It is a more serious matter that politicians of all kinds interfere in Education. It is frankly ridiculous that they go on about raising 'standards' when they merely mean exam results, hence the manipulation of intake many schools practice to that end. The present government seem clear that they think the purpose of Education is to serve the job market. Cameron has talked about 'getting rid of subjects that don't get you anywhere' which has translated into the Arts subjects generally, ironic seeing as how the creative industries are the second or third biggest industries in Britain. Academies are to filter out the weaker kids, Free Schools are the equivalent of a yummy mummy ciabatta cafe (or are more sinister), and the possible return of Grammar Schools will also marginalise more people. One way or another we all pay for Education, but as a society we have been too stupid to contemplate why.
How will the 'return of Grammar Schools' marginalise people?
Because those children that don't get in to them will, wrongly, be regarded as failures. Grammar schools, and I went to one, and it was a fecking dreadful place, dreadful, have a very narrow brief which they call academic, and then it is promoted that such academic pursuits are somehow the gold standard of education. So those children that don't get in are marginalised, and those who wish to study or explore other areas that are not in the grammar school remit, will be marginalised. The problem is that everybody thinks they are an expert on Education because they went to school, I certainly ain't an expert on Brain Surgery because I have (half) a brain.
As some one who went to a private school I was always told, or believed that the reason private schools were charities was to make sure they reinvest all the money they make. This allows them to continually hire better staff, better equipment and build more facilities for the students. So to stop the school sitting back and taking as much profit as they can I'd prefer for the schools to continually serve their community and students as charities.
"Public", fee-paying schools are usually awarded charity status, which means that they are not subject to tax in the same way as other "businesses" are. Is it fair that we - as tax-payers - subsidise the education of those who can afford school fees, to the tune of about £700m a year? Or would it be better to spend that £700m a year investing in infrastructure for comprehensive schools?
Public schools earn money by selling their services to parents. What is wrong with those services attracting tax, to be gathered by the Treasury and used either to pay down the debt burden or for a capital investment in *all* schools?
Tax-payers without children already subsidise education for others, and tax payers with children at private school still pay for their Local Authority to provide schooling (which they don't use).
We should be striving to bring the standard of free education UP to the best available, not trying to bring things down by removing funding or charitable status.
As has been stated earlier, these schools provide free places and (often) free use of school facilities to the Local Authority.
How will the 'return of Grammar Schools' marginalise people?
Because those children that don't get in to them will, wrongly, be regarded as failures. Grammar schools, and I went to one, and it was a fecking dreadful place, dreadful, have a very narrow brief which they call academic, and then it is promoted that such academic pursuits are somehow the gold standard of education. So those children that don't get in are marginalised, and those who wish to study or explore other areas that are not in the grammar school remit, will be marginalised. The problem is that everybody thinks they are an expert on Education because they went to school, I certainly ain't an expert on Brain Surgery because I have (half) a brain.
Who regards them as failures if you dont get into them?
Surely we should be celebrating their academic achievement and giving them the best education possible?
If that means they benefit from having a stronger learning pool in their class that can only be a bonus surely, rather than having those kids sat bored in a class whilst the teachers take a disproportionally long time teaching others at a slower pace.
Are you against streaming in secondary schools so that the brightest there and the less able can receive a better education tailored to their ability ?
Some public schools advertise the tax benefits available to parents who sign up to "advanced fee schemes". This is where a very wealthy parent might pay for several years' fees at once. This allows the money to be invested by the public school, which, as a charity, does not pay the full amount of tax liable to - say - you or me, or the individual wealthy parent. The school then returns the investment gain to the parent.
So, in this way, the tax-payer is subsidising the wealthiest people who can afford to pay, for example, £150k up front, on a £30k per year fee.
Is this the smartest, fairest way to use tax-payers' money?
