to think the state should pay part of our private school fees?

[wolvesarejustoldendaydogs]

Don't jump down my throat! It's just a thought.

State schools are overcrowded and there aren't enough good ones. Private schools are expensive.

What if every child had a right to have their state school 'payment' (whatever it costs per child per year') paid to a private school? Obviously parents would have to top-up (probably a considerable amount).

That would create a bit of a market, with more choice, making private schools more affordable and state ones less overcrowded.

Or is it a stupid idea for a reason I will think of soon after pressing 'POST'?

I think kitty is speaking with heavy irony, noble giraffe!

I hope so! But then some people on here do seem to think that way, which planted a seed of doubt.

I expect that Eton College would continue as a charity but rent out its buildings to the College At Eton. The nominal rent would be used for charitable purposes by Eton College to pay for two scholarships for state school kids.

Anyway the state pays loads of money to bankers for doing F*ck all. Private ed at Eton is paid for by the state.

ReallyTired

"Anyway the state pays loads of money to bankers for doing F*ck all. Private ed at Eton is paid for by the state."

Except that financial services is the largest single contributor to tax revenue in this country. Oh and the bank I work for didn't receive a penny of taxpayers money. So I don't really see how the state is funding my children's education (admittedly at a prep school not Eton).

I think the motto of this thread should be
"Don't let facts get in the way of prejudice"

I am still mystified that people can think that breaking up 7% of the education system is going to transform 93% of it.

That IMO is delusional, given that breaking up the bulk of the Grammar schools had very little impact.

The reform has to start within the comprehensive system, other countries get better results from their Comps, but then they don't use them as political footballs and social service auxilliary services nearly as much.

Has anyone talked about breaking up the 7%? I have talked about removing it's charitable status- but not abolishing it. (when I'm world dictator though...)

The economic situation is breaking it up. I was chatting to someone today and the private school that she teaches in is losing pupils, they have had to lose staff. They are not alone.

What seeker said.

Chazs ^Oh and the bank I work for didn't receive a penny of taxpayers money. So I don't really see how the state is funding my children's education (admittedly at a prep school not Eton).

I think the motto of this thread should be
"Don't let facts get in the way of prejudice"^

Oh and the bank you worked for would have crumbled if the others had not been propped up by the taxpayer, so I think yes actually if you have a banking job, you should thank the taxpayers the state, unless the motto of the post would be "Don't let the full picture get in the way of prejudice"

Anyone who works in banking in the west, where the market has not been allowed to fail, should be a little more humble about having a livelihood.

Chazs ^Oh and the bank I work for didn't receive a penny of taxpayers money. So I don't really see how the state is funding my children's education (admittedly at a prep school not Eton).

I think the motto of this thread should be
"Don't let facts get in the way of prejudice"^

Oh and the bank you worked for would have crumbled if the others had not been propped up by the taxpayer, so I think yes actually if you have a banking job, you should thank the taxpayers the state, unless the motto of the post would be "Don't let the full picture get in the way of prejudice"

Anyone who works in banking in the west, where the market has not been allowed to fail, should be a little more humble about having a livelihood.

so good it posted twice...

thirdhill no I'm afraid you are wrong again as suggest you clearly don't have the full picture - so lets agree to disagree- otherwise we are going to end up highjacking someone else's thread.

I agree with your motto
Don't let the full picture get in the way of prejudice

I attribute my crumbling humour to finding DC upset at yet another post, a favourite teacher of a certain age, in one of London's best comps being axed. Super selective grammar that trounces most private schools virtually begging for money every week. DCs at public and independent are seeing no change, though I accept that those more at the margin of the private sector may be seeing reductions, exoticfruits. DCs of bankers are not that popular in any of the schools, the veneer of civility IRL does not mean we've forgotten what they owe to the state.

Do you work in an Eastern bank, chaz?

If not, you owe the state.

Barclays didn't take any bail out money iirc.

