If private schools were 'proper' charities, they would devote their efforts to educating/supporting the most needy as their prime objective - which I'm not convinced they do. If Shelter was set up the same way, they would be building luxury apartment blocks and letting 5% of them out to those otherwise reliant on social housing.
And while we're at it, I'd like G4S guarding my house 24/7...that will ensure the police won't need to patrol my street so frequently, so that's a charity, right? And my use of a Bentley means you don't have to spend quite so much public money subsidising public transport...
The whole idea falls over when you bring faith schools into the equation. There is no place in education for religion. Schools should be secular. I don't want tax breaks given to institutions peddling mumbo jumbo.
The whole idea falls over when you bring faith schools into the equation. There is no place in education for religion. Schools should be secular. I don't want tax breaks given to institutions peddling mumbo jumbo.
Religion is also a Charitable Purpose so actually there is a place for religion in education.
I accept that not everybody who sends their kids to private schools are rich, and some private schools offer places to kids from less affluent backgrounds too on scholarships. The point I was trying to make is that for the establishment (normally the rich) to have an incentive to really improve education standards, it has to affect their kids too.
If private schools were 'proper' charities, they would devote their efforts to educating/supporting the most needy as their prime objective - which I'm not convinced they do. If Shelter was set up the same way, they would be building luxury apartment blocks and letting 5% of them out to those otherwise reliant on social housing.
And while we're at it, I'd like G4S guarding my house 24/7...that will ensure the police won't need to patrol my street so frequently, so that's a charity, right? And my use of a Bentley means you don't have to spend quite so much public money subsidising public transport...
I'm pretty certain some, if not all private schools offer full scholarships to talented underpriveledged pupils. Their facilities can also be used by the local community. This thread is a classic pointless and ideological attack, in the same vein as "should we give jobseekers allowance?", yes we should. Because it works.
My daughter went to a fee paying school in Reading and you might expect, from some of the comments above, the car park to have been full of Aston Martins, Bentleys, Maseratis, but from the fair proportion of modest and aging vehicles in the parent fleet, and from talking to other parents, it was clear that many had made considerable financial sacrifices to put their daughters through that school, so it wasnt all tax fiddling non doms. In fact the fees probably werent high enough to attract them (about £14k in the last year). I would much prefer to have sent her to a state school as my mortgage would now be paid off, I'd have the prospect of some kind of pension, earlier retirement and a much better car. But I chose not to, because that was the school that was right for her and she loved every minute of it and benefitted from very high, stretching standards of teaching and a great atmosphere and work ethic. She's now completing her second year at Durham. It's unfair that not everyone has access to that standard of education, but you have to do the best you can for your own child - ask Diane Abbott or Harriet Harman. I didnt resent that by sending her there I was having to pay twice for her education, it was my choice. But at the same time, I dont see why I should be penalised again when I'm not using state services which I am already paying my fair share for.
(That said, there are some fee paying schools at 30-40k per year full of chinless wonders who aren't very bright but will doubtless get a city job at daddy's firm after they've got their single A level and done their gap year in Asia. I dont have much time for them).
The whole idea falls over when you bring faith schools into the equation. There is no place in education for religion. Schools should be secular. I don't want tax breaks given to institutions peddling mumbo jumbo.
Religion is also a Charitable Purpose so actually there is a place for religion in education.
The whole idea falls over when you bring faith schools into the equation. There is no place in education for religion. Schools should be secular. I don't want tax breaks given to institutions peddling mumbo jumbo.
Religion is also a Charitable Purpose so actually there is a place for religion in education.
My point is that religion ought not to have a place in education for charitable or any other reason.
That's an opinion but, like it or not, religion, and /or opposition to it, has shaped the world in which we live for centuries and continues to do so.
I am not sure how the education process can pretend it doesn't exist unless we are entering North Korea territory and only telling people what the Master thinks they should know.
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.
i am not criticising any one who has gone to a private school or anyone who has scrimped and saved to get their kids to one but lets face it theres an overwhelming number of people in the country who just fundamentally couldnt afford it ...
may be we are discussing that politically hijacked term "aspiration" ...
The whole idea falls over when you bring faith schools into the equation. There is no place in education for religion. Schools should be secular. I don't want tax breaks given to institutions peddling mumbo jumbo.
Religion is also a Charitable Purpose so actually there is a place for religion in education.
My point is that religion ought not to have a place in education for charitable or any other reason.
That's an opinion but, like it or not, religion, and /or opposition to it, has shaped the world in which we live for centuries and continues to do so.
