To be annoyed that private schools have charity funding.

[Olympiathequeen]

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?

I think a lot of the time these facilities are worked for and paid for by the students parents at the private schools. If you were to spread that money out no facility would be bought as it would be spread too thin.

Why is an educational charity less deserving than a charity preserving houses, or looking after the sick?

I can't quite believe I've read this. Unless you mean educational charity as in "providing school equipment in Malawi" type thing, rather than providing elitist educational services to children in a country with free education.

Lol at "educational charity".

Head

The point I was trying to make wrt admissions (perhaps badly) is that as we don't interview (a huge mistake IMO but hey ho), we only have personal statements and predicted grades or actual grades to go on.

Generally speaking private schools "coach" their students on how to write personal statements and obviously they put a lot of effort into ensuring they end up with decent grades. So they look great on paper. However when they arrive (some obviously, many are of course very intelligent), it quickly becomes apparent that they have very little natural intelligence; they've simply been taught to express themselves in the correct and most desired manner.

I suppose many would say "well that's why I send my dc to private school, so they get the best outcome they can". However it's not fair on a state school candidate from a disadvantaged background who in some cases is much more intelligent than the privately educated candidate but simply hasn't been "coached". The result is many universities simply end up with clones.

I went to university and so did my DH, and we both value education and earn a fairly decent wage. This means our own dc are naturally more advantaged over children from disadvantaged backgrounds whose parents did not attend university and/or do not value education. I see no reason, and in fact believe it to be morally wrong, to perpetuate that advantage even further by sending my dc to private school.

From my own anecdotal experience I went to two schools, one for my GCSEs and another for my A levels. First one was inner city East London comp, 35% GCSE pass rate, 75% boys. Most of the middle class parents in the catchment area chose to go private or send to grammar school. The result was the school was largely one demographic of fairly disadvantaged children. Standards low. Teachers didn't expect much.

Second school in similar area but no privates or grammars nearby. Much more mixed socio economic demographic. Standards much much higher. Teachers expected more. Results better.

I've heard many parents say why should I send my child to a shit school for the benefit of other children? Fine. But if that attitude persists then basically society will always be ruled by a handful of privileged individuals. It shouldn't be that way.

And again anecdotally, I went to a "shit" school and got good GCSEs, 4 A grade A levels and a first class degree (and then an MA) from a RG university.

" let them deal with all the rich idiots as well"

I thought there was a thriving subset of schools which did precisely that.

This thread does, indeed, smack of vitriolic jealousy in places. It is a little disingenuous to describe it as an "ethical" objection when there is plenty of evidence that independent schools support social mobility in places where the state cannot, or when no-one seems to object to good state schools that are only accessible to those who can buy their way into the catchment area.

You know Academies and Free Schools are charities, don't you? Academies can reclaim VAT on costs associated with educating their pupils; independent schools cannot.

Some useful facts on the economic argument here, if anyone really has an open mind:

www.isc.co.uk/research/independent-schools-economic-impact-report/

You lost me when you started arguing with economics rather than ethics.

ELITIST!!! Hilarious.

That's like saying why buy a car when you can use public transport? Why get a Mercedes when you can drive a fiat panda? Why have private health care when you can use the MHS? Why buy a house when you can rent?

Why can't people just live and let live? Never known a bigger bunch of babies in my life.

I'm intrigued that no one has discussed the research that I linked to upthread.
This is the link

And this is the opening sentence:
'Countries with a higher proportion of children in private schools do better in exams, research published today by Harvard academics shows.'

Also I'm not sure of the relevance of this:
Second school in similar area but no privates or grammars nearby.
'Nearby', in my experience, makes bugger all difference. I know kids who travel more than miles to get to a grammar school.

There are ethical implications in all the decisions you mention, mum .
Live and let live didn't apply to the poster who thought it would be ludicrous for someone "from the local comp" to be running the country. Our decisions have impact in the real world.

"there is plenty of evidence that independent schools support social mobility in places where the state cannot" could you link to this evidence, please? "or when no-one seems to object to good state schools that are only accessible to those who can buy their way into the catchment area" Lots of people- including several names I recognise on this thread do object very strongly to this

That's like saying why buy a car when you can use public transport? Why get a Mercedes when you can drive a fiat panda? Why have private health care when you can use the MHS? Why buy a house when you can rent?

