Private schools charity status: Is 'nicking' poor but bright DCs from the state sector the answer??

[miljee]

as in via scholarships? Personally I don't think they should be allowed to get around the Charity Commission in this way. They're supposed to be 'of benefit to their community'- surely pulling in the clever DCs from the local state schools merely 'degrades' the state school but improves the exam results for the private school? Would we be happy with that as a solution??

If you look at the occupations Australia wants it seems to be computer people, hairdressers, teachers and midwives. All those professions are skilled but not particularly highly paid, with the exception perhaps of computer experts. I'm just not convinced that people are crying out for exactly the same group of people who would be annoyed at the kind of taxation PW might favour.

If you look at the occupations Australia wants it seems to be computer people, hairdressers, teachers and midwives. All those professions are skilled but not particularly highly paid, with the exception perhaps of computer experts. I'm just not convinced that people are crying out for exactly the same group of people who would be annoyed at the kind of taxation PW might favour.

There does seem to be a common theory that the parents who choose independent schools do so to be socially elitist. This isn't true of us nor anyone we know at school. I'm not saying such views don't exist but the assumption that that's the main reason behind the choice simply isn't true. The vast majority of parents opt out of the state system to benefit from small class sizes and excellent facilities.

I know I pay twice but that's the choice I've made. Other than when in labour, I've (thankfully) never needed an NHS hospital but I don't begrudge paying for it because it's all part of collective responsibility.

Nobody wants state schools to be poor or mediocre. All children are entitled to a decent education. What most parents are paying for is not necessarily a better quality of education (although in many areas this may be true) but rather a more enriched, broader learning experience. Enhanced sporting and music facilities for example.

At our school a production team was hired last year to come in and turn an entire wing of the junior school into a Victorian street with Victorian shops etc. They brought amazing props and clothes for the kids. It was stunning, but very expensive. Now, this isn't needed to teach the Victorians to a good standard. I've taught it very well myself without this. BUT, it enhances their learning experience in a fabulous way.

What I'm trying to say is that the 'choice' I have should afford me nothing more than a 'top-up'. Like paying for extra curricular activities for your kids. The fact that many children are not receiving a decent education in the state system is a disgrace. The fact that some parents can afford extra on top of that is not.

And the poster who thinks that saying abolishing independent schools does not help raise the standards of state schools is moronic, is herself, deluded. All that would happen is that some would leave or send their kids overseas and others would use the excellent state schools in the most affluent parts of the country. I wouldn't imagine many parents here in Wilmslow would suddenly send their kids to school in Moss Side!

Most countries will take those who have money.

Look at people who move to Switzerland, for example.

You can also buy your way into most countries by investing into a business and employing a certain number of people.

There are a fair number of parents at DD's school who have few formal qualifications but it hasn't stopped them making money - through trade - builders, joiners, printers. But if they were taxed v highly they could move elsewhere. They may not have first class degrees but they undoubtedly would qualify as 'Brain Drain' because of their entrepreneurial ability.

Elitist in intent or not, parents who send their children to a private school are setting them apart from the majority of the population in many senses. This may be a benefit to the child - I'm sure the parents will see it as such - but it does have another, negative side. They will only be really comfortable in later life with people from the same, fairly narrow background of private education. Seen it loads of times. It's not what I want for my children, and no amount of 'breadth of subjects' and Victorian Streets (lovely as that sounded) would make up for that fact IMO.

"I think that someone who has £40k more disposable income than the average should be paying most of it in tax."

So why would I work fiendishly hard if I were to lose anything over the average?

I am tempted to write Durr. It is such an expressive word.

It's an idealistic world view you have there PW - idealistic and unrealistic, methinks

But loads of working class people are set apart too and don't want to mix with others. Someone said on here that her husband calls mumsnet snobsnet - as if anyone who uses the word mum could be posh anyway!

Yes, we could easily move abroad if tax were too high or the children coul dbe educated abroad if a Government banned private schools but none of them will and labour are on the way out anyway.

It's rubbish to say that people who go to private school 'will only be really comfortable in later life with people from the same, fairly narrow background of private education'.

Many people from the lower classes are not comfortable with 'posh' people. I grew up on a council estate but that didn't seem to bother my public school educated husband. He went to a real 'old school' establishment and yes, there were snobby people there, but there were many who were not.

My children will go to private school but will still have their friends in the village and my family to keep them grounded. You can turn into a snob at the local village school - it's a parents responsibilty to ensure that their children can mix with different people.

There are schools that set people apart and do so deliberately, particularly boarding schools IMO. There are independent schools that are a bit more rounded and grounded - I'm thinking of the big independent day schools.

I would agree Xenia that many working class people are 'set apart' too. The less day to day contact that children have with people of other classes in general (for sniffyhock) the less comfortable they will be crossing barriers of social class. That is why I think that it is rubbish to pretend that sequestering your child away in a private school is not a social and moral decision, both for the individual child and society as a whole.

That's not to say that I don't hear the arguments for sending a child private rather than the sink school down the road, and I probably would too if that was the choice and I could afford it, but FGS I wouldn't be trumpeting my 'morals' and 'niceness'. You really can't have it both ways.

But, redadmiral, how many schools at primary level are truly mixed socially?

Also, who has been trumpeting morals and niceness? Sorry I haven't read all of the thread so I'm guessing you're not saying that you can't be 'moral' and nice if you send your children to private school!

I agree entirely with your post, SniffyHock!
I grew up in Easterhouse. Anyone who's heard of it knows that it is one of the most notorious estates in the country. Try driving through there in an expensive car and then tell me who finds it difficult to communicate with those perceived as being from a different social class.