Some public schools advertise the tax benefits available to parents who sign up to "advanced fee schemes". This is where a very wealthy parent might pay for several years' fees at once. This allows the money to be invested by the public school, which, as a charity, does not pay the full amount of tax liable to - say - you or me, or the individual wealthy parent. The school then returns the investment gain to the parent.
So, in this way, the tax-payer is subsidising the wealthiest people who can afford to pay, for example, £150k up front, on a £30k per year fee.
Is this the smartest, fairest way to use tax-payers' money?
And who is the tax payer you mention ?
By which I mean if the parent pays 5 per year or 15 for 3 years in advance they have still paid tax on that income.
The school is not bound to pay tax as it is a charity, doesn't make a profit and reinvests all money back into its operations (just like a political party I think)
Some public schools advertise the tax benefits available to parents who sign up to "advanced fee schemes". This is where a very wealthy parent might pay for several years' fees at once. This allows the money to be invested by the public school, which, as a charity, does not pay the full amount of tax liable to - say - you or me, or the individual wealthy parent. The school then returns the investment gain to the parent.
So, in this way, the tax-payer is subsidising the wealthiest people who can afford to pay, for example, £150k up front, on a £30k per year fee.
Is this the smartest, fairest way to use tax-payers' money?
But how can you say that 'rich alumni' are privileged @lolwray - is it privileged to have worked hard and earned a lot of money which you then want to give back to the school that helped you on your way? Not everyone is born rich, lots of people go out and earn it....
I don’t think there should be public schools full stop. I think getting rid of them would improve levels of education across the country quite simply because if the rich had to use state schools for their kids, they would have to ensure they were better.
I don’t think there should be public schools full stop. I think getting rid of them would improve levels of education across the country quite simply because if the rich had to use state schools for their kids, they would have to ensure they were better.
Equally the rich shouldn't be allowed to buy a car worth more than £40k because then Vauxhall would have to make the Astra more comfortable, faster and with Sat Nav as standard.
@MuttleyCAFC you assume that everyone who sends their children to public schools is rich... My neighbour's daughter goes to Colfe's on a full scholarship, because she worked hard at primary school (Halstow in east Greenwich - a 'regular' primary school) and was accepted to Colfe's..her parents aren't rich at all and she would not have been able to go there without the scholarship..same is true for many kids...
But how can you say that 'rich alumni' are privileged @lolwray - is it privileged to have worked hard and earned a lot of money which you then want to give back to the school that helped you on your way? Not everyone is born rich, lots of people go out and earn it....
if you were "alumni" then someone else other than you would have paid for the education (unless it was bursary) so would it not be more altruistic/socially responsible/even fairer to make that donation to a cause that was more proportionately deserving ...say for instance an Inner city secondary school ? ...i dont expect the tax position would be any different from a donors perspective
How will the 'return of Grammar Schools' marginalise people?
Because those children that don't get in to them will, wrongly, be regarded as failures. Grammar schools, and I went to one, and it was a fecking dreadful place, dreadful, have a very narrow brief which they call academic, and then it is promoted that such academic pursuits are somehow the gold standard of education. So those children that don't get in are marginalised, and those who wish to study or explore other areas that are not in the grammar school remit, will be marginalised. The problem is that everybody thinks they are an expert on Education because they went to school, I certainly ain't an expert on Brain Surgery because I have (half) a brain.
Who regards them as failures if you dont get into them?
Surely we should be celebrating their academic achievement and giving them the best education possible?
If that means they benefit from having a stronger learning pool in their class that can only be a bonus surely, rather than having those kids sat bored in a class whilst the teachers take a disproportionally long time teaching others at a slower pace.
Are you against streaming in secondary schools so that the brightest there and the less able can receive a better education tailored to their ability ?
Thanks for your response on Grammar schools. A lot to chew on here.
I want to start with the notion of failures.