The thing I found galling about those banks that were nailed out was the way they were essentially gambling. When they were winners they were rewarded handsomely, when they lost it all, the taxpayer took the hit and they are STILL rewarded handsomely, while the people who saved them are penalised massively.

Barclays did benefit from the US bailout. And all banks benefited from the bail out and from subsequent government interventions to prop up the banking system - quantitative easing is a way of magically giving the banks loadsamoney. If the govt. had allowed RBS to go bust, the rest would have been in big trouble too.

What you're proposing is not that different than what the Blair Labour Govt did with patient choice for elective operations, where patients could hoose private providers if they wished (who were paid the same price as the NHS). Potential problems were cherry picking, where the NHS got all the complex (and hence more expensive) cases. I can imagine an analogy with education here too.

I always thought it was fascinating that a labour Govt did that with NHS funding when one of their very first actions in office was to abolish assisted places, under which poorer students were funded by the state to attend private schools.

removing private schools' charitable status will only make them the preserve of the wealthy to an even more significant extent. it is a pointless, spiteful gesture which will not improve the lot of the state-educated one jot.

removing private schools' charitable status will only make them the preserve of the wealthy to an even more significant extent. it is a pointless, spiteful gesture which will not improve the lot of the state-educated one jot

Bingo. A better trick is to allow the schools to get government funding for places for bright but poor kids....

I don't think it's spiteful to remove charitable status from something that's not a charity!

"removing private schools' charitable status will only make them the preserve of the wealthy to an even more significant extent. it is a pointless, spiteful gesture which will not improve the lot of the state-educated one jot"

"Bingo. A better trick is to allow the schools to get government funding for places for bright but poor kids...."

We are all against spitefulness. However there's a lot of it about, isn't there?

I'm very happy to pay higher fees even if that makes as much/little a difference to the economy as removing a hot lunch from a deeply deprived child. It's an easy gesture and may make a difference. If I couldn't afford the fees, I'd send my DCs to state school. I wouldn't expect poorer people who are not as greedy as I am to pay for me what little some say removing charitable status will raise. Or accuse them of spitefulness.

This "preserve of the wealthy" mantra is what holds us back. BRIC type countries don't have this issue. Everyone thinks they can be wealthy if that's what they want, they just have to figure it out. Private education is like private health. Buy if you can, don't if you can't. The better independents will do their best for you when you're there. If your postman dad and shop assistant mum do six other jobs to pay the fees, some teachers will probably go the extra mile for you because they're human. They won't think your money isn't "wealthy" money.

"I'm very happy to pay higher fees even if that makes as much/little a difference to the economy as removing a hot lunch from a deeply deprived child."

The present govenant is proposing to do just that with the universal credit system. I would rather state money was spent on extending free school dinners to people who are on the minimum wage like your postman.

"Buy if you can, don't if you can't. The better independents will do their best for you when you're there. If your postman dad and shop assistant mum do six other jobs to pay the fees, some teachers will probably go the extra mile for you because they're human. They won't think your money isn't "wealthy" money."

State school teachers often go that extra mile. My son's teachers are amazing.

Stricter criteria for charitable status is a good idea. Some schools have certainly widened their access due to being scrutinised for how charitable they are. Ds's school isn't a charity so no bursaries or scholarships on offer at prep age and limited at senior school stage.

seeker: if you close down all the charitable private schools (for that is the effect, which some might see as spiteful, of removing charitable status and forcing sale) what happens? There just aren't enough exceedingly rich people/groups who could buy them out as going concerns. So most will have to close, and all pupils in all year groups will have to find an alternative.

If not British and a boarder, they may go to a different country. Forces pupils and OGD ones have automatic access to FAP, and so will queue jump into many schools and what will happen to the boarders? And then what about all the other UK day pupils (of every year group). I'm not aware of a surplus of school places, so it will mean creating c.200,000 new school places in totally random parts of the country. Difficult. And vastly more expensive.

What makes you think they would have to close down?

Do you really not see the irony in having a charity which only benefits people who are richer than most people??