Private Education Sector to "Loan " Teachers......

[Boobsgonesouth]

I know that this one will be such a hot potato...couldn't resist the temptation to post it

here's the article

Those poor teachers who escaped from the state sector because they couldn't cope with challenging behaviour. They're probably checking their job descriptions right now.

It's the bit about "taking pupils on secondment from local comprehensives" that concerns me - I mean fair enough, an exchange to the states or somewhere very different might be exciting but taking a kid from one part of a town away from their friends and sticking them in with a load of other kids who'll look down on them - how's that going to help?

maybe the "poor teacahers" preferred to work in an environment which actually gave them the opportunity to teach....

and why would the kids look down on them..... mine certainly wouldn't !!

Heard it on radio this morning . Isn't it a bit, er, patronising and insulting reinforcing an assumption that Private School teachers are by definition better ? I'm sure each sector could learn from the other but would it really be any more than from any one school to another.

I don't think it's fair to sling mud at any of the schools or teachers referred to in this article.

It's just another load of political *@"%@$%"%

..I would guess there's a bit of journalism going on here too as the issue is to do with the 'charitable' status of schools and the tax benefits they gain from being listed as such.

Surely they should be addressing this issue rather than using the charitable status as a negotiation tool/weapon. So rather than saying "you can only keep your charitable status if you let us use your first class facilities or use your "wonderful" teachers or give back to the community is wrong.

It asbolutely should be to do with the charitable status issue and nothing else.......

Perhaps it's just the government's way of levering VAT onto school fees. Imagine all that extra income to the coffers - 620,000 (ref ) pupils @ an average of £11,150 (ref) in fees = £6,913,000,000 x 17.5% = £1.209m in VAT.

Except then schools would also be able to reclaim the VAT they pay on goods and services they currently can't. So it can't be that.

DD's private school, btw, rents facilities from the local council and a nearby state school so sharing its facilities isn't quite such an easy option!

Read the consultation paper on how to show "public benefit" under the Charities Act 2006 which is interesting. It doesn't say what a school will have to do. In a sense it's charitable to take hoards of children out of the state sector saving the tax payer £5k a year per child. Huge benefit to the state and the education of those rich children is beneficial too. No reason the law had to be changed at all but it's like the hunting ban - just labour jealousy.

Assuming they have to prove benefit to those on benefits etc (which is going to be difficult for those putting on operas etc too) what is needed? Apparently some private schools already make available more free places than the tax benefits they get. The richer snobbier schools have lots of investments and can afford a lot of the proposals. The poorer schools with no savings and 80% of fee income going to pay teachers don't.

I couldn't get the link to work either but it was the headline item on the BBC website yesterday.

Try this

Some schools are debating whether they need charitable status. It's a bit of a straight jacket. If you thnk your parents can cope with school fees plus VAT then it may be manageable. In addition if you were allowed to drop costly co-operation with state schools and may be some free places for the poor you might not need to increase it by 17.5% anyway. Then they can tell Labour where to go etc.

SueW - my dds' school also rents their facilities to a local state school. Frankly I wouldn't be happy about paying for something and then the state schools getting to use them for free.

Daughter 2 used to go on, as teenagers do, about why their head was spending so much time with whoever it was Prince Charles etc setting up a City Academy when she was paid to deal with their school.

agree with the implications babygrand raises. besides to suggest that the state sector hasn't the ability to be good schools on their own is insulting to the good heads/teachers that there are - they have just got to be tougher with ousting the badwood.

this is far too complex an issue and haven't got the time right now but i don't think this proposal and it's threatening tone is the answer to the problems in the state schools.

Perhaps it is a clever ploy to address shortage of Maths and Science teachers in state schools? Round my way state schools have to grab the first maths/science teacher that they can get (and employ slightly underhand tactics) as there are several independents that pay better plus excellent state sixth form college that are more attractive because of sixth form work and motivated students.

Isn't this the ultimate insult to teachers though? Whilst the sectors may be different to work in surely it is utterly simplistic to say that private schools can benefit society by hsaring their teachers? To say nothing of who is then meant to be covering the lessons in the private schools. And even the idea that the private schools should be sharing their science facilities presupposes that their facilities are superior to the state school ones - again rarely the case ime.

I'm beginning to think that the government has lost the plot on education.

I think it's funny. It shows they all agree private is best which those of us who pay realise, as long as it's a good private school, is patently obvious.

If the requirement to keep charitable status become too onerous then the private schools that are successful will just opt out of needing to be charitable and the divide will be even wider. Benefiting the chidlren in the school whose parents pay is charitable on the traditional test that has worked well for hundreds of years. Education whoever you educate is a good and to say educating those who are rich is not a "good" are wrong. We did not need the new Charities Act.

Oh Xenia sometimes you just sound a bit stupid, tbh.

Private school is not always best, it depends on the individual child and what the school offers.

My DB went to a private school on an assisted place for a year. He was so badly bullied that he started to do badly at school and truant.

As soon as he moved back to his state school, he started to get A grades again and attend school. Got 3 A's and went to university. I doubt if he would have done that if he'd stayed at the very well-respected public school he'd attended. It patently wasn't the best choice for him.

Sorry I shouldn't have said you sounded stupid, you probably aren't, it was rude of me. It was your remark that sounded very stupid and I'm sure it was calculated to get a reaction.

Come on 7% of children in private schools at 50% at Oxbridge. You're not telling me that's just because of Oxbridge private school bias or that rich parents breed cleverer children? It's because the schools on the whole are hugely better. It's why 47% of parents would pay if they could afford it.

No Xenia, it's not because they are "better", it's because they simply don't have to deal with all the problems normal schools have to.

Plus they have enough money to offer extra curricular activities, participation in which help with Oxbridge applications.

I know teachers who teach in private schools, who say quite frankly that they wouldn't last 2 weeks in a state school and have no idea how their state school colleagues manage to teach given some of the obstacles they encounter.

(Was on the phone to a friend of mine yesterday - deputy head in a posh girls' school - and she said "no bloody way will you get me to go into the state school down the road, I wouldn't know where to start - I'll be looking very carefully at my contract if they try and bring that in!")

xenia, the weak point of that argument is that getting to oxbridge isnt the be all and end all of life. yes, many children could reach that level if they were put in a single sex environment, with no trouble makers, and teachers grooming them for oxbridge.
But is that really in the childrens best interests? I believe its better for the children to learn about real life, and how to get good exam results while living in the real world. If necessary, I'll hire tutors to help my childrens study - but I wont remove them from the real world to some cloistered academic paradise.