to hate it when people talk about "indie" schools

[gobehindabushfgs]

in an attempt to make it sound cool, edgy and alternative? it isn't. it's private education. it's a right-wing, ultimately selfish decision.

"indie"

UQD, how would the unsatisfactory state school in my area be improved simply by my sending my children there, instead of the local private school?

Well actually Joan that's pretty much what I did do given where I lived.
KS2 SATs at catchment 95%L4, 75%L5. High GCSE and Alevel results at my local comp. In no way did I expect higher results or an easier path into university by paying. I would be surprised if the results were anything other than similar tbh.

Where we lived, the cheapest catchment house cost upwards of 500k. Little girls had ballet and horse-riding and the boys played touch rugby. The average price of a car on the road to the local primary would be about 50k.

I bought my children no social or economic advantage whatsoever. Just extras.

I went to a direct grant school.
My parents served overseas.
I later went to a public school.
Later, I heard of a private school...

they were all the same school; all that happened was that the Direct Grant - which allowed bright or difficult boys from the county to come to the school - was abolished so the social mix altered.

I was a boarder, but lots of the kids were localish (up to 2 hours on a bus every day) and their parents made sacrifices to get them there.

If you move to get your kids into a good school, or you go to church to get them into a faith school, or you let them apply for competitive bursaries... evidently you don't believe in state education.

I didn't like my school that much; it did, however, make me confident, physically capable a- and gave me an aspiration for education. That mattered 30 odd years ago.

My kids? ExDW sent them to private primary until we separated (she wanted me to pay the mortgage, £500 a month maintenance and school fees; a little impractical on £1100 take home); they later went to faith based schools (yes, they/we had been to church all their lives and before) and one went to a local 6th form college, and the other on a bursary to a private school.

I think indie sounds awful as a school; I think it is up to parents and children where they go to school.

The wails of "It's not fair" make me wish I could shout "But life's not fair! make the best of your opportunities and stop trying to drag other crabs back into the bucket"

Lefties want equality of access to health and education. If that means withdrawing 'privileges' from some people and levelling down, so be it.

They would rather we all suffered equally than some people do better than others.

Your child, probably not much. ALl the kids whose parents turn their nose up and whisk them out elsewhere, probably go about the place talking about how their only choice was X school and it wasn't good enough thus sullying its name still further - loads.

Theposieparker? I don't understand, sorry. Are you saying there's enough money floating around the economy because some parents use it to pay?
So are you advocating means tested state education so those who can afford to pay, do so in order to fund better provision? Wow!

I don't think anyone has said (still less wailed) 'it's not fair'. It's not RIGHT.

Private school parents at the same time manage to tell themselves that lefties, or state users, resent the fact they can't 'buy better' and so begrudge it to everyone else, and at the same time claim that what they've bought is nothing specially good, doesn't really improve exam grades, and is nothing more than lovely extras ....

You'd think with all the much-vaunted debating societies in private schools you might be a bit better at arguing.

But Joan, now you're saying, 'Oh ok, maybe the peverbial collective doesn't apply to you just everyone else who uses private education.'

Ah so you don't believe me? You cannot believe that someone would pay just for the extras. It has to be social or political. It has to be avoidance and fear.

Out of interest , do school fees count as a charitable donation? Are they exempt from tax?

"Your child, probably not much. ALl the kids whose parents turn their nose up and whisk them out elsewhere, probably go about the place talking about how their only choice was X school and it wasn't good enough thus sullying its name still further - loads."

Look, the 'other side' can play cliche bingo as well. HOW does it make a difference, exactly? And I don't mean in terms of 'reputation'. I mean results, teaching, behaviour and expectations.

This always seems to me to be the problem with this argument. If those who oppose private education think that choosing it damages state education, then explain to me how and why. If it doesn't damage state education, then leave us to make our own choices freely.

(And I can also assure you that in my case it is not a question of 'turning one's nose up' and 'whisking' but more a long hard think and prioritising education over other financial choices - hey look, that's two of UQDs cliches for him to tick off).

As I said yesterday, I think it's a bit fat myth that parents who pay do so to avoid something rather than just to gain something.

Norman, I believe they do if you pay for a grandchild - so of course lots of families organise it so that granny ostensibly pays the fees.

Betty, I know you think it's not political or social. It's just that it actually is.

Ok, tell me how then? How was my decision social? My kids mix with the same type of kids they would have done at our local school although their independent school was more racially and culturally mixed?

