Private Schools proposal for up to 10,000 free places each year

[Aussiejazz]

What do you think of this idea to offer up to 10,000 free places to lower income families each year?

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/12/09/government-serious-schools-work-everyone-will-jump-proposal/

trips may not be compulsory, but they may be a VERY important part of fitting in
or they may not, as they aren't at my DC's school (how do I know? because he doesn't go, and fits in just fine, thanks) - and if they sometimes are, how do you know they aren't at some state schools too?

Some people seem so invested in the "you have to be rich to fit in at independent school, bursary or no" narrative that nothing can disturb the opinion. Maybe that's true at some schools, but it isn't true at all independent schools.

I didn't say there was a guarantee you could get everything at the school second hand shop - I do remember once having trouble finding a (white) rugby top in the right size, seems they don't last, can't imagine why, wrong brand of washing powder perhaps I do know I spend less on uniform than many state school parents. I'd say sorry to disturb the narrative, if I thought there were the slightest chance it'd be disturbed.

The places will go to the children of educated parents who are roughing it while their kids are at school.

relaxitllbeok I do know I spend less on uniform than many state school parents.

I spent a lot less than a number of families I know that sent their DCs to private schools this year. I wouldn't use my second hand bargains as an example of how cheap the uniform is though.

This is one of the schools that two of the girls I know have gone to:

www.abbotshill.herts.sch.uk/school-life/uniform-shop/

A second hand school blazer at this school costs £20 more than the blazer at my DCs state school costs new.

My DC's school doesn't have a blazer. Schools differ. Reminder: this subthread is a response to the comment:

I wonder if the government contribution of £5.5kish per year will also cover the expensive school uniforms and foreign field trips.

Having demonstrated that the "the" in the above quote is an unwarranted generalization, I hope we can leave it there.

TalkinPeace

Your line on comprehensives and selection seems to have hardened since the last time I lurked around here. I don't think I'm imagining that.

Any particular reason?

I don't agree trips are part of fitting in at private schools. My children won't ski with their schools as they get a much more luxurious ski trip with the family for example and the school trip is in a sense slumming it..... They haven't been on a single trip at their current school other than D of E and compulsory geography field trips. Loads of children don't go on the trips either because they can't afford it, don't like it or can't bear to be parted from their parents.

I haven't bought a second hand blazer for a good few years so not sure of current cost but I don't think school uniform sales at private schools are particularly pricey and plenty of parents are happy to give it away for school funds.

Our second hand uniform is donated by parents and proceeds are given to charity (not the school!)

I have not had to buy any full price sports gear over the last 4 year as I have either bought it second hand or been given it by friends parents

Blazers are only £35. So I'm happy to buy new as this is something they wear everyday and we get at least 2 years out of each one.

Trousers and shirts from M & S.

It would sound very convincing to someone outside the system wouldn't it?

It would be quite good if they took on the troublesome excluded children though....

MN164
My line has hardened as the cuts have bitten deeper and the utter lack of accountability in the Academy schools becomes more and more of a puss filled boil.
The fact that schools have been told to absorb the massive impact of NLW (effectively a 9% increase in payroll costs with no increase in funding)
at the same time as evidence free support for Grammars is introduced
incenses me

I am so, so glad that my own kids are at the tail end of schooling

but financially am being crippled by the changes to school funding.

I was interested in Talking's answer because my attitudes have definitely hardened!!

When we all started this grammar debate I thought a fellow poster was being too harsh when she said that no grammar supporter cared about those unselected. Now I think she was right. I have been shocked by the total indifference of grammar supporters to the overwhelming evidence of the harm done to the majority of children.

"It would be quite good if they took on the troublesome excluded children though..." They often do in a sense from the private system anyway - you get children leaving one school for another. My sons' class has two boys from leading other private schools who are doing fine in the sixth form at the different school. ALthough of course most state grammars and private schools don't take very disruptive children en masse into their own schools.

I am appalled at the attitude of some of you who feel that you are paying 'twice' by paying for your children's education at private schools, and also paying for the education of other's children at state schools through your taxes. What would you rather? That no education was state-funded, and that we all paid school fees? You do realise that that would result in some children going uneducated? Are we going backwards in this society??!

I am private school educated. I had no choice in that. However, as an adult, I find that on consideration, I do not support elitism, nor do I support entitlement. However, I do support the right of every child to a decent education, and for that, I would be prepared to 'pay twice'.

I think that a pupil excluded from one private school might get a second chance at another (the heads all know each other, so deals are struck). But a second expulsion means no other private school is likely to touch them.

