Corbyn, vat, private schools

[NoisingUpNissan]

So... Just worried about corbyn and private schools.

I'm naturally labour but couldn't vote for him with this.

We have two kids in prep, couldn't really afford any extra cash. As it stands we have a leaking bathroom (no bath for a year) and old unreliable shitty car, certainly not entitled or priveledged people. Not that it should matter.

Very annoyed as they are only there because ASD and they had 33 kids in their classes!

So, just wondering... Does anybody think this is a real risk?

I don't care if I come across as being all out for myself, I'm all out for my kids. My son is just too autistic to deal with a big class size and needs the extra work as he's v bright.

I’m sure she’ll be back in a minute to tell us she could buy Eton and its mess if she wanted, but wouldnt deign to.

“@BertrandRussell hey, I wanted to hear your answer to the scenario that @YobaOljazUwaque outlined earlier?“
Will do- i’m out and about and haven’t had the chance to read and reply properly.

Incidentally - I never say that private schools aren’t better than state schools. I say that the sort of children who go to state schools are generally the sort of children who will do equally well academically in either system, but private schools can offer lots of other stuff that state schools can’t. Obviously they can- you can do amazing things with lots of money! Which is why, if I were going to, I would send my children private- not for the results.

Incidentally - I never say that private schools aren’t better than state schools.

You claimed that the same child would have achieved the same grades in a good private school as they did in a “failing” state school, which is utterly ridiculous, however much you pretend it isn’t.

“You claimed that the same child would have achieved the same grades in a good private school as they did in a “failing” state school, which is utterly ridiculous, however much you pretend it isn’t.”

I don’t think it is ridiculous. But hey ho. Neither of us can prove the other wrong. I do know my own child would have.

But as I said, I was using the Mumsnet definition of “failing”. Which is anything which is not “outstanding”.

I don’t think it is ridiculous. But hey ho. Neither of us can prove the other wrong. I do know my own child would have.

The only way your claim could be irrefutably true is if they got a perfect run of A stars, but if that were the case I suspect you would have made that point already.

So, to sum up, the proof on my side would be the vastly higher results achieved at good private schools over many years, and their acceptance rates at Oxbridge and other top universities, all of which is available in published data. On your side, you have an unsubstantiated claim that you would know "easily", but with no further corroboration.

I guess we'll never know who's right!

Re Finland, it does have private schools (e.g. Steiner Schools, though I wouldn’t send my child to one!), it’s just that they are fully funded by the state as fee charging schools are not allowed.

Theoretically, I’d be willing to pay 20% on top of fees if the entire sum went directly to a deprived schools budget. And if everyone at the better state schools of similar, or greater means also had to pay a similar sum to improve the less desirable schools.

But I certainly don’t see why a family just about able to scrape the fees together should pay vat on top because the comrades have decided they are privileged, when people with equal or greater privilege are dominating the best state education for free.

I’m also sceptical about Diane Abbott’s justification for private. It would be very easy to justify dsd’s education in regards to some of her history. But that would be bollocks, privilege already made a huge difference to her experience, compared to a dc with an equally committed, but less affluent father and stepmother that genuinely would have benefited from private. I find it very hard to believe her ds would have been a gang member anymore than dsd would have been a social services statistic if we hadn’t sent her to private.

I would support measures which lead to fewer privileged people (the elite, those whose families have only experienced wealth and privilege going back generations) in government and positions of power.

Abolishing independent schools is not going to achieve those aims. Those people stick to their own kind and will send their children abroad or have them tutored at home before they allow their offspring to attend their nearest comprehensive. It's just not going to happen. And there's no way Prince George is going to attend his local state primary school whoever suggested that.

Many families who use private schools have more in common with the families who use state grammars, church schools and comps in expensive catchment areas, than they do with the elite who use top name boarding schools.

Forgetting about abolishing private schools for a minute, I think the limiting universities to 7% private school intakes even more batshit. I am all for widening access for children from deprived backgrounds, but there are far better ways of doing that. How would it even work? Would any private schooling count over the child’s education or would we get a raft of people who pull their children out for the last year to be at a state school at the time of applying? Would Scottish universities be forced into it? Utterly bonkers

The 7% is another silly idea - sounds more like a 5th form debating society than a serious political party...though that is probably a bit harsh on fifth form debaters.

Something like 20% of A level students are educated in the private sector so not sure where they get the 7% from.

It would merely lead to an increasing number of clever UK students taking up places in elite US universities. This is already happening.

Over time it would lead to mean a deterioration in the UK university sector as elite academics would find working there less attractive.

But no need to worry. It wont happen as Labour will never get elected.

DD already wants to go to my alma matter in the US and today she was using this a great excuse to get me to OK it.

@YobaOljazUwaque -can I just check- are you saying that private school’s charitable status is justified because of bursaries?

Well it works in Finland. It is illegal to charge for education.
BILGE
www.expat-finland.com/living_in_finland/international_schools.html

3% of children in Finland are in fee paying schools

There has been a tribunal ruling that bursaries are neither necessary nor sufficient when scrutinising the activities of charitable schools.