I would remove charitable status then. I cannot see how this status is justified with a few bursaries.

Although I remember Dulwich College let the state schools use its playing fields which was nice of them. More of that kind of thing would be nice.

oh now, let me get it straight - you're the one whose local school's catchment area was only for millionaires and so you didn't go on holiday so you could pay for school fees at the school where everyone is a cleaner and lives above a shop, is that right?

normantebbit, my understanding is that school fees are not tax deductible, no matter who pays them. They are always made out of taxed income.

Most private schools have arrangements to let state schools use their playing fields/theatres/swimming pools etc. Possibly still not enough to justify charitable status, but they are trying.

However, I seem to remember reading one article by a private school head arguing that actually they would all be better off without charitable status as then they could stop the bursaries, and there was some effect to do with reclaiming VAT which meant that they would wind up at least evens, if not in profit.

I'd prefer it if they went the other way, built up more funds for bursaries and could do the needs-blind admission thing like many American universities do.

"oh now, let me get it straight - you're the one whose local school's catchment area was only for millionaires and so you didn't go on holiday so you could pay for school fees at the school where everyone is a cleaner and lives above a shop, is that right? "

Yes, all that's true

I'm serious. We didn't send our children to the local schools because of violence, bullying, poor results, poor choice of GCSE subjects, no sixth form, high staff turnover, and a culture of low expectations.

What I want for my children (and everyone else's as well, actually) is civilised behaviour, kindness and tolerance, every child performing to the best of their ability, proper academic subjects for those who are of that inclination, education to 18 in a school environment, dedicated staff and a culture of hard work and achievement.

Had I sent my children to our local state school, do you think that any amount of middle class whining and grousing on my part in the headmaster's office would make a blind bit of difference?

JoanofArgos

Oh, JoA, was that a touch of ad hominem there? I do believe it was.

I'm not arguing, and I'm unsure why you think I was.

Couple of things:
I'm not a private school parent.

As far as my education went, until the Labour Party abolished Direct Grant schools any boy regardless of income could have got to my old school if suitable.
Even after that many services children did.

Did pupils at the school do better than the local comprehensive?

Very much so; more streaming, more disciplined approach to homework; more competitive exam boards; general higher education expectations. Most years there were half a dozen of so Oxbridge entrants.

So if you went there you were far better off academically. There was also sports, cadets, climbing, drama, music and so on.

Oh, and as a last futile point
It's not RIGHT.
That is, of course, your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions, don't you?

? Not sure if that was directed at me.
Houses in my small catchment starter at about 500k though lots over 1m, yes. Do you not believe me? Would it help if I told you we lived in Mr Osbourne's constituency which is statistically the 2nd most affluent in the country?
Not sure what the rest was about, but I'd really like you to answer my question about my choice having a social affect.

'As far as my education went, until the Labour Party abolished Direct Grant schools any boy regardless of income could have got to my old school if suitable.
Even after that many services children did.'

Well, no, not ANY boy..... because I would imagine there was some sort of cap on numbers, unless I'm being hopelessly naive?

part of UQDs 11:40 post (which I didn't answer because the first part was a bit daft, of course anyone with an ounce of sense doesn't conflate 1&2 )

There are quite good arguments for there being "independent", non-centralised, specialised education in this country. And there are very good arguments for it never depending on the parent's ability to pay.

That is an interesting point - but, how would you see this working in practice? Would whatever you envisage actually benefit the children who most need help or would it in reality allow further segregation of the middle classes.

JoanofArgos yep, my fault. I'd edited.

Any boy in the county who was suitable.

I think at the time you still took Common Entrance so that was high achievers; we had a few assorted guys who's m&d had died, the odd "scrapper". As to how they were chosen - you'd have to look up how the Direct Grant was administered in the North-East of England in the 70s.

A lot of service families, some boys whose dad's had gone there, some sporty types.

Not a terribly high-falutin' academic school, but a busy 6th form with a high rate of university acceptance in the 70s.

Actually, in terms of tax and school fees, if you are very rich and have capital, you can actually get away with paying up to 90% less school fees. Seriously. It's a tax dodge for the very wealthy.

They set up a special "pension fund" or some such, you put in your lump sum - let's say you put in the entire cost of your kids education, £650 000 or whatever - and the "pension" or whatever it is pays your school fees each month, and you get your money back at the end, minus whatever the company charges for this service.

Now that strikes me as being outrageous.