State -v- Private

[aim1ee]

Having experienced both I feel in a position to comment. Our views - the assumption that because you are paying independent school fees that the education and care must be better, is an absolute myth. State education is excellent; provided by qualified teachers often with teaching assistants/trainee teachers in the class together, after school clubs and sport, breakfast clubs, regular sight of books, pastoral care and parental involvement. Especially good advice on internet safety and how numeracy and literacy are taught - even parents' lessons! Most special needs and disabled children are integrated into a happy community. On the other hand we found private schools are elitest, one or two really rude and nasty parents, inadequate leadership by Heads, only one class teacher (sometimes unqualified), short staffed, absent pastoral support, inadequate school reports downloaded from the internet with a few chosen phrases slotted in, school's own policies not adhered to, expensive uniform some of which went missing, overlong holidays. Without doubt State is best.

Sunny

We live in a pretty deprived area in the north west, several dc from the LA pass auditions every year. The school has fewer than 300 children, so whilst some come from as far as China, Russia and elsewhere there are a good many come from local areas.
When we were there I also met children from further north from less than privileged backgrounds.
These dc have only had lessons through the LA, some even subsidised if receiving benefits. It is their teachers who have told them about the school.
Our dd heard about it at school when she was 8 and asked to leave school to audition. We said not until 14, she wore us down and she is 11 now and down to her last audition next week.
I agree though children not having lessons wouldn't hear about it, except through dd who doesn't shut up about it.

well I wish her all the best with it!

"It is a fact that state education is better, quote from the guardian, "Studies continue to show that when comprehensive school pupils reach university, they outperform peers from the private sector admitted with similar grades."

You mean that studies showed that state school kids need to be more intelligent/academic to achieve the same results in school exams as private school kids?

I'm afraid your "fact" demonstrates that state education is worse, not that it's better.

Do I think that private education is automatically better than state education? Heck no. But to a certain extent, you get what you pay for. I pay for my kids to be taught by people all of whom have at least a first degree in the subject they teach. All of them. The school won't employ anyone who hasn't.

The expectations of state school education have got so low that, the last time I posted this, people told me that either I was lying or the school was. Nope.

And I think state schools should have the exact same requirements.

Would the state school system be (very slightly) better if my family used it? Probably. But I'm afraid I'm not prepared to put my kids through that. And I say that as someone who was state educated, whose kids were state educated until it became untenable, and who'd always planned for her kids to be state educated.

Ok, remove charitable status from private schools. Then the fees will go up and many parents (including me) will remove their children and take up state school places instead. I think you'd find pretty quickly that the extra taxes paid by private schools won't pay for the extra state school places that will be needed.

In the period following 2008 fees went up a lot and as a consequence (combined with the recession) many children were sent to state schools instead of private; a number of private schools went out of business. Many (most?) people paying private school fees don't have limitless money to spend on private education and nor will they spend their money unless they think it is worth it. Relatively small increases in fees (15%, 20%) to pay for the end of charitable status would push many parents back into the state sector from "normal" private day schools. Meanwhile the really wealthy parents paying full fees for the top schools such as Winchester or Eton would be unaffected.

I don't think there are many really poor students in private schools. In my experience, however, some middle income families choose private education when other families with higher incomes would claim they can't afford it. My own neighbours send their children to state schools but I would estimate their incomes are at least 50% more than ours. They have very expensive cars on their driveways; take lots of expensive holidays and so on.

Finally, many people turn to the private sector because something went wrong in the state sector, not because they think private schools are always better. A taxi driver recently told me how he scraped up fees for his child to do year 10 and 11 in a private school since her comprehensive had many issues and she couldn't get a place in another better school. (The comp went into special measures for all the issues he told me about but not in time for his child to get through her GCSEs.)

Thanks Sunny

I know its a different school to many others but just wanted to make the point that when folk call bans to certain type of schools i.e charitable status they need to look at the bigger picture because some really do help the less than privileged.

Hak
I don't mind admitting to being ill educated in these matters but besides the awards from gov, from the music and drama awards there are lots of bequests and voluntary donations to the school.
Maybe because it was founded as a poor school centuries ago.

Removing tax breaks from private schools would amount to losing about 4 pupils per school, on average. I don't think tht is going to make a massive impact on fees.

oh does it have a long history starting life as a 'hospital' charity school?

There is a government scheme that provides funding for talented musicians and dancers- that's where the money come from. Nothing to do with charitable status.

So if charitable status is equivalent to 4 pupils out of e.g. 200, and the 200 pupils are out of the state sector, saving the state a million pounds a year, isn't it petty to ask for 40-50k extra tax from the school?

Personally I deeply, deeply resent the fact that I pay taxes and yet because my children's (specialised) needs are not catered for in state schools I also "have" to pay school fees. I would deeply resent effectively being taxed again, by a chunk of my school fees being paid in tax to the government. If this happened I would seriously consider using the money I currently pay in fees to fight my LA (i.e. legal action) to force them to provide for my children.

