all sounds great. In reality it means dumbing down to the lowest common denominator.
Take aviation, my industry. We now have EASA (Europe wide) regulations and safety regulations. That undoubtedly improved things in the worst country, but the safest/best practice authorities (UK/Germany/Scandinavia) had there rules diluted . The airlines who see maximum duty times and maximum annual flight totals as targets rather than maximums loved it and productivity increased (Read that as work their pilots harder with less rest)
So jjprestidge who claims not to be rich is paying somewhere around £14000 pa for a child to go to private school ( or presumably a similar amount?) to have that much discretionary spend means you are rich. No question at all.
Put it this way - I earn just over the average wage - around £32000 pa. I take home around £22000 pa. My house costs me in total a very small amount of around £5000 pa including bills So that school fee would be more than I have left after eating.
On £32000 pa I know I am rich. To be able to afford school fees in that sort of area you must be rich indeed
....that’s mainly what he’s here for, to provoke and offend.
We've all said things that could be taken as provocative and offensive over the many years we've been on here.
The trick is not to be provoked or offended. 🙂
I'd be happy to go for a drink and a chat with pretty much anyone on here.
Especially those with a sense of perspective and humour.
Anyone for an amusing interlude?
Yes, of course, I hear you cry!
https://twitter.com/twlldun/status/1176210007140052992?s=19
mainly what he’s here for, to provoke and offend.
Dry your eyes, sweet cheeks.
The problems start when you have classes with a majority who don’t want to be there or exclusively a self-serving elite with contempt for anyone ‘below’ them.
Problems that won't be touched by abolishing private schools.
The poorer schools will still be the victim of their own geography.
The rich will still cluster and "support" the school that their priveliged postcode has bought them.
Rusty - I’m all for raising standards across the board. I do believe in selection, ambition and competition though.
The problems start when you have classes with a majority who don’t want to be there or exclusively a self-serving elite with contempt for anyone ‘below’ them.
I’d disagree, in that IME you do not need anywhere near a majority of children who don’t want to be there to undermine a class and destroy the chances of those who want to learn. In extreme cases one can be enough.
On the flip side, I have never known a private school class entirely (or even substantially) populated by a self serving elite with contempt for those ‘below’ them.
The poorer schools will still be the victim of their own geography.
The rich will still cluster and “support” the school that their priveliged postcode has bought them.
Yep. Unavoidable. A nice leafy village school will differ massively from one in a deprived inner city location. A tough circle to square.
I’m all for raising standards across the board. I do believe in selection, ambition and competition though.
Yep. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
These things happen in the state sector as well.
And equality of opportunity does not mean that they would cease.
A nice leafy village school will differ massively from one in a deprived inner city location.
Abolishing private education has nothing to do with that.
It's a separate issue which needs to be addressed.
Dry your eyes, sweet cheeks.
The trick is not to be provoked or offended. 🙂
What this public schools debate is really is an expression of a class war. Britain has been divided on the basis of class since the dark ages and the public school system is the most blatant expression of it, and the means by which it is perpetuated. Not surprising then that a Labour party that wishes to get back to its roots has the destruction of public schools as policy.
Edit: and Flash has joined the debate. 😉
No indeed it doesn’t. Equally, funding education properly and a credible long term strategy doesn’t require destruction of the private system just to please The green eyed monsters.
The abolition of private schools
Crikey 😮
Where I come from we prefer to them as private or fees paying schools. Public school ... err ... me not English so not sure where that term comes from.
There is an entrance exam and the class size is minimum 45 students.
If students do not pass at the end of the year with average 50% they cannot move on to the next level. They have 3 chances.
All private schools (my part of the world) Do Not get govt funding at all. Nil. All based on donation from the community and fees.
That's really annoying isn't it, Chewkw, In Britain private schools are called public schools.
You realise he was a wealthy bloke who had intelligent and good looking kids?
Handsome!!
And his stunning dad with some other bloke.
It only has to be a war if you see it as such.
If you truly believe in equality, see it as an opportunity to create a fairer society.
The desire to 'punish' people is just a negative, destructive aspect of human nature, indulged in by unpleasant people, no matter how they self identify.
This isn’t the Corbyn thread.Handsome!!
A nice leafy village school will differ massively from one in a deprived inner city location. A tough circle to square.
