Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be annoyed that private schools have charity funding.

665 replies

Olympiathequeen · 15/12/2016 10:14

They are not charities, they are businesses.

They do little or nothing for the local community.

They benefit by about £750 mil. They part fund bursaries for around half that amount.

Leaving them with a tidy little £300+ million profit at the expense of the taxpayers.

That money is desperately needed for public schools.

WTAF is the government doing?

OP posts:
MissKG · 20/12/2016 22:47

No. immigrants do well because if you are the sort of person who will uproot yourself and strike off into the unknown in search of a better life, you are also at certainly the sort of person who will support and nurture your children to do the best they can at school.

Oh no! That's a nice thought but not necessarily true. People who are immigrants here are not a select bunch of people from their countries who are aspirational or ambitious. They are the lucky few who just managed to escape the horrors of their homeland.

My point Is the idea that the poor are not ambitious or aspirational is one I've only come across in the U.K, poor people in third world countries are VERY ambitious, wether they migrate elsewhere or not.

happygardening · 20/12/2016 22:54

"to ensure they only mix with the right people - the ones they want to mix with in the boardroom and golf course in later life."
Whenever there is this sort of debate someone come out with this stereotypical twoddle. My DS who attended one of the top private boys boarding schools has never set even a toe on a golf course and is unlikely to ever do so. In unlikely event that we need to mix with and use contacts from the "the boardroom" we can do so without searching out school contacts. In the real world people cheerfully stumping up £36K+ a year in school fees will already be mixing with those who live similar lives, they will have mix with all the contacts they might need just by going to for dinner with friends.

MistresssIggi · 20/12/2016 23:41

and obviously they will want their children to go to school with the children of such friends, which perpetuates the need for a haven away from the children of parents with whom you would not be having dinner. It's all just a club, and it only had value in its exclusivity.
they are the lucky few who just managed to escape the horrors of their homeland I think you are mixing up immigrants with refugees. We have quite a few Australian immigrants for example, though I'd agree those man-eating spiders and Wiggles concerts must be pretty harrowing.

MissKG · 21/12/2016 00:10

think you are mixing up immigrants with refugees.

No I'm not. There are others horrors that have driven thousands to the U.K other than war. Severe economic depression, severe unemployment, astronomical inflation rates, oppression, that have all made life unbearable has driven thousands of migrants to the U.K. These are not refugees.

MistresssIggi · 21/12/2016 00:16

Massive generalisation. You wrote "people who are immigrants here" - you cannot claim all or even the majority of our immigrant population had "unbearable" lives and fled "horrors" to come here.

BertrandRussell · 21/12/2016 07:45

" you cannot claim all or even the majority of our immigrant population had "unbearable" lives and fled "horrors" to come here."

No, although many did. BUT they all had the spark to take themselves across the world to seek a better life. It is utter bollocks to talk about the "poor" being ambitious and aspirational. Some are. Some aren't. Just like non poor people really........

BertrandRussell · 21/12/2016 07:48

"No doubt the idea that getting students from D to C at GCSE is more important than getting students from A to A* is part of the reason why some parents favour selective schools (private or grammar)"
Well, it might be for parents who only care about the wants of their own children and not the needs of the majority, yes. In a world of finite resources, choices have to be made. Sometimes very hard choices.

Sixisthemagicnumber · 21/12/2016 08:19

So why make those resources even more Finite by having all Children educated by the state? By having 7% in private education there is more resources to go around the other 93%.
Yes, resources are limited, moreso in some schools as funding isn't equal across all LA's. i don't think it is right that those struggling to get C's are seen as more deserving of help to reach a C than a more able pupil is deserving of help to get an A or am A*. It isn't even about he greater good. It is all about league tables and schools trying to look successful. They don't care about the borderline A students because they have no impact on league tables whereas the borderline C student will have an impact if he doesn't get the C. But let's keep kidding ourselves that it is really about giving less able students a fighting chance.

Headofthehive55 · 21/12/2016 08:21

Therefore you accept it's ok for some children to be sacrificial metal?
all children matter. The poor, certainly, and the less able, but the ones at the higher academic end, yes they matter too.
As I say, sending my bright child to a "good" state school did nothing for her and did nothing to help the majority there. It was good for neither party.

Headofthehive55 · 21/12/2016 08:26

If putting all children together harms the chances of the bright, then surely that is a disservice to our country as we need a group of very bright students to make advances in knowledge etc.
We don't need all students to tend towards the average.

BertrandRussell · 21/12/2016 08:30

"Therefore you accept it's ok for some children to be sacrificial metal?"

Nope. Because there is no sacrifice in getting As not As at GCSE. Unless possibly you want to go to Oxford to read medicine. In which case, you won't get very far if you can't push yourself to the required As.

