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.

State schools are full of teachers who are paid by the state because frankly they couldn't cut it any other walk of life IME.

Incidentally, the only reason we stay in the UK at all is to educate our children privately, as the private schools here are among the best in the world.

If private schools are made too expensive in the UK by removing their charitable status we will just leave and take them to be educated in Canada. Then we will pay no UK tax at all.

"Private education saves public money, and one hell of a lot of it.2

Nonsense.

our top universities are heavily overloaded with privately educated pupils at the expense of state educated pupils.

now, this may be controversial, but I would say that the notion of a university is about fostering intelligence and thought rather than rote-learning and coached knowledge.

As a result, every intelligent state-educated child who loses his or her place to a privately-educated child is an immense resource lost to the country - a resource which we will later pay, in real terms, to replace.

It is a fallacy that all universities are equal - they are not. And state pupils are less likely to attend the best ones than privately educated pupils, even where both students have followed the national curriculum.

The cost is enormous and long-lasting.

Apple

Have you ever been in Viz?

Of course a large proportion of those in tops jobs had an independent education - they are much more likely to have highly intelligent and educated parents who produced intelligent and socially astute offpring.
I have no idea how you could come to such a simplistic conclusion when so many variables have been changed at the same time!

I have been a state secondary teacher for 13 years and I cannot recall ONE example of an intelligent state school pupil who has not managed to secure a univerisity place.

ABetaDad

I think you should pay as many times as everyone else and stop bleating.

If you don't like it, use the state system.

Or move to Canada as you elsewhere suggest.

As other people have already patiently explained, tax goes into a common pot. That's part of how the system works at all. Taking out the bits and pieces you don't fancy, but keeping the ones you do, weakens the country econoimcally for all of us.

Which other countries, incidentally, have this wonderful voucher system in operation? Presumably their systems are the toast of all nations.

'rote-learning and coached knowledge'

You're saying that this only happens in the private sector? Round here most middle-class state-educated children seem to have private tuition at some stage. I'm almost the only middle-class mother I know with children in a state primary who didn't need extra tuition.

We now pay for private education and are quite open about paying for it. Unlike the 'you must support the state school' group who top up with tutors.

'rote-learning and coached knowledge'

You're saying that this only happens in the private sector? Round here most middle-class state-educated children seem to have private tuition at some stage. I'm almost the only middle-class mother I know with children in a state primary who didn't need extra tuition.

We now pay for private education and are quite open about paying for it. Unlike the 'you must support the state school' group who top up with tutors.

Zeke

Oxford has, give or take, an equal mix of state and privately educated pupils.

The make up of secondary education is nowhere near 50:50.

How else would you define that except as over-representation?

and it's not the truly top class minds who tend to lose out (or the true time wasters) - it's in the mid-range (which, at oxford, means the 3rd and 4th percentiles of the country, roughly speaking) where coaching and small classes really make a difference.

The situation certainly feels very similar at other universities of that league that I have encountered.

By scienceteacher on Tue 14-Jul-09 11:22:59 Look at the backgrounds of those in our society in top jobs...

I think those from independent school backgrounds are over-represented.

This suggests that independent education is good for the nation

That context, ST. It's such a ridiculous thing to say. They are there because traditionally kids from private schools have a huge advantage in terms of getting access to top jobs. Not because they are any brighter than the rest of us. Can't you see that?

Abraid

i'm saying that that is a widely-practised technique for giving private pupils the edge for Oxbridge entrance and it is a facility the state schools cannot match.

Note also that I am not saying we should end private schooling.

Only that, far from needing hand-outs, it is an aspirational cohice and there is no reason why parents should not bear the full cost of that choice.

"Not because they are any brighter than the rest of us. Can't you see that?"

I would agree with that statement, so what are people going to do about it ?
Instead of dragging us all down by forcing middle class parents to have to use state education how about a bit of sacrifice and pay for your child to use the best facilities in the area and access that education for your family ?
The people I see who are very very bright with clever children are also intelligent enough to know that a family holiday and boden clothes and a 4x4 aren't a priority.
Very very few parents pay school fees out of spare money.

'Look at the backgrounds of those in our society in top jobs... I think those from independent school backgrounds are over-represented. This suggests that independent education is good for the nation.'

I would argue that it suggests that it is who you know not what you know that matters.