Redadmiral, your perception may well be true of many children sent off to boarding school. However my kids are day pupils (no boarders at all at our school)and will stay that way until 18! DS still has playdates with kids he went to nursery with who have gone to the local primary. His cousins go to state school and as far as he is concerned he goes to one school, they another. Of course by the time he's at secondary level he'll know there's a difference but I'm bringing my kids up to realise they're privileged, to be grateful and to know that it have absolutely no bearing on a person's integrity!

No I don't mean that you can't be moral and 'nice' if you send your child to private school.

I suppose it's never nice to feel looked down upon, and I do feel that some of the statements on here have been a bit provocative.

Not sure how many primary schools are truly mixed. The one I went to years ago was, and the one I send my DDs to is even more so, religiously, culturally and ethnically. There are children there from very poor families and those from families who could easily afford to send their children to private school but have made the decision to send their children to the state school for exactly that mix.

We live in London - I suspect that may not be the case everywhere.

CC, I think you might have not quite understood what I meant. I think that separating children at school age is never going to enhance relations between different classes - cuts both ways...

I also didn't mean that going to private school meant you have less integrity. Just that parents may want to send their children there to 'protect' them from the 'herd', but unwittingly set them in subtle or not so subtle ways apart from the rest of the population as adults. I think that's not a good thing - others may think that's what it's all about.

I didn't misunderstand. But I don't think the separation created by good state/independent is any worse than that created by good state/poor state IYKWIM. In actual fact I have taught in 2 high performing state schools in very affluent areas (One a Beacon school)The snobbery in one of these schools in particular was horrible. We're talking about a village where the housing stock started at 500k. IMO, those children mixed with working class kids far less than many who go to independent schools in culturaly diverse urban areas.

Oh and my 'integrity' comment was me saying that I am teaching my kids that there are bad/good and indifferent people from all walks of life and not to prejudge anyone in the way that my snooty ILs made assumptions about me, the girl from the rough council estate. They couldn't believe that I was better qualified than their son, for instance.

Protect children from the herd?

Not sure what this means in practice, but I am happy to say why we are convicted to private education for our children: it is primarily to protect them from bad/disruptive behaviour in class; a secondary reason is small class sizes so that their teachers truly know them.

In the workplace, I have never had to deal with the type of disruptive behaviour that is endemic in comprehensive schools, so I have never needed strategies for dealing with it. It is not a skill that I needed to hone in my formative years. I don't place a high value on this for my children, so I am happy for them to be protected from it as they receive their education.

My wish for "the herd" is that they would also be protected from bad behaviour, but there by the Grace of God go I.

Protect children from the herd?

Not sure what this means in practice, but I am happy to say why we are convicted to private education for our children: it is primarily to protect them from bad/disruptive behaviour in class; a secondary reason is small class sizes so that their teachers truly know them.

In the workplace, I have never had to deal with the type of disruptive behaviour that is endemic in comprehensive schools, so I have never needed strategies for dealing with it. It is not a skill that I needed to hone in my formative years. I don't place a high value on this for my children, so I am happy for them to be protected from it as they receive their education.

My wish for "the herd" is that they would also be protected from bad behaviour, but there by the Grace of God go I.

I think private school makes you more confident and better able to mix with different people. I have chosen schools it is very hard to get into however rich you are. They are set apart because you only go there if your IQ is in the top 10% or something like that and 99% will go to Oxbridge or good universities. That is setting apart from the herd in the way the old grammar schools did.

Others will want their children set apart from the herd by a Muslim, Jewish or Catholic school and others again will home school because they are fundamentalist Christians and do not want the children imbibing wrong morality from other pupils at school. Others want their blind children educated only with other blind children and thus also set apart. Others might pay because they want their children in a class where 99% only speak English at home and everyone is not struggling to cope with language which can be the case in some primaries which are 98% non native speakers. I also pay so my boys are educated only with boys and my girls only with girls - so there I'm educating them to be apart from 50% of humanity in a sense.

Perhaps in a sense I'm having them educated so they can lead the herd whether into battle or because they run the plc the herd McJob/Tesco workers work in.

Do I want my children mixing with the herd? I'm conflicted about that

I want my children to grow up nice and normal and able to relate easily with a wide set of people

I do not want them going to schools where the education is disrupted by lots of people with asbos and low educational aspirations

So whilst acknowledging that my children are of course of the herd, I still want them to benefit from a good education

RedAdmiral "In the light of evidence that the more middle-class children that go to a school the better that school does, I find it almost moronic that people are having to ask 'why would abolishing private schools improve state schools?"
Wihout wishing to sound moronic, perhaps you would tell me precisely how abolishing private schools will improve state schools. I'm seriously interested in your response.

I still haven't had my question answered - i.e. what's the point of mentioning that people who pay for private school also pay for state education through taxation? What does it prove/ imply/ indicate/ suggest?

Presumably because our children educated privately are so clever and lovely the state schools would be hugely improved if they were amongst them.... I am just not sure that that is so actually and I'm certainly not prepared to take that risk. I want mine to have the best chances in life and I can get that by paying.

they're clever but they have no idea how real life operates

UQD - Might it mean 'If anyone has a right to moan it's those parents who pay twice for their child's education?'

RedAdmiral - I used to teach in London and would agree that generally the schools are very diverse. Lots of Georgian terraces alongside high rises ensures that.

If fact, one of my main reasons for choosing DCs school was the cultural mix. Our village school is entirely white - the private school is far more diverse, lots of children of doctors from the large hospital nearby.

I know children who go to an all-white school in a lovely, fairly affluent village where the parents can be very cliquey. That was exactly what I didn't want.