To think that Eton is being a bit cynical in offering to share some of its sports facilities with the local state academy?

[Shinyshoegirl]

Today's paper reports that Eton is offering free use of some of its 27 cricket pitches and its Olympic standard rowing lake to a local state school. Surely if they were really concerned about helping educational achievement for all they might consider sharing some of their teaching resources instead? I've nothing against cricket and rowing, but it seems like a token gesture towards their charitable responsibilities. Or am I being unreasonably cynical?

Juan, the only person on this thread who might have alluded to private school teachers being better is the opening poster.

What I'm objecting to is the hyperbole in BeenBeta's question "Can anyone explain to me why I should pay for the Latin teacher at DSs school to teach in a state school if I pay tax and also my DSs school fees?"

He is NOT paying for the teacher to teach in the state school. The school he sends his son to is.

He IS receiving either higher costs or poorer service because of this. But that's just a result of how the business chooses to operate within the prevailing regulatory regime.

TBH the main thing is that it triggered the "Why should MY taxes pay for X?" auto-response.

Of course many of them are better. Just have to look at the lists of their qualifications, many many more with Oxbridge degrees in their subject in the private sector and the results are better often because the teachers are. Even their spelling, grammar and accents are better!

Good degree in a subject != good teacher though does it?

Some if the people I know who went to Oxbridge would make TERRIBLE teachers. Some of them would though.

One of the teachers at my secondary school had a PHd. He was one of the two worst teachers I have ever had.

xenis - you fule. A degree does not a good teacher make.
am astounded youd be so ill educated to think that!

yes but in general you get a lot of state school parents complaining their child has had a series of temporary teachers and teachers without a degree in the subject and that is less common in the better private schools. Without doubt on the whole private school teachers are better. It can't just be that our little darlings are so very very clever that they being 7% of children get 50% + of good university places. The teaching is also pretty good too so it's win wni all round. And our teenage daughters should think about this and how they will pay their children's school fees when they make career decisions - surgeon or nurse, teacher or accountant etc.

Xenia what do you think of the women you employ to look after your kids?

TheCoalition - GAAARGH!!!

"He IS receiving either higher costs or poorer service because of this. But that's just a result of how the business chooses to operate within the prevailing regulatory regime."

It is the regulatory regime that forces my DSs school that do this that I am arguing against. No private school chooses to send its teachers down the road to teach at a state school while parents of children at the private school still pay the teacher's salary. The private schools are bullied and coerced into it by threats of having their charitable status removed. They make the best of it because they have to - not because they want to. Push too hard and all private schools will become commercial enterprises or close.

I officially give up!

BeenBeta - The only point I'm making is that you can't say YOU are paying for it when it is a cost to a business that you are buying a service from.

It's like saying that Tesco's customers are paying Tesco's electricity bill.

Tesco customers are paying for Tesco electricty. They pay because the cost of the electric is embedded in the price of the goods. If customers did not pay - how else would Tesco survive?

Everything is paid for by customers at Tesco and by parents of children at private schools. There is no other source of revenue.

More to the point Tesco do not go and also pay for Sainsbury electricty as well as their own.

That, in effect, is what is actually happening when a private school sends one of their teachers down the road to a state school.

BeenBeta - But a Tesco's customer wouldn't be saying "Why should I pay for their electricity?"

The Tesco's/Sainsbury's thing is the point I was making in my first payroll example.

You pay your money, you get a service. Saying "I don't like the regulations because they make my service worse/more expensive" is fine. Saying "Why should I pay for X when I pay or Y" is special pleading.

TheCoalition - tell you what. I have an idea.

Would you mind awfully popping a cheque for £2500 in the post to me at the start of next term. I'd be ever so grateful. After all, if your DCs get free state schooling I'm sure you can afford it.

Just give me your account number, sort code, mothers maiden name, online banking username and password and I'll sort it.

Juan, I don't know about that. It's not so simple. If you accept that in the state system, a lot of teaching is going to be about keeping the unruly children quiet, then the skillset is likely to be rather different, isn't it?

And someone who is passionate about their academic subject (and therefore has a better degree) might be better at helping the brightest to expand their range.

So whilst I agree with you that having a good degree does not make a good teacher, I do think that having access to teachers who are academically bright is going to advantage brighter pupils, particularly at the later stages of school education.

Private schools are not charities and should not be classed as charities.

Any private school sharing facilities is doing it either for the good publicity or because they must make a token effort.

Private schools should be banned, it is wrong that priveleged education and the benefits of it can be purchased. Just compare the precentage of public schoool entrants to the top universities compared to the state system.

Also a large percentage of entrants to the top proffesions are public school educated

Wrong, wrong, wrong

Old school tie anyone.

Xenia - 7% of children don't get 50% of good university places. That would mean that NO (or a statistically insignificant number) of private school children don't go to university or to one that isn't considered good.

Well it's roughly that. Isn't it about 50% private school pupils at Oxbridge for a start.

newwave if private schools are banned because of the perception you have of buying privilege surely you should extend that to all aspects of life? Ban people from buying nice cars, houses, holidays, clothes, food etc etc.

Not all private schools have charitable status.

I think we actually need both sectors. The state sector, to encourage social inclusion and mutual respect. The private sector, to remind the state sector of what can be possible if you are truly ambitious (too many state schools seem to think education is a pie that needs to be shared out amongst its pupils, thereby rationing their intake. In contrast, independent schools appear to consider that there is an infinite number of pies, expanding their offering to pupils accordingly).

A healthy system would seek to maximise flow between the two sectors (as indeed we do at nursery level quite unproblematically via nursery vouchers and so on). Let's put the class thing to one side and start thinking about making education infinite instead.

BeenBeta- surely if private schools are gaining financially (e.g. paying less tax) because of their charitable status, then it's taxpayers' money which is paying for the school to discharge whatever charitable duties it has agreed to? If the school is claiming charitable status and getting state funding for it, it must then actually do something charitable which benefits the state in return.

If private schools cannot afford to spare the resources to undertake the charitable work they are required to do, they can always stop being a charity and stop taking the money for it.

Xenia - that's the wrong sum though isn't it? 7% of children go to private school, and say 4/7 (can you tell I'm trying to make the sums easy ) of those go on to good univerities, then 4% of children get 50% of good university places.

Inertia - that would be a really bad deal for the state. If my DSs school became a state school the state would have to pay a heck of a lot more money to the school than the VAT it loses at the moment because of the charitable status.

The school has a charitable status because it saves the state money. There is no pot of money and resources for the state to plunder. All there is is a set of parents who pay fees to pay the salaries of teachers who work full time already.

BeenBeta- there are two different arguments here.

One is the issue of what would happen if X private school wasn't there. It's unlikely that the state would provide a new state school in its place- it would be far more cost-effective to distribute pupils amongst existing state schools. There would still be a cost involved, but this wouldn't be anything like as expensive as the state taking over the running of a private school.

The charitable status is a separate issue. The logistics of how the school is run may well mean that there's no slack in the system to meet sudden changes . However, a school which gains financially by having charitable status ought to have plans in place to allow it to meet its charitable obligations. If they don't want to do that, then it's not compulsory to have charitable status. Independent schools don't have charitable status because they save the state money- not every organisation that saves the state money is automatically a charity- they do it because it's beneficial for them to operate under those rules.