Which can be squared with sufficient resources for the deprived inner city school. Positive descrimination to provide more investment in inner city schools to reduce class sizes, provide the range of activities that are provide by parents in leafy vilages, provide services in school that kids don't have at home or in the community because they are poor. The community can also benefit from these fascilities outside of school hours.
That’s really annoying isn’t it, Chewkw, In Britain private schools are called public schools.
Yes, that is confusing when I first landed on British soil. Still is ...
What's with this grammar school, public school, private, academic etc ... just confusing.
It only has to be a war if you see it as such.
The rich have been waging war on and 'punishing' the poor forever, when very often the only crime being poor. Seeing it as an opportuity is rare, most of the poor are resigned to their fate.
Vive la révolution ! 🙂
But seriously, listening to some of the Labour speakers at the conference today the message was class war but dressed up in fancy language.
Labour going further left allows Conservatives to go further right while still managing their margin over Labour.
Don't think this is a good thing.
2 Grammar schools got more ppf than the state schools the rest get less. Except that just recently 16 Grammar schools split a £50 million pound pot to create 4000 places. Don't think any 16 non grammars can make that claim.
Selective and specialist state (grammar but not grammar schools) can access more and different sources of funding because they are 'special'
Plus being selective they don't have to deal with all those expensive kids with extra needs etc
Labour going further left allows Conservatives to go further right while still managing their margin over Labour.
If the one party move's left the other parties move left to hoover up the votes from the 'less left people' abandoned by the first party safe in the knowledge their core vote have nowhere else to go.
Hence May trying to sort out social care and Boris going full on pork barrel.
Probably irrelevant since unless something changes the coming election is going to be about Brexit and nothing else.
So something needs to be done, Chromolyolly, because the current funding system is grossly unfair, so Labour have a point. I'm not sure that threatening (idly) to shut down public schools is going to be good for Labour. I'm absolutely certain that taxing the ****ers and promising to spend the proceeds on the most needy schools would be a vote winner. But the people at the Labour conference aren't interested in votes, just their class war.
I’m absolutely certain that taxing the **** and promising to spend the proceeds on the most needy schools would be a vote winner.
I think you’re being overly optimistic about human nature. I think that when a politician speaks of the ‘most needy’, a not insignificant number of voters hear ‘scroungers’ or ‘scum’.
And yeah, unless we’re out on October 31 (and assuming no election before then), it’ll be a winner determines brexit election. What a mess.
The rich have been waging war on and ‘punishing’ the poor forever, when very often the only crime being poor.
Which is why I'm a socialist.
Vive la révolution ! 🙂
Hmmm. The reason we don't have revolutions in the UK is because we are very, very good at them. We killed 4% of the population during the last one.
I think that when a politician speaks of the ‘most needy’, a not insignificant number of voters hear ‘scroungers’ or ‘scum’.
The press barons have a lot to answer for.
I think that when a politician speaks of the ‘most needy’, a not insignificant number of voters hear ‘scroungers’ or ‘scum’.
The post '79 experiment has succeeded then hasn't it?
The creation of an underclass which can be viewed as less than human and deserving of hatred and contempt.
People who hold such views exemplify the worst traits of humanity.
This is what happens when willful ignorance, greed and selfishness are lauded as positive attributes.
If you truly believe in equality, see it as an opportunity to create a fairer society.
It won't be though, it will just mean house prices go up in certain postcodes. What is also not considered is that there are a lot of minority religious private schools, are they going the same way as Eton? I'm sure that will go down well with the core vote.
Labour going further left allows Conservatives to go further right while still managing their margin over Labour
Or move into the centre that's been vacated
The creation of an underclass which can be viewed as less than human and deserving of hatred and contempt.
People who hold such views exemplify the worst traits of humanity.
This is what happens when willful ignorance, greed and selfishness are lauded as positive attributes.
The underclass has always existed, there has always been the ones who survive working the system. Just like there have been those who work hard in crap jobs and try and make sure their kids get more opportunities than they did. The people who hate the underclass the most are the working working class because they live with them, put up with the attendant antisocial behaviour and low level crime and wonder why people who won't work are called working class
What is also not considered is that there are a lot of minority religious private schools, are they going the same way as Eton? I’m sure that will go down well with the core vote.