Previously we used to talk of 'passing' and 'failing' the 11+ in order to get into Grammar schools. I 'passed' my 11+ and then went to Brockley County which as I have said was a dreadful place, others who 'failed' went to secondary moderns or so called comprehensives like Dacres Road (Forest hill School) but would eagerly say 'but I'm going into the Grammar stream'. So at the age of 11 children already have a very strong inkling as to whether they are a 'failure' or not, and tragically, to answer your first point the kids often regard themselves as failures at such a young age, because however well the parents disguise it, the kids know that their parents wanted them (expected?) them to get into the Grammar school.
The bulk of your post then discusses those who get in. You talk of the best education possible as if that is what is provided by Grammar schools but that is an opinion that does not necessarily stand up to all tests. An academic emphasis on education is not only not necessarily what grammar schools succeed in delivering, but an academic emphasis is not necessarily the 'best' education either. At an extreme we can have miserable children that can solve excruciatingly difficult mathematic problems that simply can't relate in a positive or constructive way to others, or who despite being good at maths, if they had a personal choice might want to spend most days experimenting in the Art room.
As for streaming. Well interestingly you talk of children being 'sat' bored in a class. A lot of education does not follow this passive model of teacher talk and student sit listening, not what happens. Take a Dance class for example, would you stream on a spectrum from clumsy to graceful, or in a Design and Technology class stream the quicker wood sawyers from the slower ones? Streaming is one way of selecting a very narrow method of responding and pandering to that narrow skill, not about pandering to the 'brightest' or the 'less able'.
One thing to be said in favour of Grammar schools is that they used to be a meritocracy of sorts, and that helped social mobility to an extent, provided it was in a very narrow sphere of life and learning.
You may well say OK, Grammar schools provide what we want despite the issues, but I return to my original point that the existence of grammar schools marginalises members of society who do not want the same thing, or are unable to access it via the particular hurdle they are obliged to jump over.
It also allows them to take donations from rich alumni or locals who, say, want a music hall etc named after them.
so perpetuating the gap between the privileged and the not so privileged ?
how? You're almost saying that because some one builds a building privately they're some how perpetuating the gap between rich and poor. Utter nonesense.
As i said, i went to private school. I'm not rich. I'm not dirt poor but there were people who went to my school who definitely not what you would call posh rich kids. Not by a long chalk.
Some public schools advertise the tax benefits available to parents who sign up to "advanced fee schemes". This is where a very wealthy parent might pay for several years' fees at once. This allows the money to be invested by the public school, which, as a charity, does not pay the full amount of tax liable to - say - you or me, or the individual wealthy parent. The school then returns the investment gain to the parent.
So, in this way, the tax-payer is subsidising the wealthiest people who can afford to pay, for example, £150k up front, on a £30k per year fee.
Is this the smartest, fairest way to use tax-payers' money?
This doesn't sound, strictly speaking, legal - any earnings made under charitable pretences and taxed accordingly can't then be given out as non-charity related dividends. Is there any evidence this is remotely widespread? This is a completely separate debate as to whether fee-paying schools should enjoy charity status.
so we shouldn't allow kids to take the 11+ because we don't want them to feel judged, but it's okay to criticise those that have gone to private schools since age 11? LOL OKAY GUIZE.
so we shouldn't allow kids to take the 11+ because we don't want them to feel judged, but it's okay to criticise those that have gone to private schools since age 11? LOL OKAY GUIZE.
If you mean me, where have I criticised those who have gone to private schools?
Fee-paying schools should be taxed on their profits. Therefore, for as long as they are unprofitable, they wouldn't be taxed.
Private schools are charitable institutions which by definition means they are not-for-profit organisations. Apart from Chizz, not even the loony left have suggested taxing an organisation on its profits when it doesn't make profits.
The tax subsidy is partial relief on business rates on properties used for charitable purposes. It is the same relief that applies to charity shops and community sports halls, and probably community sports facilities at Sparrows Lane.
To take the exemption away from private schools would require a re-definition of what a charitable purpose was. The free education awarded to pupils from a grant, is in effect paid for by the other fee paying parents. So a possibility is simply that fees remain the same and the income that funded charitable grants is paid as business rates. The result would be an end to grants for the children who would benefit.