I am not sure how the education process can pretend it doesn't exist unless we are entering North Korea territory and only telling people what the Master thinks they should know.
Two of the great democracies of the world in France and the USA both have secular education systems.
Not sure why you think North Korea was worth mentioning.
I admire those who have scrimped and saved and gone without to give their children the best education they can within the system we have. I do. The point I am making is the system that they should have to do this is wrong and if everybody had to send their kids to state schools, they have an interest in making them better.
I am not comfortable however, with politicians who may at some point carry responsibility for education, or civil servants involved in education, sending their kids to public school.
My daughter went to a fee paying school in Reading and you might expect, from some of the comments above, the car park to have been full of Aston Martins, Bentleys, Maseratis, but from the fair proportion of modest and aging vehicles in the parent fleet, and from talking to other parents, it was clear that many had made considerable financial sacrifices to put their daughters through that school, so it wasnt all tax fiddling non doms. In fact the fees probably werent high enough to attract them (about £14k in the last year). I would much prefer to have sent her to a state school as my mortgage would now be paid off, I'd have the prospect of some kind of pension, earlier retirement and a much better car. But I chose not to, because that was the school that was right for her and she loved every minute of it and benefitted from very high, stretching standards of teaching and a great atmosphere and work ethic. She's now completing her second year at Durham. It's unfair that not everyone has access to that standard of education, but you have to do the best you can for your own child - ask Diane Abbott or Harriet Harman. I didnt resent that by sending her there I was having to pay twice for her education, it was my choice. But at the same time, I dont see why I should be penalised again when I'm not using state services which I am already paying my fair share for.
(That said, there are some fee paying schools at 30-40k per year full of chinless wonders who aren't very bright but will doubtless get a city job at daddy's firm after they've got their single A level and done their gap year in Asia. I dont have much time for them).
Good post. Yet another issue we can't really take a black or white stance on given the complexities of how these things play out in practice.
I note that ex Education Minister Michael Gove, and The Prime Minister send their kids to state schools. Good for them. They have a personal stake, as well as a professional one, in making the system better.
The argument for removing tax-breaks for private schools, or indeed banning them altogether, could be made for private pensions, private healthcare, ISAs etc. Basically anything where there is a basic state provision that is funded by taxpayers (state pension, NHS, savings threshold), then there is a better product that you could choose to have on top of that provision if you can afford it. In fact the government wants to encourage the private sector to provide diversity, choice and innovation in the sector so they use the tax system to provide incentives for both providers and customers.
Much of the ire that people seem to have for fee-paying schools is the myth that they are attended almost entirely by the children of hedge bank owners or oligarchs who are perpetuating some kind of privilege cycle where the only people who can afford to send their kids to private school also went to private school themselves. This is completely false.
The biggest difference between fee-paying schools and their state-funded counterparts is largely the facilities and range of extra-curricular activities and support available, as well as more resources for special educational needs. Academic standards for state-funded schools is extremely rigorous nowadays - you will hear about these so-called failing schools, the environment within which makes it much harder for someone to realise their potential, but this is not the experience faced by most schoolchildren nowadays and these issues are largely socio-economic rather than down to myopic division between fee-paying and state-funded schools. Some state-funded schools face a far more dangerous kind of rich versus poor warfare, where a state-funded school has become so excellent that the rich outbid everyone for houses in the catchment area to get their kids into that school, which has far greater implications on the local community than the existence of a fee-paying school.
The question of whether private schools are beneficial to society is complex, but let me try to respond only to the question posed by the OP: "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?". (This figure subsequently amended to £700m over five years.)
As many posters have said, the existence of private schools reduces the cost to the state of having to provide education for these pupils. This saving is almost certainly much greater than the loss of tax revenue. Around 7% of pupils are at private schools. I don't know how many children are at school at any time, but let's say 10% of the total population are - say 5 million. This gives us 7% of 5 million = 350,000. I believe the cost of state education is estimated to be about one third of the fees for day pupils at private schools - say, £4000 per year. Therefore the saving to the state from not having to provide for the 350,000 is around £1.4bn. If these figures are even roughly correct, we don't need to worry about tax payers losing out.
The sad truth is that there is no point in giving all children the kind of aspirations that the top private and grammar school pupils have.
As much as we can all discuss the fairness or unfairness of certain people having a lot of 'wealth' someone has to work at McDonalds at 11pm on a Friday night or those that want a burger wouldn't be able to get one. If, literally, everyone worked at a Merchant Bank earning £5m bonuses there would be no one working in Waitrose and there would be no where to buy the food we eat.