And once removed, the expelling school has no responsibility to the ex-pupil, not will their outcome ever be noted in their results. They can just wash their hands of them

kate so, by being against elitism, you prefer that less money is spent on each state school pupil by putting private pupils into the state system?

Another, the boarding schools at least often have children going from one to another. If you see many a famous person in later life saying I left X and went to Y and then to Z and then off to school in Switzerland or whatever.

"What would you rather? That no education was state-funded, and that we all paid school fees?" Yes but I would support a £5k a year voucher to each set of parents for each child to be topped up if you want at a school of your choice. We have that system for the smallest children so why not when they go on to big school?

another
A friend of mine was expelled from a string of expensive boarding schools (for drug dealing) but because daddy was rich and famous, another always took her on
she worked through four universities as well

money talks
need does not

Wow! When was that?

I don't really know about special treatment for the supercharged )0(other than that they tend to vanish overseas to one of the expensive/prestigious European schools. And Insuspect that - as is the case way beyond just schooling- different rules apply to the famous.

another
she was a while back
but her son was most recently expelled only a few years ago

when you have a nationally famous name, you get away with anything

No, carol, because in a world without private schools, then budgets would have to be adjusted. I may be against elitism, but I also respect other people's right to choose, so accept that this will never happen. But to me, it's a nice idea.

Those people protesting that they pay twice, how many of you have a workforce (from whom you make your salary/ profits) educated by taxpayers? How many of you pay wages to your more junior staff that would have to be higher if they all had to educate privately? How many depend on sales to customers who could not afford your services if they had to pay for education?

We do pay twice. But then people without children who pay tax pay as well. 500,000 children are in fee paying schools in the UK and many of us wuold like that recognised with say a £5k a year voucher we could use in part payment of private school fees. Let us lobby for that or a set off against tax at highest rates for what we pay in school fees which for me over £30k a year. That might work better as it would encourage mothers to work, a political aim which I have. We could say the tax set off went 50% to husband and 50% to wife.

I don't think you need to be famous to be able to move between private schools. I can't remember why the two boys I often ask my sons about moved schools. I presume at least one got a bit disaffected during GCSEs and did not work hard enough. I think hke's doing pretty well now at the next sixth form. He plays chess every day with my son although he is so very good at it I doubt he has much of a good match with my boy. So at least he's had a second change and I think applied to Oxbridge too. The other one might not be working much but he's so clever he'll probably get into some reasonable university. At least they haven't left school at 16 to lie around at home doing nothing. And of course in all school sectors there will always be teenagers who do exactly that.

I don't object to paying twice, in the sense of paying tax to support state schools that I don't use and then paying fees. As stated, that's normal: taxes support all kinds of public services which we as a society need to be there, whether we use them or not. In fact I would like state schools to be much better funded and I have always voted accordingly. I think education is very, very important and that underlies both my personal and my political actions.

(Where I disagree with some here is when they assert that by not using the state system I damage it, even, damage it enough to offset both (a) the money I save the taxpayer by not using it and (b) the good that is done to my child and to society by his being educated as well as I can arrange. Those seem to me to be extraordinary claims that would require extraordinary evidence.)

The part I do strenuously object to is the third time I pay: the way my fees have to be used not only to pay the costs of the independent school, but also, to pay the costs of the independent school supporting local state schools. Fine where this can be done at a marginal cost of zero (allowing free use of playing fields at times when they're not required by the independent school is probably the commonest example) or where there's a mutual benefit that's large compared to the cost (many joint events). On the other hand, stuff like, people who are employed to manage the independent school being expected to spend time, via sponsoring an academy, managing a state school, or teachers being expected to mark work of visiting state school pupils - those are using hours our fees are paying for to subsidise state education. I'm already paying what someone in my financial position is supposed to pay towards state schools. I don't expect another slice taken towards that from my post-tax spending, any more than you expect to see "State school dinner levy" on your restaurant bill or "State school field trip contribution" on your holiday bill. If - as is likely I think - it's right for people on my income to pay a bit more towards state schools, let us ALL do so.

"the way my fees have to be used not only to pay the costs of the independent school, but also, to pay the costs of the independent school supporting local state schools."

The solution tfor families who do not wish to support the charity is to choose a school that operates as a business.

No, my job as a parent is to obtain the best education possible for my child. If minimising cost were my primary aim, obviously he'd be in state school!

And, for what it's worth, non-charity independent schools are relatively rare and there are none within reach of me. Comparable to, every restaurant in your town puts "state school dinner levy" on the bill, so your choice is to pay it or never eat out.