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

Only if we can vet your lily-livered, unqualified lot first

If memory serves charities can register for VAT and can reclaim some of the input tax they incur. I think however education is considered an exempt supply and as such does not attract VAT.

I would definitely agree with you Senora about the difficulty with parents who don't think that education is important, or that teachers should be respected. That is a huge issue. Xenia, I really hope that you're joking otherwise you and I might come to blows.

I'd venture to say you do get some parents in private ed who don't care - they have handed their child over to the school lock stock and barrel and expect the child to emerge at 18yo a shining example of What Can Be Achieved. And some who expect a silk purse out of a sow's ear, whatever the cost (one-to-one learning support at £30+ per hour if necessary all day, all week).

But mostly, IME, they will put in any extra effort suggested by the school, buy extra materials and textbooks or plug away at music/tables/spelling practice; they will run around to extra-curricular activties and they want their children to have a full and fulfilling epxerience of life. And to achieve this they will go without holidays, new cars, home improvements, etc. that their friends or colleagues on similar incomes might choose over private ed.

Yes, most parents care about children's education. It's why newspapers and political parties are constantly going on about the issue but not all parents and most in the private sector do care beause it's costing them a fortune and they've made it a family priority over holidays etc even in many cases. So that's bound to show a difference.

(Yes, joke about accent and clothes - I'm sure state school teachers dress well and speak well)

I'd be the first to say that the attitudes of parents are one of the things that makes teaching in some schools so challenging, and I'd also be the first to say that the government is very quick to blame the teachers for behaviour when it comes from the parents. I just object to the generalisation that all parents who choose not to pay for their children's education don't care about them doing well academically. There's enough call for private tutors to prove that.

The issue is much more complicated than private schools=good education therefore the teachers must be better. Which is why this whole idea is such a stupid one.

Certainly good PR for the private schools courtesy of the ever competent Blair (Education, Education, Education).

If education is an exempt service for VAT then would that mean if the charitable status went there wouldn't be a 17.5% hike in the fees? If that were so I can see why some schools aren't too bothered about losing their charitable status and happily withdrawing that help for the poor they currently give. Another won goal for Blair.

Hear, hear MissM.

Beats me how the government is doing this - turning professionals on each other. And communities on each other.

And encouraging people to 'shop' each other.

This morning DD (10yo) who watched the film last night about the Lusitania said 'That man who narrated the film said "I used to think that governments were there to look after people. Now I know they exist to look after themselves." '

Out of the mouths of babes (and film producers/editors/scriptwriters - go no idea whether this is a direct quote)....

Sorry to put in my point an then disappear, Miss M you did get me wrong as Caroline and some others pointed out - I think my comments tried to make that clear - 'not to say other parents aren't but a much larger proportion are likely to be in the private sector' - I wasn't for a moment suggesting parents who educate their children through the state sector - that includes me btw - are all disinterested in their children's education, I was talking as a proportion. i think it not unreasonable to assume that parents who are prepared to stump up the ridiculous amount of money that private eduaction costs are 95% likely to be interested in their children's education, academic achievement and future job prospects. ( I agree that there are some who hand over the money and expect the school to get onwith it, I've met them) In the state sectgor, therefore representative of the whole population and not a selct few, i would hazard a guess that there is a slightly smaller percentage, perhaps 85%. I am not for a minute saying you only care about your child's eduaction and future academic and job success if you pay for it, I am merely saying that those who don't care and aren't supportive aren't likely to be found inthe private sector paying for their education. If I didn't make myself clear, I'm sorry, I was trying to point out merely that if you afforded the state sector with the priviledges of the private sector then the state sector would have a better chance. I believe teachers are teachers good and bad in both sctors, it's a hell of a lot easier to teach if you're given a clever able and disciplines lot to start with. My pointwas that state sector teachers in private schools would improve results, private sector teachers in the state sector would notnecessarily improve the lot of state schools. I hope I've made myself clear now, [}

I think the loss to the schools would be the input tax they may be claimimg on some purchases but if their purchases related to exempt supplies then the couldn't claim the input tax back on those.

I see. But a lot of what they buy like basic food items, books probably aren't subject to VAT. I did see some letters to the Times from a private school headmaster or governor saying it may be advantageous just to ditch the charitable status entirely... although paying business rates won't be fun particularly when you don't make profits.

Perhaps parents could buy the schools through some kind of share purchase arrangement and get some dividends too. Might be some interesting possibilities.

I saw that Harpsichordcarrier posted on a different thread that state Academies are expected "to be set up as companies limited by guarantee with charitable status."
Won't that make it a bit difficult to deny private schools the same charitable status?

I do think Boazer made sense. There are many reasons that private/public schools produce better results, but I personally don't believe that better teachers is one of those reasons.

The reasons we carry on paying for schooling is the many opportunities (sporting/musical) the small class sizes, the fact that there are a number of bright children, and so on.

The thought of home-educating makes my hair curl. Hats off to those who do it, but if we tried, either my children would go mad or I would.

wych, I think as they don't charge they can show public benefit including helping the very poorest. Could be interesting though because the consultation on this says it doesn't mean benefiting rich local neighbours. You have to benefit the poor, ideally people on benefits. So an opera house that gives rich OAPs 10% off is not going to pass the test whereas if they give a good number of completely free tickets to very poor OAPs then they might.

My parents sent me to state school. They cared about my education.

DH's parents sent him to state school and they cared about his education.

We are planning to send our DTS to state school and we care about their education.

DH and I went to university with privately educated people, we work with privately educated people and we have surpassed many of those same people in terms of career progression and pay.

My boss sent his daughter to private school. There were seven in her class. She failed her GCSE Maths and got a D in English. Two of DH's cousins went to private school and failed their GCSE and this was a supposedly top school!

The biggest problem with too many state schools imho, is the social attitude towards education. If you have an area where too many people do not value education, that will impact on the schools. In that respect, you cannot blame people for wanting to avoid those schools by moving to another area or by going private. However, I went to one such school and it is interesting to note that children of immigrants tended to do better than those with indigneous parents. Why? Our parents thought that the free education provided was excellent and they encouraged their children to make the most of it.

In my experience and imvho, what really matters is the home environment, whether you send them to private or state school.

Private schools appear to do better academically because they select their pupils and weed out those that don't come up to scratch.

Yes, but those are exceptions. Private school can get even not so bright children other advantages too as well though such as confidence, a wider skill set, contacts etc and the CCC might have been no A levels at all elsewhere in a bad state school.

Anyway if you can afford it you have a choice and that's all there is to it.

I thought Prince William did OK or did I miss something. Some would say that parents who use private ed care less that state ed parents as they just throw money at a situation and hope that deals with it.

State Ed requires more input some say.

For the privileged education he had, I would describe Prince William's performance as lacklustre and as for Prince Harry, the less said the better.

SPeedy remind me I have lost touch with the Royals.

Ahem Ahem