Thus some children are destined for greatness, but some are destined for minimum wage. If might not be fair, but it is what it is and there is no solution where we are all super rich and can buy anything we want as if we were, there would be no one to sell it to us as they'd all be at the tennis club drinking Pimms with us.
The whole idea that we push those children that are just not in the same bracket for potential is very romantic, but at some point those not able to keep up have to drop back or we hold them all back. Eleven seems as good a place as any. Those with more academic ability go to a school with a more academic curriculum and those with less academic ability go to a school that focuses on other things. That might not be the best way to sort children, but I, personally, can't think of a better one.
There is, and never will be, any chance of the world being completely equal and it is true that those with the money and desire to spend it in the appropriate way will be able to buy themselves, and their families, better opportunities than those with less money and/or less willingness to make sacrifices. Education, health, low crime estates, fresh healthy/organic food, safer cars, larger houses, bigger gardens, access to gyms with exercise equipment, top of the range facilities for sport, the list is virtually endless.
Should private schools be allowed charitable status? For those that will never get any chance of benefitting from one then I guess the inclination is to say no. For those families that have children that are awarded a scholarship I should think the answer is yes. If the schools were withdrawn the charitable status they would just not declare any profit but would reinvest any surplus funds as virtually all private schools are based in buildings that are massively underfunded as they are judged on the educations they provide.
Removing charitable status would remove the requirement for scholarships. They don't, in the main, offer them because the children getting them can make a noticeable difference to the school's results. It is part of the deal for them to qualify for charitable status. If these scholarships were withdrawn private schools would become even more elitist!
As for the money that the taxing of the schools would raise. I don't know where the calculations come from but one would need to offset the cost of educating (in the state sector) all the children that benefit from a scholarship and all the children that would be removed from the private schools because their parents were unable to fund it any more.
Also there has been a new introduction in recent years of 'Free Schools' where local residents can set up their own school and receive funding from the tax payer to run their own school. If charitable status was removed from private schools many of them would become one of these free schools and then the tax payer would not only fail to receive the tax that they don't get now, but they would actually have to pay to educate these 'spoiled brats' in, exactly, the same venues. Some private schools have, already, explored becoming free schools.
The sad truth is that there is no point in giving all children the kind of aspirations that the top private and grammar school pupils have.
As much as we can all discuss the fairness or unfairness of certain people having a lot of 'wealth' someone has to work at McDonalds at 11pm on a Friday night or those that want a burger wouldn't be able to get one. If, literally, everyone worked at a Merchant Bank earning £5m bonuses there would be no one working in Waitrose and there would be no where to buy the food we eat.
Thus some children are destined for greatness, but some are destined for minimum wage. If might not be fair, but it is what it is and there is no solution where we are all super rich and can buy anything we want as if we were, there would be no one to sell it to us as they'd all be at the tennis club drinking Pimms with us.
The whole idea that we push those children that are just not in the same bracket for potential is very romantic, but at some point those not able to keep up have to drop back or we hold them all back. Eleven seems as good a place as any. Those with more academic ability go to a school with a more academic curriculum and those with less academic ability go to a school that focuses on other things. That might not be the best way to sort children, but I, personally, can't think of a better one.
There is, and never will be, any chance of the world being completely equal and it is true that those with the money and desire to spend it in the appropriate way will be able to buy themselves, and their families, better opportunities than those with less money and/or less willingness to make sacrifices. Education, health, low crime estates, fresh healthy/organic food, safer cars, larger houses, bigger gardens, access to gyms with exercise equipment, top of the range facilities for sport, the list is virtually endless.
Should private schools be allowed charitable status? For those that will never get any chance of benefitting from one then I guess the inclination is to say no. For those families that have children that are awarded a scholarship I should think the answer is yes. If the schools were withdrawn the charitable status they would just not declare any profit but would reinvest any surplus funds as virtually all private schools are based in buildings that are massively underfunded as they are judged on the educations they provide.
Removing charitable status would remove the requirement for scholarships. They don't, in the main, offer them because the children getting them can make a noticeable difference to the school's results. It is part of the deal for them to qualify for charitable status. If these scholarships were withdrawn private schools would become even more elitist!
As for the money that the taxing of the schools would raise. I don't know where the calculations come from but one would need to offset the cost of educating (in the state sector) all the children that benefit from a scholarship and all the children that would be removed from the private schools because their parents were unable to fund it any more.
