to think private schools having charitable status is taking the piss

[zanz1bar]

Most private schools have their charitable status as an accident of history. Does a school like Eton really deserve the same financial status as the NSPCC.

Can it really be justified by a few subsidized places.

Mackerel, where do you live?!

zazi, acc. to the ofsted report less able kids achieve beyond what's expected, able students are challenged and kids leave with above av. qualifications - very few leave with none. Pastorally it is supposed to be very good.It has fantastic sporting and music opps. and great grounds. It is also a community school in the widest sense and I really like that my kids will go to a school that is at the heart of the community with all his friends who live locally and go to primary sch. with him.It is not perfect but I am happy to send my DC there. There may well be no corelation bet. the fact that we have good state schools and no real option to those schools in the form of grammars etc. Maybe it is just happy coincidence. However, I think the lack of choice is unusual - no?

GrimmaTheNome - yes the ethos was continued initially. later they was some political interference and even protests. I led my class into the streets in anti-govt protests. Then we were forced to miss school to reherse Chinese style mass games by central govt.

Overtime only the die hard jesuits stayed but local teachers replaced them and the schools continued toi thrive.

But in the end we made up for lost ground as we all had to pass those overseas O'levels and A'levels and we did.

I'm surprised that the "private education = better education" argument keeps popping up. It is, as has been demonstrated here by AppleAndMosesMummy, amongst others, to be complete bolleaux. In a state school you get teachers who are:

Appropriately qualified
Committed to a programme of continuing professional development
Able to plan lessons for students of different abilities and needs
Committed to the concept of excellent education for all regardless of their parental income.

None of these things can be guaranteed in a private school. Yet somehow the idea that "I paid for it therefore it must be better" persists. Along with the idea that if you go to a public school you are condemmed to a life of underachievement. DH and I both went to public schools. We hold two undergraduate degrees and four (at last count) postgraduate degrees and diplomas between us. The same is true of most of the people I know. We couldn't afford private education even if we wanted to, but why would we when it has proved stunningly successful for us?

I also resent the implication that if we get an "appropriate job", even one with no bonus (thank you scienceteacher) we too could experience the delights of being taught by unqualified teachers using lesson plans created by the admin staff, but at least it will be in small classes, away from the teeming hoardes of children whose parents can't afford it just don't care enough to get a better job.

But ultimately, having wrung hands, weighed up options and made "choices", it is about finding the spare £20K - or whatever it is. That might be the deal-breaker for a lot of people. In the way that it's not about Sky TV, two-week holidays and other luxuries (all of which wouldn't add up to enough for school fees anyway).

well said 100x. A child in a supportive 'middle class' environment has far more advantages that other children. The parents are more engaged with education and want their dcs to do well. It is those 'middle class' kids in any school who form most of the sports teams, the acting club, the choir, the debating society, LRC monitors, learn instruments etc. The parent that is supportive encourages participation at school - sometimes it is to the detriment of others who are not as confident to put themselves forward. I can say that with absolute confidence in the three schools I have worked in.

Making indies (even with the floppy hair guitar playing boys) take in a few extra kids is not going to help those who are disadvantaged within our current exam driven results system.

oops - how embarrassing - thought I'd deleted the 1st reply. not with it at all today. Any day really. Not sure I want to identify my location as very small area etc and like being incognito. Don't want to blow my cover! However, it is a very rural area with very few towns and not wealthy - aside from a few pockets. It has only recently struck me that the lack of school choice is unusual and having seem the impact of choice on my niece and the resulting pressure this puts her under - and my sister and her DH are both teacher s and are not at all pushy - I am relieved tbh.

zazizoma- I recall that the schools had much say in the cirriculum. Teachers/heads had far more discretion than here. There were battles over govt interference like the mass games mentioned above.

But parents, and govt wanted the results in that old fashioned way.

Where are you getting the figure of £20k from ?
I pay £6k per term for 3 and get the 4th child free so actually all in it costs me £4,500 for my children's education, nursery fee's were more and offered less facilities.