BertrandRussell · 21/12/2016 08:32

"If putting all children together harms the chances of the bright"

Are you talking about mixed ability teaching? In which case, the research indicates that it's middle ability children who may not do as well as they wouldnin sets, not the higher and lower ability children.

SAHDthatsall · 21/12/2016 08:36

And putting low achieving poor children in a selective independent as suggested by commy Minifingerz will achieve nothing for either party also.

And our 2 boys went to their respective independents because we felt they would enjoy being at those schools and we were lucky that we had that extra choice compared with most. I don't doubt they would achieve similar academic results at the local comp but everything about the all round education and the sports and the sports coaching quality and facilities for that etc etc is why we sent them there... plus loadsa other reasons of which the academic side is just one.

EnthusiasmDisturbed · 21/12/2016 08:37

The amount of children now gaining A* it does make a difference it is not only Oxford and Cambridge that require the highest of exam results

And yes parents will put the needs of their children first before the collective needs of children in society apart from the very few who bang on about it and you have to wonder what is their motive

I guess if you can support your children regardless and hand jobs to them it doesn't matter like saint Corbyn

Headofthehive55 · 21/12/2016 08:40

bertrand that's the very attitude that my child school had. You don't matter. It permeates. It doesn't stop with A and A*. It becomes you don't need better than a C. It doesn't stop you doing anything! Well apart from medicine at Oxford, oh and a few other Uni's in general...but you're bright, and anyway Oxford is so ivory towers...you will have to do it on your own!

BertrandRussell · 21/12/2016 08:42

"And putting low achieving poor children in a selective independent as suggested by commy Minifingerz will achieve nothing for either party also."

"Commy"! Do people really say that any more? How quaintly old fashioned of you!

i do think it's important to point out when people bang on about what an incredible social good private schools are that poor children generally do no receive any social good at all, and low achieving poor children even less. The helicoptering out a couple of bright poor children that some schools do is nothing but a sop to conscience and to the Charity Commission.

BertrandRussell · 21/12/2016 08:47

"had. You don't matter. It permeates. It doesn't stop with A and A*. It becomes you don't need better than a C. "

That's obviously not what I am saying. But feel free to answer what you think I am saying, or what suits your agenda to imagine I'm saying. Because it's easier just to say "all state schools are crap and teach to C" than have a more complex and nuanced discussion.

Headofthehive55 · 21/12/2016 08:47

I don't think stopping children bright children achieve is helping social good either.

BertrandRussell · 21/12/2016 08:52

"don't think stopping children bright children achieve is helping social good either."

No. neither do I. I just don't think the education system should be designed solely with them in mind.

Headofthehive55 · 21/12/2016 08:54

No I'm not saying all state schools do. I am just bringing my experience to the discussion. I'm not that bothered whether they get and A or A*. But I found that the let's focus on the c/d and the less able meant somehow things drifted downward into its ok if you just get a c.
You may have a different experience if state schools.

SexTrainGlue · 21/12/2016 09:07

"No. neither do I. I just don't think the education system should be designed solely with them in mind."

The state one isn't. It's available to all.

There are choices beyond that - non-government schools (businesses or charities, academic or a place to contain TimNiceButDim for a few years, SEN/behavioural specialist) and the whole spectrum of home education.

minifingerz · 21/12/2016 09:10

And putting low achieving poor children in a selective independent as suggested by commy Minifingerz will achieve nothing for either party also."

Ok - what about private schools offering mentoring programmes to low achieving or middle achieving children from the state sector? Or booster classes for these children in their state of the art facilities? Or free summer schools?

Why do they concentrate their charity only on children who are already succeeding in the state sector?

It's like a private hospital offering free private healthcare only to the healthiest people in society and ignoring those whose health is compromised.

In any case for me this argument comes down to one simple principle: should institutions which widen inequality and entrench privilege be given tax breaks?

There are many people who are not ideologically opposed to state sanctioned inequality of opportunity. Usually they are the ones whose children are up the nice end of the UK's uneven educational playing field.

BertrandRussell · 21/12/2016 09:14

""No. neither do I. I just don't think the education system should be designed solely with them in mind."

The state one isn't. It's available to all."

No it isn't. And will become even less so if the grammar school advocates have their way.

Headofthehive55 · 21/12/2016 09:16

I think it has to be a balance. Unfortunately I think in my experience the balance shifted too far to suit the pupils not wanting to work.

My child was sent out of the classroom as she wanted to work, as she was a distraction to the students watching "happy feet". Mid term. Good school, remember!

minifingerz · 21/12/2016 09:21

"And yes parents will put the needs of their children first before the collective needs of children in society apart from the very few who bang on about it and you have to wonder what is their motive"

Some of us feel that other children count too.

It's a fundamentally wrong to support a system which widens educational and social inequalities.

That's all.

There is such a thing as society.