In my yr 13 Chemistry class this year my most intelligent students (those who will achieve over 90 -100% UMS marks) have offers from:

Imperial - mathematics
Oxford - physics
Birmingham, Medicine
? (cannot remember) - mathematics

That is 4/11 of the class. A further two are highly likely to get straight A's but their is quite a large gap in ability between these two groups and we are only talking about the 'brightest'. The rest all have offers from 'good' universities - Bath etc.

Last year was the same, the brightest secured places at top universities - Oxford, medicine etc.

A&MM I find it hard to believe your views are genuine.

How is a single parent with two children under 6 supposed to 'sacrifice' anything to meet that kind of cost - there's nothing to sacrifice.

You're talking such a load of offensive rubbish. Plus it doesn't carry through - if everyone did as you said, there would be no spaces at the private schools. And if everyone did manage to get a place, and state schools closed down, and everyone had a private education, wouldn't that mean we all got the top jobs - it's not about fairness at all, see, is it now. It's about being better and having better chances than OTHER people. Which is why it stinks.

There will always be exceptions of course and actually private schools do offer help to teachers/military family's/the clergy etc to ensure their children don't miss out.
The idea that state education ends and everyone pays what they can towards private is a far better one based on the results private v's state achieve and that's what we should be looking to do, not forcing private schools to be unaffordable and creating educational getto's as we currently do.
Private schools do offer busaries even at primary school level, you just have to pick the phone up and ask.

Street, what exactly do you expect, life to be fair ?
If I win the lottery do I have to give it all away otherwise it's not fair ?
It doesn't matter what aspect of life you look at from education, to healthcare to clean running water somewhere in the world it's not fair, so do we take away our clean running water because otherwise it's not fair on those who haven't got it ?

Zeke

That is admirable and I sincerely mean that.

However, in certain private schools, those 4 would all be going to Oxford and Cambridge (if they wanted to.) The next tranche would have a good shot at Imperial, Birmingham etc.

These are not simply my opinions - these are things you can check out.

Surely this can't be right? Why shouldn't your number 2, 3 and 4 have the benefit of that experience too, when equuivalent students from private schools do?

MIFLAW - I believe some/all Scandniavian countries do a voucher scheme and they have found that weak schools quickly closed as parents have choices once they get a voucher and worst schools simply get no money. Many parents set up their own schools too. I am afraid it would be a bastardised version of it we would get here though that would not benefit poorer children.

I went to a small state primary school in a village, with 15 kids to a class, with very mixed social backgrounds with very few facilities and a grass field to play in plus a square of tarmac and a climbing frame but good teachers, discipline and a caring atmosphere. Sadly, I cannot get for my children in the state sector where I live which is why I pay for them to go to a private Prep with the same few facilities, a grass field and a climbing frame plus good caring teachers and discipline. The only difference between my state primary and where my kids go to school now is the social mix of the kids. I do not really want my kids to be brought up in a middle class exclusive bubble but that is what I have to do to get them the education I had as a child.

All kids should have the same basic education as my kids get - but for free. For some reason, it is not possible for the UK state to provide this.

No, we don't, but then we haven't set up a system of clean running water at the expense of those who haven't. And we ought to do everything we can to make sure that people without it GET it asap as well as us. (though I am not sure we do, enough anyway)

This is the difference. Private education is all about keeping everyone normal out. It's exclusive and works only on that basis.

No, we don't, but then we haven't set up a system of clean running water at the expense of those who haven't got one. And we ought to do everything we can to make sure that people without it GET it asap as well as us. (though I am not sure we do, enough anyway)

This is the difference. Private education is all about keeping everyone normal out. It's exclusive and works only on that basis.

abraid - agree with you on the coaching thing. Desperate middle class parents pay one way or the other for education. Whether it be extra coaching, buying a house in a catchment area or paying school fees privately.

Children of poorer parents do not have those benefits and even if we outlawed private school then the whole business of private tutoring would become huge and parents would mortgage themselves to the hilt to avoid bad schools.

YABU. For this reason:

Hatwoman - By paying to educate my children privately I am saving the taxpayer the full cost of a place in a state school for my child, to which she is legally entitled.

I personally get no tax relief to compensate for this.

Yet I still pay council tax which helps pay for your child's free state school place.

The small amount of tax relief which I benefit from indirectly due to my DDs school's charitable status in no way comes near to being equivalent to the amount I save the government by not requiring a state school place.

So, in monetary terms the state is better off if I educate my kids privately.

The whole ideology debate re private education is a separate matter, but in plain money terms the state would be worse off if I sent my kids to state school, and we would all (including you) pay more in tax.

'Private education is all about keeping everyone normal out'

I think this just about sums up the foolish agenda you bring to this thread.