I think the vast majority of the population is sick of religion and those desperate to justify their ignorance and prejudice under it's protective wings.
Banning religious schools would be a massive step forward.
As would ensuring that state schools from nursery onward had a mix of kids from various religious backgrounds.
Much work, many lifetimes.
The underclass has always existed, there has always been the ones who survive working the system. Just like there have been those who work hard in crap jobs and try and make sure their kids get more opportunities than they did. The people who hate the underclass the most are the working working class because they live with them, put up with the attendant antisocial behaviour and low level crime and wonder why people who won’t work are called working class
That depends on your view of humanity.
If you give people the opportunity of decent, paid work, an opportunity to support their families and aspire to something better then they make a positive contribution to society.
We all benefit.
If you destroy peoples opportunities, remove their hope, marginalise their views, undermine their identity and destroy their communities and support networks, how do you expect them to behave?
We are a malleable species, capable of immense good and unbelievable evil.
Banning religious schools would be a massive step forward.
European Convention on Human Rights, Protocol 1, Article 2:
the right of parents to have their children educated in accordance with their religious and other views, allowing groups to educate children without being impeded by the nation state.
Presumably applies to all private schools.
Give it a month I guess...
Give it a month I guess…
In Rochdale, Rotherham, and Broughton I'd give it to the end of the week
I was state educated. I worked bloody hard and continue to do so and am fortunate to have done OK. I genuinely do mean fortunate enough. I appreciate what I have.
As a result, despite paying more than the average amount of tax and national insurance to fund state education and the NHS, I have elected to educate solarider jnr in the independent school system and to provide private healthcare for the family. This means that I fund a service that I don’t use but don’t begrudge that on the basis that somebody else benefits.
Whilst we are comfortable we are not amazingly wealthy. We therefore have to make sacrifices to afford the privilege. It is wrong to assume that everybody that makes the choice can easily afford it. The school gate is a mixture of brand new Range Rovers and decidedly bangernomics cars.
I do agree that funding a private school place should not cost the country more than a state school place and the charitable status needs to be addressed.
I firmly believe that every parent wants a better chance for their children than they had. As such, if that parent elects to give that child what they perceive to be a better education, and they are prepared to pay for it, they should be allowed to. Whether a private education is better or worse is not clear cut. But what I can’t deny is that solarider jnr’s class size is smaller, the parent to pupil ratio is lower, the expectation placed on the students is higher and there is no lowest common denominator approach to anything. They are taught to be as good as their abilities will permit. If that same education were on offer in the state system, I would certainly be happy not to pay for it on moral grounds.
I guess in life there are have nots, have littles, have a bits and have lots. That will never change. Bitterness, jealousy, arrogance and political difference on all sides are as certain as death and taxes. What unites us all is riding bikes, and don’t get started on whether expensive bikes should be abolished......
People should not be allowed to buy an advantage for their own kids
I didn’t realise that state schools these days require parents to pay for text books.
As to this whole ban private schools it’s nothing more than vote winning sound bite, the politics of envy to avoid any actual discussion of things that really do matter
These things happen in the state sector as well.
And equality of opportunity does not mean that they would cease.
A nice leafy village school will differ massively from one in a deprived inner city location.
Abolishing private education has nothing to do with that.
It’s a separate issue which needs to be addressed.
It's not a separate issue at all.
The claim is that abolishing private schools is motivated by creating equally of opportunity.
The fact is that there's massive inequality in the state school sector.
There are outstanding schools and there are poor ones.
And the way that our system works, good schools drive house price rises, and exclusivity based on wealth. Within the state system.
And for a family trapped by poverty in a poor catchment, their motivated child has more chance of achieving that "equality of opportunity" through bursary or scholarship than through the state system.
The other way out, of course, is religion . And it's interesting that the same people would ban religious schools too. But that is a sepperate issue.
The wealthy will always have choice. They can choose where they live.
The fact is that abolishing private schools isn't about "equality of opportunity".
I have elected to educate solarider jnr in the independent school system and to provide private healthcare for the family. This means that I fund a service that I don’t use but don’t begrudge that on the basis that somebody else benefits.
Actually you still use both services. Private health care does not cover emergency treatment nor some other healthcare needs and private schools use teacher trained in the state system as does Private health use staff trained at the states cost.
also to be able to afford both you must be in the richest few % of the country.