No one wins. It's just another vindictive policy that socialists get their rocks off at the mere thought of.
The idea that private education is all toffs sending kids to Eton and Harrow is far from the true picture. There are many modest private schools with different ethos and aims, and very many parents are prepared to bale out of second rate State education by paying for private education at the expense of holidays, a decent car and any luxuries. Their income goes on repaying a maxed out mortgage and what's left probably goes on paying some higher rate tax. These are people who care, who feel the State has failed them and are not relying on anyone else to sort them out.
Instead of the left trying to destroy the success of private education just like they destroyed the success of Grammar Schools, the State education system should be trying to emulate the ethics of discipline and rigour which, unlike parts of the State system that accept dysfunctional behaviour as normal, is the answer to improving standards.
Fee-paying schools should be taxed on their profits. Therefore, for as long as they are unprofitable, they wouldn't be taxed.
Private schools are charitable institutions which by definition means they are not-for-profit organisations. Apart from Chizz, not even the loony left have suggested taxing an organisation on its profits when it doesn't make profits.
The tax subsidy is partial relief on business rates on properties used for charitable purposes. It is the same relief that applies to charity shops and community sports halls, and probably community sports facilities at Sparrows Lane.
To take the exemption away from private schools would require a re-definition of what a charitable purpose was. The free education awarded to pupils from a grant, is in effect paid for by the other fee paying parents. So a possibility is simply that fees remain the same and the income that funded charitable grants is paid as business rates. The result would be an end to grants for the children who would benefit.
No one wins. It's just another vindictive policy that socialists get their rocks off at the mere thought of.
The idea that private education is all toffs sending kids to Eton and Harrow is far from the true picture. There are many modest private schools with different ethos and aims, and very many parents are prepared to bale out of second rate State education by paying for private education at the expense of holidays, a decent car and any luxuries. Their income goes on repaying a maxed out mortgage and what's left probably goes on paying some higher rate tax. These are people who care, who feel the State has failed them and are not relying on anyone else to sort them out.
Instead of the left trying to destroy the success of private education just like they destroyed the success of Grammar Schools, the State education system should be trying to emulate the ethics of discipline and rigour which, unlike parts of the State system that accept dysfunctional behaviour as normal, is the answer to improving standards.
Great post. Too many think that all fee-paying schools are basically finishing schools for kids before they join the Bullingdon Club then walk onto the board of a hedge fund that profits from disabled children and cancer. Obviously you will win an argument over whether it is 'fair' that such schools enjoy charity status if that's the premise you make your argument on.
Comments
The present government seem clear that they think the purpose of Education is to serve the job market. Cameron has talked about 'getting rid of subjects that don't get you anywhere' which has translated into the Arts subjects generally, ironic seeing as how the creative industries are the second or third biggest industries in Britain.
Academies are to filter out the weaker kids, Free Schools are the equivalent of a yummy mummy ciabatta cafe (or are more sinister), and the possible return of Grammar Schools will also marginalise more people.
One way or another we all pay for Education, but as a society we have been too stupid to contemplate why.
Grammar schools, and I went to one, and it was a fecking dreadful place, dreadful, have a very narrow brief which they call academic, and then it is promoted that such academic pursuits are somehow the gold standard of education.
So those children that don't get in are marginalised, and those who wish to study or explore other areas that are not in the grammar school remit, will be marginalised.
The problem is that everybody thinks they are an expert on Education because they went to school, I certainly ain't an expert on Brain Surgery because I have (half) a brain.
We should be striving to bring the standard of free education UP to the best available, not trying to bring things down by removing funding or charitable status.
As has been stated earlier, these schools provide free places and (often) free use of school facilities to the Local Authority.
some of the parents of kids attending private schools might not be paying proportionately fair amount of Tax
Non dom taxpayers for instance
Surely we should be celebrating their academic achievement and giving them the best education possible?