The law defines what can count as a charitable aim and, as charity law stands at the moment, the provision of education is one of them.

It is also completely legal for charities to charge fees for services.

The laws on charities couid of course be changed.

What proposals are there out there - ones likely to be agreed by stakeholders across the charitable sector (for many charities deliver education) ?

“There has been a tribunal ruling that bursaries are neither necessary nor sufficient when scrutinising the activities of charitable schools.”
I know- that’s why I asked @YobaOljazUwaque what she meant. I read her analogous scenario as the bursaries being the charitable endeavour.. But I could be wrong.

My child would get the same grades in state as private.
The school we chose is private specialist with charitable status.
The school we would have been offered is a failing school due to results as a high percentage of sn unlikely to pass GCSE's.
The difference is the private school doesn't need to push them so hard as many are exceptionally bright and keep their results up. So dc like mine are given extra support but it doesn't rule their life, providing good work /balance. The state schools would have pushed to gain results, I've seen kids have to go in on Saturday and after school, if they can't pass just support them as you can.

medtrina before looking at the chaotanke status of private schools, which doesn't affect so many children, I'd be taking a good long look at church schools, as their aim is to educate the poor (meaning those who can't afford to pay) of the area. They need to stop insisting on church attendance as a criteria - that wasn't part of their ethos. Parents can opt out of a CofE school if they want, but the schools don't get to pick and choose on the basis of faith they should take anyone who lives near enough regardless.

At the moment Labour just sound confused - do they want to keep inequality and raise tax revenue from private schools or reduce inequality by banning private schools?

If there are no private schools they will have to raise taxes, both to accommodate more children in the state system and to pay for the use and maintenance of all those ex-private school facilities. It would be more honest to just cut to the chase and raise income and capital taxes now.

The Labour Private Schools policy is a DISTRACTION
It did not happen in 1983
it will not happen now

but it has stopped everybody talking about the fact that
Corbyn / Milne / McLuskey
are enabling a hard Tory Brexit which will destroy the UK economy
which is the real issue

Yes, the proposed cap of 7% of privately educated pupils allowed entry to universities is ridiculous for all the reasons mentioned.

It would make more sense to bring in a system where university applications take place after A level results are released. Plus fully funded qualified careers advisors in every school who help kids understand the heirarchy of universities. A recent talk at my dad's 6thcform college, in a disadvantaged area talked only of Oxbridge as universities for high achievers leaving the impression there's Oxford and Cambridge on one level and all other universities with equal footing on a lower level.

Address some of the issues why fewer kids from less affluent backgrounds apply to better universities.

Well it works in Finland. It is illegal to charge for education.
BILGE
www.expat-finland.com/living_in_finland/international_schools.html

3% of children in Finland are in fee paying schools

"By statue, the International School of Helsinki receives financial support from the government of Finland. The State grant is based on average enrollment and unit price per grade level. Students recognized as residents by Finnish authorities receive 100% of the grant amount. Students recognized as non-residents by Finnish authorities receive 57%.
Students listed as non-residents will be levied a non-residency fee to compensate for the partial loss of the state grant"

In everything I've ever read, or anyone with professional experience, the problem isn't that private school pupils are taking the places from their state school peers. Simply that in many schools/ areas the applications aren't forthcoming.

@BertrandRussell
YobaOljazUwaque -can I just check- are you saying that private school’s charitable status is justified because of bursaries?

Apologies for the delay I have been out at a meeting for the board of the charity that I am a trustee for.

In answer to your question, no that was not my assertion. The requirement for any organisation to be a charity is that it should be doing something to achieve a "good" (list of options here) and that it is run as not-for-profit. Being not-for-profit can be achieved either by only charging for the exact costs of providing the service, or by using any excess funds to reduce the cost for service users who can't afford standard fees, or by spending any excess on enhancing the service in another way.

Schools that have charitable status do this. Whether they achieve a no-profit final accounting balance by creating bursaries or not is immaterial. The bursaries are not the charitable endeavour but could be one way a school balanced the books if it was otherwise making a profit. The charitable status is due to the fact that they make no profit.

In the mental health scenario I put in the bit about using the excess to provide services free etc so that there wasn't a red herring of Y clinic being cheaper than X clinic because that wouldn't help the analogy, there's not always a correlation between fees and whether a school is a charity or profit making so constructed the thought experiment to ensure the services had the same cost to the end user. Fundamentally the only point is that the owners of clinic X pocket a nice profit and the trustees of clinic Y do not because any available funds are used within the organisation.

An opera house can be a charity and yet still have the cheapest seats be unaffordable for many.

The cost of visiting a National Trust stately home, or of National Trust membership, is unaffordable for many too, but it is a charity.

Charities have no obligation to be affordable for all, only that they make no overall profit on what they charge. Clinic Y achieves this. It doesn't have to be via providing free/reduced price services.

You seem to be skating over the other requirement of a charity- that it should provide benefit to the public. The charity Commission appears to skate over this quite lightly too in relation to private schools.