Private School Teacher's Discount on school fees

[PJUK]

There is an old thread on this but years old so starting anew.

My kids are in an independent school and just found out the discount on fees for teachers kids is around 75%.

I am sure there’s mixed feelings on this but I’m sick about it. Why should I be subsiding others when I pay in full just because they work there?

Bursaries are another matter and justified.

I can’t think of another industry or business where the ‘employee discount’ is so substantial.

Anticipate other’s views.

@Lessonstobe

Any school with charity status actually starts to earn it - you claim your school is a benefit to the wider community and you share facilities? Then actually do it.
Saying we can rent your auditorium for £500 for 2 hours for the end of year play or rent your pool for lesson, is NOT something that should earn charity status."

Absolutely this. And the contribution to the community needs to be public. And properly constructive. And not consist, like one near us does, of sending in some kids doing their DofE to listen to reading and tick off their volunteer box!

I find this comment sweeping and generalizing.

How many teacher do you know who went from state to public who were rubbish? Who decided they were rubbish?

And when you say 'struggling with the job' would you care to clarify as to why?

The state school teachers I know who left to teach private were the ones that were struggling with the job. I'm obviously not saying that all private school teachers are rubbish, rather that it isn't the salary that entices them, it's the other perks.

This is nonsense. Do you really think the private sector is stuffed with ‘rubbish’ teachers? And that no-one notices or cares?

I have spoken to private school teachers who admit they wouldn't cope in state, mostly due to behaviour and keeping up with the latest government fads.

The sectors are different.

I’ve just checked the admissions policy for our two nearest schools. Both give priority to teachers’ children over local children. Both are academies.

@Another76543 where abouts are you?
I checked about 7 local primary and secondary academies last night and none of them have this perk. Although none of them are especially desirable schools and we don't live in a competitive area.

I’d rather not say whereabouts in the country I am. It seems to be fairly random though, because I’ve checked another local secondary school and they don’t give priority to teachers’ children. Local primary schools don’t seem to either.

I don't really understand why those figures would be controversial. What is the ratio of private schools to state schools- about 7% (for A-level students its 20%)? Not all private schools are charities so if half of them are partnering with a local state school those numbers would make perfect sense. It wouldn't be feasible for more than one other school to have access to facilities as the timetabling wouldn't work.

The local private school my DD goes with partners with the local state primary where I am a governor. The make sports facilities, computing facilities and the pool available for free. They don't pay for instructors or transport to the school (which is walking distance anyway) and I don't think that negates the fact they are sharing facilities for free.

The partnership extends beyond this with nominated children from schools getting tuition and access to training.

However, the main source of charitable status is that hundreds of years ago it was set up as a charity via an endowment left by a wealthy benefactor to educate the poor. The endowment is still used to provide free bursary places. Approximately 15% of students are on bursary and they are targeting that figure to increase to 20% in the coming years.

Another local private school which isn't a charity doesn't do anything like this at all- no bursaries, no local partnerships etc (though they do do fundraising for local causes amongst the parent body). It's a for profit business which is fine but entirely different.

@MusicMum80s You missed this bit "Many partnerships involved joint football matches or children from state schools being invited to concerts, according to the report"

@CurlewKate no I didn't. It says 3% benefited from access to facilities which sounds about right when looking at the overall numbers. It would be very difficult for charitable independent schools to provide access to more than that proportion of state schools for the reasons already stated.

That the schools may also do matches etc with a wider variety of local schools doesn't negate the fact that they are sharing facilities within the bounds o what is logistically feasible with their main partner schools from the state system.

Of course the sectors are different. They are very different in terms of the resources available, the class sizes and the support for the teaching staff.

It certainly does not mean that the state school teachers are superior in any way at all. It does mean that teachers in state have to put up with a lot more crap, pay for things out of their own pocket and manage without support from the bunch of muppets government.

This is not a reflection on their teaching skills or dedication to the job at all. Teachers are not martyrs.

I know excellent teachers on both sides.

@justwatchingtelly Absolutely, I agree with you.

There are excellent teachers in both sectors. The big differences are selection and money.

Locally the private schools are much worse performers academically. A friends dd has just left after over £100k spent on her education with 4s and 5s. Her twin brother didn’t want to go to the private school and left state school with all 7s and 8s. Both had the same SATs results.

@Harrysutton its well documented that private schools outperform state schools even after adjusting for prior ability at secondary school level. There will obviously be some terrible private schools as well as some terrible state schools. However, across the sectors as a whole that's what the data show. You can look up UCL research on the point if interested.

Considering that they are selective and have more money it would be surprising if private schools didn't get better results than state schools.

It’s stupid to suggest that private schools get the same or worse results than state.

We get three parents evenings a term, two sets of exams a year from about yr 3 although they’re just little tests at that age. Missing homework is an issue, poor behaviour is not tolerated and parents have easy access to teachers.

its an unfair system, yes, everybody should get this level of input and care to their education. But it’s also unfair to suggest that there isn’t a huge advantage in exam results.

I’m not sure this is true; in my experience private schools at least match state salaries, though academies etc make comparisons harder. Certainly many advertise themselves ad paying ‘some way above’ other pay scales. In the case of the last independent I taught at the ‘some way’ was quite small, but DD is paid way above ‘state’ salary in her HoD role at her school.

@HorsePlatitudes "It’s stupid to suggest that private schools get the same or worse results than state."

It's not "stupid" to say that in some cases they do-there are some seriously crap private schools. But obviously selection and more money means that most private schools get better results overall than most state schools overall. It's a bit pointless comparing apples and oranges, though.

The pupils attending private schools around here have been described by some locals as the ‘crème de la crème’-rich and thick. Not a pleasant description but used because we are a grammar school area so the high achievers go to grammar and those who don’t get in but have the money to avoid going to the alternative state schools, go to one of the private schools. Their results aren’t great, but they have the advantages of having smaller class sizes.

I know a few people who have moved to teach at one though-it’s quite a nice place to work, longer holidays and the working day is no longer than state BUT, they have opted out of the teachers pension school which makes teachers reluctant to make the move. The advantage of a discounted place for their own child (particularly if they don’t get into a grammar) does help attract and retain teachers though.

You can't compare raw school results as the ability o the intake matters. Some private schools are academically selective and many are not.

However, the point is that when you take prior ability into consideration (performance on national exams), children of the same ability get better academic results in private school compared to state school.

UCL posits this is due to the additional resources available in private schools, though its likely a combination of factors

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/news/2019/nov/rich-resources-private-schools-give-pupils-educational-advantage-ioe-research-shows

All private schools are de facto selective schools. Selective schools, regardless of the selection criteria, do better overall than non selective ones.

This and to add and this is controversial rich parents tend to be more brainy than the rest and the genes tend to get passed onto their kids, with the exception of the nice but dim lot. Average IQ higher at private primary schools than state.

I said some are academically selective which is true. Not all private schools are academically selective, that's just a fact. Also, some (though no where near all) admit a substantial number of bursary students.

Either way, if you read the research you'll see they have controlled for academic ability and socioeconomic background when comparing the progress data between exams for students in the private vs state sector. Even when taking into account starting ability and socioeconomics, private schools get better academic results than state schools on average.