Hak

Yes, I believe so. The charitable status means people can donate for school funds i.e new building just opened, improvements to boarding houses, and new performance theatre opening.

I think there are gov schemes for all sorts of arts and sport, it could be better because some activities are still seen as only for the elite, everybody should be given the chance whatever their gift or talent.

Sunny

Poor boys school I think. But will check.
It has a very famous library and you can get married there if you want to.
Very old building too, although modern ones added.

sunny
Yes, hospital school.
Built in 1421.

ullen

for your post it is very enlightening. As you can see from my posts I am not familiar with private schools. It seems that charitable status helps mc families as well as some schools helping poorer dc.

I'd happily pay for a school that doesn't expect my work hours to be 10am-2pm with 13 weeks annual leave.

There are a number of great comprehensives and grammar schools around us (North London). If all the North London private schools raised their fees enough, say through being taxed or loosing charity status, then those kids will go back into the state system and a number of non-fee paying kids won't be going to grammar or will be inched out of catchment areas into schools with of "perceived lesser quality".

When it's your kid who gets bumped off the bottom of the grammar 11+ position by "rich kids" or would be 50 yards out of a shrinking catchment comp, I think many would think less politically about private schools. That "7%" would make quite a difference in some areas to "opportunity" for less well off kids.

There is so much hysteria round my parts about state v private and the mad 4+ and up assessment system. I can see all sides of the argument.

But if we made private schools illegal, here is what would happen. The catchment areas around the best state schools would see an enormous uplift in property prices, and before long it wouldn't be about school fees but who can afford to live near the best schools (it already happens in some places in London and the South East; house prices within the Eleanor Palmer catchment in NW5 are about 10% higher than streets just out of the catchment). So it would be a similar situation and in some ways, much much less egalitarian.

It sucks. It is unfair. I think it is worth bearing in mind though that sending your kid to the best private schools is by no means a guarantee they will get on in life. And I truly believe that even if you are stuck having to send your kid to a failing school, it is possible for them to fly. I know two brothers who did just that - Oxford and Cambridge between them, great careers, from one of the worst schools in London. They have a phenomenal mum though who really put everything she could in terms of time and using everything as a learning opportunity.

I also think those people who shell out £25000 a year to send their kid to a private school just because it's private and think little Johnny will be Prime Minister are deluded. It's a handful of select schools that might - just might - have that kind of career sway - and yet so many people waste their money sending their kids to second rate private schools when a decent state would do just fine.

I can't believe I've bothered to post on this thread as they have been done so many times before and it all comes to nothing. It's horses for courses. Life ain't fair. All the usual.

I don't think private schools should be outlawed but I do think that there are arguments for more regulation in order to reduce the massive difference in educational experience between private and state school education DC.

I'm thinking about things like class size.

I think private schools are negligible, as are really grammars except of course in kent!
Most parents in UK use state schools, just concentrate on making those better rather than blaming a teeny per cent of schools that work...elsewhere.

So nobody has any issue with, for example, the number of Etonians in the Cabinet? No problem with the Establishment perpetuating itself through th public school system?

Ok, remove charitable status from private schools. Then the fees will go up and many parents (including me) will remove their children and take up state school places instead.

But those articulate, generally pretty well educated and capable parents would then take more of an interest in the state system and help to improve it, by becoming governors, getting involved with PTAs, keeping teachers on their toes.

When it comes to the educational prospects of all children, nothing works better than a truly comprehensive system.

"I'm thinking about things like class size"
well my son goes to the local state school and the class sizes are tiny.
Six in his tutor group I think.

Mashabell

You think that those "rich parents" will be the ones jumping on the PA / governor band wagon to improve prospects for "all"?

My instinct tells me that those "rich parents" will be laughing that they save £250,000 per child, spending money on extra-tuition, bigger houses and continuing to ensure their children get into top jobs and universities.

10 x 100% scholarships & up to 85% remission. Admittedly not the best performer in the national league tables but compare with the state school results in a 10 mile radius & it is understandable why they had so many applicants.

Another thing private school parents needs of remember is that the tiny %age of tax they pay towards state education is not just about educating their own child. It's about educating the people who will do all the stuff in society that they and their children won't do- fix their cars, cut their hair, manage their supermarkets, fit their central heating, police their streets, look after them when they are ill.............

And, controversially, maybe helping not have an undereducated, resentful underclass.......

masha

There is no way parents would do that, they would H.ed and pay for private tuition if the alternative to private were not good schools, myself included.

I don't believe that anyone truly puts their choice of education down to what is best for society, they look at what is best for their own child, if they have the choice.

Some parents/dc don't have a choice in their education they have to choose from the best of the worst, sometimes they still end up with the worst whatever they try and do to avoid it. It's life, unfair and will probably never change.

State Vs Private is as much about social apartheid as it is about the quality of teaching.