To think that there would be less anti private school

[Poopoolittlekitten]

sentiment or threads on MN if people using private school were a tiny bit more self aware and didn’t ask for sympathy for rising fees or possible rising fees if Labour take away their false ‘charity’ status?

send your kid private if you want, just don’t come moaning about the costs or claim than anyone can go private if they ‘prioritise’ their child’s education they way you do. Particularly at a time when state school teachers are striking over pay and conditions.
And many, many people are working their socks off just to keep a roof over their family’s head.

YANBU - stop whining and looking for sympathy about your fees!

YABU - my milkman sends his 4 kids private by ‘prioritising’ their education so it’s not just for whiny poshos….

Ladykryptonite · Today 18:03
Dobby, and what about the people who choose private, even if there is adequate state provision in their area.

What about it?

Bursaries, scholarships, ‘charity’ acts, ‘inadequate’ state school nearly by…

the reality is the majority of parents sending their kids private are wealthy. And choose to use these schools because they can. These schools are not full of ‘plucky’ working class children getting a free ride, they’re full of the children of very, very well of people.
Most bursaries go to people who can afford the fees anyway, and less than 1% off children in private schools are getting a full scholarship.

Those are the facts. And most people know it.

the people I know who send their kids private are doing it because they either have that tradition in their families - they were privately educated, their parents are privately educated and don’t give a damn what any one else thinks.

or are doing it because they can afford to. Regardless of whether they went or not, they have the money, so why not?

Most bursaries go to people who can afford the fees anyway, and less than 1% off children in private schools are getting a full scholarship.

You don’t seem to understand the difference between scholarships and bursaries.

Bursaries do not go to those “who can afford the fees anyway”. They are means tested, with great scrutiny of parents’ financial situation.

Scholarships are assessed on ability (music, academic, sport etc). Many schools are no longer giving even a small amount of fee remission for scholarship awards. A few years ago, it wasn’t unusual for schools to offer 10%/20% fee remission for scholarship awards. Lots of schools have now stopped that, with scholarships often being honorary only. Those funds are now going into the bursary system. You can be awarded a scholarship and those pupils can then be awarded a bursary, but many scholarship holders don’t get any fee help.

I’m not sure where your figure of 1% comes from, as many schools don’t publish their bursary statistics, but our school provides full fee remission for a far greater percentage than that. A quick look online shows that Eton provides full funding for around 7% of pupils, with an even greater number getting part of their fees paid. The figure at Harrow is 6% on full assistance, with around double that number on at least 50% assistance.

The 1% comes from various sources. I think it may have originally come from UCL, but it has also been quoted by the Chair of the Independent Schools Council an others. Most commonly, it seems to be quoted as "children who go to private schools without paying any fees", so I am assuming it accounts for both scholarships and bursaries combined. I have seen it used with regard to both.

And of course, I understand the theoretical difference between scholarships and bursaries but it isn't always as clear cut as you might like to think. For example, the MDS grant provides government funding to support scholarships for talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds to attend specialist music and dance schools in the independent sector. It is supposed to be means tested but it is also based on talent/potential. Interestingly, it appears that awards under this scheme have somehow been awarded to families on salaries of up to £190k.

Barba - it's a flimsy argument to say parents have no choice to go private due to inadequate state provision in their area, plenty will choose private anyway

I am sorry but anyone arguing that state school provision and NHS provision is uniform across the country is at best naive and at worst utterly disingenuous.

There are also so many additional factors coming into it in terms of prejudice, racism etc. for the individual seeking those “free” services. Post code lottery anyone?
We have to be careful about allowing governments to interfere with additional taxes on elements that should really be free for all where the state themselves has failed the person or child in question. So not only has the state not provided a good provision, they then want to tax those who end up having to pay for it (be it education or healthcare).

It does not really matter that most people using private schools are relatively rich. What does matter is that some are using them because their SEN child has been failed and some are using them because the state has not provided for their very able child. Why begrudge those children the better education and happiness they are receiving? Private schools have already had to up bursary provisions and getting rid of charitable status and putting VAT on independent schools will really turn them into private businesses in the long run.

I am really against these additional stealth taxes. It is a slippery slope and whoever thinks they won’t be taxing university fees or private healthcare next is very naive.

The majority of children who go to elite universities are also relatively rich.

@Intergalacticcatharsis spot on. I use a private school for my DD14 because of the SEN provision in our local state school is shite. She also can't cope with large noisy classes.

She is thriving in her school.

I really don't think treating every kid the same is a fair system. It creates inequality.

Yes, there are people that choose private for other reasons. The most common being that they don't have time to drive their kids around to extra curricular, so prefer to have everything on one site. A lot of them work in the hospital. They have quite a good salary, of course, but I think it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that they're not contributing enough to society.

It's like buying your kids clothes in gap. Really over priced and not strictly necessary, but how do you legislate for that? Only clothes from tesco are VAT free? Also, building work. You have to pay VAT on necessary work to your house whatever your income. When you think about it, a lot of VAT has nothing to do with how much money the person purchasing the product has. It's not like income tax.