And I'll show my hand, the reason mine attend private school is because a child in my first daughters reception class routinely punched her friends in the face, that is what I really pay for, the discipline. We live in a very middle class area, church school on our doorstep but they couldn't promise me my daughter wouldn't be attacked at lunchtime and it wasn't a chance I was prepared to take.
I can honestly say nobody has hit or been hit since moving.

I am aware that fees vary hugely across institutions so it was just a representative figure really. The figure is not the point - more the fact that it is, basically, a LOT for most "normal" people.

£6K per term for 3 sounds at the "cheaper" end to me.

By the way, it's "fewer" facilities. They often teach you things like that at state school, you know.

Slug - My sons' school teachers are appropriately qualified. Most of them have Oxbridge firsts in the subject they teach. Lots of them are v young, barely out of university themselves, most don't have PGCEs. They are inspirational teachers mostly and truly excellent in their subject. School have other appropriately qualified non-teaching staff that deal with other things. A full time school counsellor, for example. Specialist sports coaches who are not necessarily teachers.

zazi - that's the issue that still concerns me. It is big - 1400 and the size made me most concerned re. bullying, pastoral care etc but that is supposed to be strong and bullying low. Apparently they have strong systems in place to pick up problems. I don't want to give the impression that it is the best school in the world, but it is perfectly good enough.

I'm afraid that's true, UQD.

But if I do have one child and a little over £100 per week excess income, I fail to see why its ok to spend that on anything else except the things which are most important to me - my child's education, and if needs arise, healthcare.

Yes of course there ought to be good provision of these things for everyone funded by the taxpayer, but if someone can afford a bit more then it seems bizarre to say, nope, you can't spend your money on that.

If there were no private schools, would it still be OK to buy music lessons, swimming lessons, pay to participate in other activities, tutors? Should every darned thing our kids can do be equalised? Because if not - well whats the issue? Private schools essentially 'bundle' sporting and other activities and extra tuition.

thanks mackerel!

I went to state school perhaps my spelling/grammar would be flawless if only I had gone to private

Somebody above said that most people they know are unhappy with state schools. well they should look at schools like Watford grammar (selects 20pc) but results are better than many private schools.

I think it will take political courage to bring back some of the good things from the past. Need to throw away some of the ideological baggage of left and right and run schools like you would run modern corporations.

I am also all for paying state school teachers/heads more performance bonuses if there is a way to ensure that this works.

UQD -"£6K per term for 3 sounds at the "cheaper" end to me"

It's incorrect to use the comparative "cheaper" when tho two "ends" of the scale you're trying to describe are "cheap" and "expensive". It would be much more elegant if you'd said, "£6K per term for 3 sounds the "cheap" end to me." Perhaps you'd forgotten that from state school as I feel certain they must have taught you that.

There is always going to be a fundamental difference in the way people see this, but I just don't agree that private schools simply represent a "bundling" of a number of other activities which interested middle-class parents will buy in a pick-and-mix manner elsewhere.

The cost of music and sporting activities may seem a lot, but round here it is a fraction of what a private school would cost - it's not even in the same ballpark. These things are optional extras. "Education" is not.

Good point Grimma, it does seem that the categorical imperative of equal education for all would result in banning paying for any extras as you've suggested. I don't see how sending dc to an independent school is fundamentally different from hiring a tutor to HE them.

I am amused by the idea of Swedes picking through my posts to find something supposedly ungrammatical to jump on. It's okay, though, because I know I can do irony. Inverted commas are very useful.

If sports and music are not education, why are they in the national curriculum??? All children's experiences are education!

But then many, myself included consider sport and music to be very important and probably the only aspect of education in which my children will thrive in.
Yes I could pay for lessons outside of school but then it would be a case of stick a broom up my arse and I'll sweep as well, with 4 of them to ferry around and a full time job I'd be averaging 2 hours sleep a night.

Of course education isn't an optional extra. Thats why we all pay taxes for it - some of us very happily (I would pay more if it would really be used to help failing schools).

But the whatever-it-is that private schools provide is essentially an optional extra. Maybe from your calculations its a poor value one.

My point is that core educational experiences in school are being compared with the optional, additional experiences (music, sport, drama) which the vast majority of parents will buy. It's not an apples-apples comparison.