Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

On another thread I got pleasantly trounced for daring to infer that a Private school was profit driven

95 replies

Twiglett · 28/04/2007 09:21

and I was corrected

so now I'm left wondering

what is the business model behind a Private school? Are they all the same? Do none of them have shareholders / owners

OP posts:
thedogsbollox · 28/04/2007 20:57

C&I - the private sector are actually being asked to bid for the contracts to run new state schools, under similar deals to PFIs. They build the school and operate it charging the government a service fee every year. And yes, they do look to make money out of it. There is one school already running on this basis, I believe in North London somewhere.

There's irony there isn't there - private school run for no profit, state school run for profit

Blu · 28/04/2007 20:59

A comment on the pedantry - actually, it may be that Twig DD infer, rather imply...i.e she inferred from what had been said on another thread that the school was profit driven, and then commented on what she had inferred...

Twiglett · 28/04/2007 21:23

I heart Blu

OP posts:
Judy1234 · 28/04/2007 21:29

Thedb, I saw that too. Wasn't it in the papers this week? A Labour Government doing it too....
Harrow and some other schools, Dulwich College?, have set up schools in a few places abroad - China? but that's just part of their function. No one takes profits out of those very good schools. If you go right down the list of the top say 40 schools in the UK St Pauls's North London Collegiate, Manchester Grammar, Eton all those run by city livery companies like Haberdashers, Merchant Taylors none of them make any profits at all

DominiConnor · 28/04/2007 21:47

PFI has been in schools for a long while.
It's a really really really really crap idea.
It's implemented in a crap way.
The results are crap.

It makes sense to get private firms to build things because there is vast experience there.
There is no such pool for education, not easy to see how to build it.

Also it's more expensive. The government can borrow at vastly lower rates than any private firm.
The government can absorb risk far better than any private firm. It does not insure, because it represents such a large pool that 100 schools could burn down without even being noticed on it's accounts.

The markets work best when innovation and competition interact with profits.
PFI deals don't actually attempt any innovation, and of course there is no effective competition.

I'm by inclination a free marketeer, but I observe the the worst form of governance known to man is where the state and private sectors are in "partnership". Socialism is of course the worst case, but crony capitalism squanders wealth and combines immunities from important laws with corruption.
Look at the BAe corruption scandals...

On other threads people flatly refuse to believe me when I tell them what it was like in the 1970s when state "enterprises" squandered money faster than a war.

thedogsbollox · 28/04/2007 21:51

This is PFI+ though I think. The usual schemes just build the school and effectively lease it back to the govt, providing a few services such as cleaning, maintenance etc. The new schemes actually involve operating the school - i.e. appointing teachers and running the school.

Judy1234 · 28/04/2007 22:32

We could abolish state schooling. Make people pay etc. No Government interference in curriculum etc so that the state sector then gets the excellence of the private sector and its freedoms.

DominiConnor · 29/04/2007 10:04

The other thing you need for a market to work well is buyers who act rationally and have some reasonable understanding of what is going on.

How in the name of God are you going to do this in Britain ?
Look what happens when you let people make decisions about things they don't understand, like the way their bodies work. Homoeopathy, crystal healing, "angels", etc.
Pick up the newsletter that comes from your school. What % is sport, I'd give good odds that there is nothing academic at all, some will consist wholly of sport.
That's because parents like it.

The reason for the pathetically inadequate level of British education is that we have too many crap parents who don't give a toss.

Of the parents who do care a lot, many are gripped by religious hysteria.

If we look at countries where parents have a lot of input into education, we see crap. America is the best example, where education officials are directly elected and parents can have books banned from school libraries.

France, Japan and Russia which do very well have essentially zero parental influence over schools. But they also have supportive parents.

UnquietDad · 29/04/2007 15:56

Faith schools are a form of PFI in schools.

Xenia - not being dim, but how would that work? How much should everyone pay? I agree entirely with your principle of reducing Government interference and leaving teachers free to teach, but I don't think abolishing free state education is the way to do it.

Judy1234 · 29/04/2007 16:21

On the principle that what you pay for you appreciate. So if it costs you £3 to visit the GP you're not likely to turn up there with a minor cold or because you're the bored, worried well and just want a free chat.

We'd sell off state schools to anyone who chooses to buy them just like we did with gas, electricity, telecoms which has all gone reasonably well and then parents pay some kind of means tested fee or get a voucher of say £5k a year per child to spend at any school of their choice which they can also top up for the more expensive schools if they wish to do so.

UnquietDad · 29/04/2007 16:26

What if all the middle-class parents wanted to spend their vouchers at the same schools? There are a good few schools round here where they can't give places away, so I can't imagine there being exactly a rush for people to buy them.

And if it's means-tested, would people on benefits get it free? I teach adults and there are three fee levels - full (working) concessionary (student/OAP) and free (people on bebefits). The unemployed would never come if it cost them the £40-plus per term that we charge the working people.

I'm also slightly worried about selling off state schools to anyone who wants to pay for them. My local school could be bought by the Church of the Invisible Pink Porcupine (All Hail His Rosy Spines).

Don't get me wrong, I like your innovative thinking-outside-the-box, but I'm just picking a few realistic holes in it!

edam · 29/04/2007 16:31

Privatisation of utilities has gone relatively well? Ho ho ho. Have you had any dealings with any of those companies recently? How about forcing people to have water meters? Cutting off vulnerable elderly customes with Alzheimers? Profiteering - look at discrepancy between wholesale price of gas and retail. Funnily enough only cutting retail prices months late and as the weather gets warmer...

Judy1234 · 29/04/2007 17:15

If Govenrment had to spend nothing on education we could reduce taxes and people would have more money to spend on education if they chose. I suppose the risk if you stopped making school compulsory is that the poor might choose not to educate their children as was the case before we made schooling compulsory in the UK which I think was in the 1840s or a bit later. So I suppose if we think the children of those on benefits benefit from education which presumably they do we need at least some form of voucher or free provision or perhaps get their non working parents to clean the schools and dish up the dinners and do the school gardens for nothing and be class room assistances in return for the free school place may be?

Blandmum · 29/04/2007 17:18

and presumably the smaller children of the poor can get pushed up the chimneys to give them a clean out

Judy1234 · 29/04/2007 17:20

I don't see why working for a school place is so objectionable when most of us do that already to earn taxes to pay for school places. If everyone was in the private system all the criticism of the private system would lapse and schools could flourish without strict state rules and forms and all that stuff many good teachers don't like. Anyway no Government is going to do that at the moment so it's a fairly pointless debate, although let us not forget that Blair is the only PM ever to give rich parents vouchers to pay to private schools for 3 and 4 year olds. I loved that when my twins had it.

Blandmum · 29/04/2007 17:23

Possibly they might not want to? And TAs need to be committed and trained not press ganged

SueW · 29/04/2007 17:24

LOL at GPs and chat. I had to take DD to the GP in the week before Xmas once. No engaged tone for 20 mins - got straight through; huge choice of appointmets and no-one else in the waiting room!

colditz · 29/04/2007 17:26

UQD

I am so sorry for what I am about to do

Something can't be invisible if it is pink, and viceversa.

ATrueBeliever · 29/04/2007 17:36

Colditz, I'm afraid that you don't fully understand the awesome power, majesty and wonder of Invisible Pink Porcupine.

If you let me know where you live I'll ensure one of our disciples shares this good news with you (and your children of course).

UnquietDad · 29/04/2007 18:01

But colditz, He is pink because His followers say so. He has simply not chosen to reveal Himself, but all true believers know of His Pinkness. And tis verily inscribed thus in the Book Of Spines.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page