Yep, this.

I meant NHS

Bertrand, there is a lovely case study upthread from someone who benefitted from a bursary, something that nearly all independent schools offer to poor children. Schools with charitable status have to file their annual reports with the Charities Commission; these will contain details of financial support to disadvantaged pupils as well as other charitable activities.

There was also the Assisted Places scheme, scrapped in 1997:

www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/lasting-benefits-the-long-term-legacy-of-the-assisted-places-scheme-for-assisted-place-holders/

This was well-known for its social mobility impact, particularly among poorer pupils who lived in areas without grammar schools. Why Tony Blair's administration scrapped it still baffles me.

I have strong political and philosophical objections to private education. To paraphrase Alan Bennett, if anyone completes a private school education without concluding that private schools should be abolished, this school has not provided them with a very good education.

However. As things stand now, obviously those people rich enough are able to buy what is often a much broader education which much more "stuff"- by which I mean cultural capital- in it. That's fine. Free market and all.

What is not fine is suggesting that the same choice is available to anyone if only they tried a bit harder, that private schools are a social good or that they have a right to the tax breaks available to charities. Or that people who go to state schools are somehow inferior.

My dd has a pony. When anyone said something about it, she used to say "Yes, I know I am very lucky".

Completely agree with that, Bertrand

Applauds Bertrand (DH and graduates of bog standard comps - he ended up at Cambridge I did as well as I could have done RG university now both lawyers). Our kids will be going to the local state school.

There is such a broad spectrum of academic potential and achievement, muddied by a wide variation in both pupil and parental ambition, that there naturally follows a broad spectrum of products and funding systems designed to meet those needs and wants. It should be self-evident that the same choices cannot be available to everyone. That is going to lead to a degree of jealousy, in the same way that I am jealous of my neighbour's BMW while I have to make do with a Dacia. But my reaction to that is to get on with life, not call for him to be brought down a notch and forced into a Dacia too, which is what a lot on here are effectively asking for.

"Elite" is such a loaded word in education, but I think we have to hold our noses and recognise that independent schooling has a place. It makes no sense to me that if we want an education system (comprised of all its constituent parts) which provides the nation with the best overall level of attainment available with the resources that we are prepared to allocate to it then we should start by sawing off the privately-funded top tier, which is the likely outcome of removing charitable status as so many have pointed out.

However much I might wish to be, I am not the boss of this thread

But can I beg people not to use the "jealousy" or "chip on the shoulder" cards? There is a very interesting discussion to be had. But it can't be had if we don't believe anyone who says that these things are not factors in their thinking.

OP You say you don't see why you should pay for their choice. Childless people could say the same - why should they pay for your choice to have children and send them to state school ?

Spice

One of mychildren has just moved from private into state. Costing the tax payer a lot more than a few £100 a term for the price of the school place. Saved myself around £7,500 a year though by taking up that state school place (that I was already contributing towards and not using.)

That's like saying why buy a car when you can use public transport? Why get a Mercedes when you can drive a fiat panda? Why have private health care when you can use the MHS? Why buy a house when you can rent?

The reasons why these things are not the same as private education have been discussed numerous times upthread. You have to be really dense to not realise they aren't the same thing. At all.

You can argue economics all you want to, and as I said before I haven't got all the answers, but essentially it is, to me, not ok that children from wealthier families have access to a vastly superior education than others by virtue of their parents having more money. I don't really see how you can argue with that when most of the people with power in this country have been privately educated.

YANBU!! It's outrageous. I'm totally against fee-paying and selective education, for the reasons Bertrand has so eloquently outlined upthread.

Someone rang in to ask this question on Radio 4's Moneybox this week, but they were so incoherent they didn't really get the point across.

"Why Tony Blair's administration scrapped it still baffles me."

• they used the money to fund the Infant Class Size limit
• it was easier to abolish it than fix the criticisms surrounding some admissions

and more speculatively

• general disapprobation of private schools
• ending a Tory education measure, and because it was one of their administrations earliest measures a 'we're in charge now' statement