If that means they benefit from having a stronger learning pool in their class that can only be a bonus surely, rather than having those kids sat bored in a class whilst the teachers take a disproportionally long time teaching others at a slower pace.
Are you against streaming in secondary schools so that the brightest there and the less able can receive a better education tailored to their ability ?
So, in this way, the tax-payer is subsidising the wealthiest people who can afford to pay, for example, £150k up front, on a £30k per year fee.
Is this the smartest, fairest way to use tax-payers' money?
By which I mean if the parent pays 5 per year or 15 for 3 years in advance they have still paid tax on that income.
The school is not bound to pay tax as it is a charity, doesn't make a profit and reinvests all money back into its operations (just like a political party I think)
OK.
I want to start with the notion of failures.
Previously we used to talk of 'passing' and 'failing' the 11+ in order to get into Grammar schools. I 'passed' my 11+ and then went to Brockley County which as I have said was a dreadful place, others who 'failed' went to secondary moderns or so called comprehensives like Dacres Road (Forest hill School) but would eagerly say 'but I'm going into the Grammar stream'. So at the age of 11 children already have a very strong inkling as to whether they are a 'failure' or not, and tragically, to answer your first point the kids often regard themselves as failures at such a young age, because however well the parents disguise it, the kids know that their parents wanted them (expected?) them to get into the Grammar school.
The bulk of your post then discusses those who get in. You talk of the best education possible as if that is what is provided by Grammar schools but that is an opinion that does not necessarily stand up to all tests. An academic emphasis on education is not only not necessarily what grammar schools succeed in delivering, but an academic emphasis is not necessarily the 'best' education either.
At an extreme we can have miserable children that can solve excruciatingly difficult mathematic problems that simply can't relate in a positive or constructive way to others, or who despite being good at maths, if they had a personal choice might want to spend most days experimenting in the Art room.
As for streaming. Well interestingly you talk of children being 'sat' bored in a class. A lot of education does not follow this passive model of teacher talk and student sit listening, not what happens. Take a Dance class for example, would you stream on a spectrum from clumsy to graceful, or in a Design and Technology class stream the quicker wood sawyers from the slower ones?
Streaming is one way of selecting a very narrow method of responding and pandering to that narrow skill, not about pandering to the 'brightest' or the 'less able'.
One thing to be said in favour of Grammar schools is that they used to be a meritocracy of sorts, and that helped social mobility to an extent, provided it was in a very narrow sphere of life and learning.
You may well say OK, Grammar schools provide what we want despite the issues, but I return to my original point that the existence of grammar schools marginalises members of society who do not want the same thing, or are unable to access it via the particular hurdle they are obliged to jump over.
As i said, i went to private school. I'm not rich. I'm not dirt poor but there were people who went to my school who definitely not what you would call posh rich kids. Not by a long chalk.
The tax subsidy is partial relief on business rates on properties used for charitable purposes. It is the same relief that applies to charity shops and community sports halls, and probably community sports facilities at Sparrows Lane.
To take the exemption away from private schools would require a re-definition of what a charitable purpose was. The free education awarded to pupils from a grant, is in effect paid for by the other fee paying parents. So a possibility is simply that fees remain the same and the income that funded charitable grants is paid as business rates. The result would be an end to grants for the children who would benefit.
No one wins. It's just another vindictive policy that socialists get their rocks off at the mere thought of.
The idea that private education is all toffs sending kids to Eton and Harrow is far from the true picture. There are many modest private schools with different ethos and aims, and very many parents are prepared to bale out of second rate State education by paying for private education at the expense of holidays, a decent car and any luxuries. Their income goes on repaying a maxed out mortgage and what's left probably goes on paying some higher rate tax. These are people who care, who feel the State has failed them and are not relying on anyone else to sort them out.
Instead of the left trying to destroy the success of private education just like they destroyed the success of Grammar Schools, the State education system should be trying to emulate the ethics of discipline and rigour which, unlike parts of the State system that accept dysfunctional behaviour as normal, is the answer to improving standards.