If somebody started selling really expensive tampax, and women were willing to buy it, it would be VAT free. This is because it has been successfully argued in parliament that period products are not a luxury.

Feel your pain! Similar situation as our state alternative has been rated OFSTED Inadequate.
We live rurally and doesn't seem like the state schools here are well funded vs state schools in London.
The Private school my DC attends isn't in the league of Eton but a small independent that is very academically focused. Really feeling the pinch but happy to spend on educating DC vs dealing with issues in the state school which has quite a reputation here.
Tried moving to an area with a better state school but totally priced out of the housing market in that area due to the new interest rate (only option was to take a 35year mortgage which I can't stomach )

We looked at the numbers and it’s cheaper for us to stay put rather than move house to (hopefully) get a place at a good Secondary. Plus we would have to downsize and we actually love where we live - it’s a lovely area but a postcode anomaly with regards to schools.
Given the choice of a school that teachers who work there told us not to send DD to and a good Private school on our doorstep that we could easily afford why would we not choose Private?

What I find funny about mumsnet is the offence people who have kids at private schools take to anyone pointing out the obscene levels of inequality, and how desperate they are to find some explanation that morally nullifies the unfairness.

Can't people just acknowledge that our school system is morally completely indefensible - and acknowledge it even if it's their child at the sunnier end of this appallingly uneven playing field?

Make state schools better and render private schools obsolete. You can't blame people for sending their kids private (at great expense) when the alternative is to send them to a local state school where kids take drugs and are foul mouthed, and there is constant disruption in classes.

BTW - when people talk about 'good state schools' they tend to mean 'state schools that have disproportionate numbers of middle class kids'.

I know state secondaries that have great OFSTED and really good progress 8 scores (ie - tracks how much progress children make according to what scores they came in with), but local middle class parents won't touch them with a barge-pole because they're perceived as 'rough schools' despite the quality of the teaching and management.

I don't think most people care about the class status of the pupils, but more about how the kids behave.

"Make state schools better and render private schools obsolete. You can't blame people for sending their kids private (at great expense) when the alternative is to send them to a local state school where kids take drugs and are foul mouthed, and there is constant disruption in classes."

You think state schools should provide the same education as private schools - for less than half the amount of funding per child? (and while also having to meet the needs of all the children with major behavioural and social challenges who are ruthlessly excluded from mainstream private schools?)

Tell you what - how about private schools lose their charitable status until they start to share the burden of educating the poorest and most disruptive children, you know - those children currently failing in the state sector who are most in need of educational charity? Rather than just using the bursary system to strip academic, musical and sporting talent from the state sector...

BTW - I don't blame people for sending children to private schools. As long as they acknowledge that the system is morally indefensible, unfair to children, and as long as they don't also go and vote for a Conservative government who've done nothing except make life crappier for teachers and students at state schools (while mostly educating their own children outside the state sector).

Good for you then. The two secondaries in our catchment both require improvement according to OFSTED. During the first week one of the new Y7 brought a knife into the school (which is just one example of the many problems it has).

BTW - no amount of investment in state schools will make private schools obsolete, because private schools provide parents with the opportunity to buy advantage for their children. As evidenced by the fact that the areas with the highest percentage of children at private schools also tend to be the areas with the best state schools.

Schools in general should be for kids that want to learn and get on in life. There's no point in impairing the schooling of good kids in order to try and teach the unteachable. That is where the state sector has gone wrong and why private schools have greatly increased in popularity.

A lot of State schools just aren’t good enough I agree.
All children deserve an education as good as the one my DC got/are getting at Private school. It’s unfair that most don’t get it.
The majority of DC from my DCs State Primary are at a State Secondary that is deemed to be good. There are very regular videos posted online of fights there, The Police often patrol outside and getting all 6s at GCSE is aspirational.
It’s just not a place I want my DC. I don’t care how much money someone’s parents have or what jobs they do etc. I want my DC in a place where the majority of pupils are well behaved and bad behaviour isn’t tolerated. I know that is the case in some State schools but not at the State option we had.

You are so right. The children who pose no problems are sidelined as there are so many children with special needs that the teacher simply can’t cope with.

"During the first week one of the new Y7 brought a knife into the school (which is just one example of the many problems it has)"

Private schools are very effective at completely excluding children with major social challenges.

"Schools in general should be for kids that want to learn and get on in life. There's no point in impairing the schooling of good kids in order to try and teach the unteachable."

No child is 'unteachable'.

It's just we have an education system where vastly disproportionate resources are lavished on those children who learn most easily, and where the children of the privileged are shielded from contact with the social realities that everyone else has to deal with.

They are very good at keeping their students and staff safe, yes.

"They are very good at keeping their students and staff safe, yes."

They do this by ruthlessly excluding socially disadvantaged children.

Is all.