Also there has been a new introduction in recent years of 'Free Schools' where local residents can set up their own school and receive funding from the tax payer to run their own school. If charitable status was removed from private schools many of them would become one of these free schools and then the tax payer would not only fail to receive the tax that they don't get now, but they would actually have to pay to educate these 'spoiled brats' in, exactly, the same venues. Some private schools have, already, explored becoming free schools.
Quite a sad viewpoint. I think the point is that all children should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential. Some will end up working in MacDonalds of course, but it is criminal if a potential rocket scientist or doctor ends up there because that is their pre-set place in life.
The problem we have with comprehensive schools is that if they're any good, then the local house prices increase, and prevent social mobility. That's the great thing about grammar schools - If you're clever enough, then you can go, irrespective of how much money you have.
I was fortunate enough to attend a grammar school and a large proportion of the students there were not what could be considered wealthy. But they were able to learn in an environment that actually encouraged success, rather than having kids who aren't interested in learning and bully the weaker characters.
The sad truth is that there is no point in giving all children the kind of aspirations that the top private and grammar school pupils have.
As much as we can all discuss the fairness or unfairness of certain people having a lot of 'wealth' someone has to work at McDonalds at 11pm on a Friday night or those that want a burger wouldn't be able to get one. If, literally, everyone worked at a Merchant Bank earning £5m bonuses there would be no one working in Waitrose and there would be no where to buy the food we eat.
Thus some children are destined for greatness, but some are destined for minimum wage. If might not be fair, but it is what it is and there is no solution where we are all super rich and can buy anything we want as if we were, there would be no one to sell it to us as they'd all be at the tennis club drinking Pimms with us.
The whole idea that we push those children that are just not in the same bracket for potential is very romantic, but at some point those not able to keep up have to drop back or we hold them all back. Eleven seems as good a place as any. Those with more academic ability go to a school with a more academic curriculum and those with less academic ability go to a school that focuses on other things. That might not be the best way to sort children, but I, personally, can't think of a better one.
There is, and never will be, any chance of the world being completely equal and it is true that those with the money and desire to spend it in the appropriate way will be able to buy themselves, and their families, better opportunities than those with less money and/or less willingness to make sacrifices. Education, health, low crime estates, fresh healthy/organic food, safer cars, larger houses, bigger gardens, access to gyms with exercise equipment, top of the range facilities for sport, the list is virtually endless.
Should private schools be allowed charitable status? For those that will never get any chance of benefitting from one then I guess the inclination is to say no. For those families that have children that are awarded a scholarship I should think the answer is yes. If the schools were withdrawn the charitable status they would just not declare any profit but would reinvest any surplus funds as virtually all private schools are based in buildings that are massively underfunded as they are judged on the educations they provide.
Removing charitable status would remove the requirement for scholarships. They don't, in the main, offer them because the children getting them can make a noticeable difference to the school's results. It is part of the deal for them to qualify for charitable status. If these scholarships were withdrawn private schools would become even more elitist!
As for the money that the taxing of the schools would raise. I don't know where the calculations come from but one would need to offset the cost of educating (in the state sector) all the children that benefit from a scholarship and all the children that would be removed from the private schools because their parents were unable to fund it any more.
Also there has been a new introduction in recent years of 'Free Schools' where local residents can set up their own school and receive funding from the tax payer to run their own school. If charitable status was removed from private schools many of them would become one of these free schools and then the tax payer would not only fail to receive the tax that they don't get now, but they would actually have to pay to educate these 'spoiled brats' in, exactly, the same venues. Some private schools have, already, explored becoming free schools.
Quite a sad viewpoint. I think the point is that all children should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential. Some will end up working in MacDonalds of course, but it is criminal if a potential rocket scientist or doctor ends up there because that is their pre-set place in life.
Perhaps every child should take tests at regular intervals to identify the potential high achievers and then they could aim for the best education system whether their parents can afford it or not - subsidies and scholarships could be made available.
@mutleyCAFC I am of the belief that every child/individual who is clever and has a willingness to learn will get the education that they desire/deserve - it may not be at school, it may be that they become self taught, it may be through spending too long on the internet, but if you are a potential rocket scientist then you will most likely have the drive and tenacity to make sure you don't end up working at McDonalds for your life. I also think that home environment is extremely important when it comes to education...if you are brought up in a house where education is not considered important, then chances are that you are going to think the same....if your parents are concerned, then they are going to do their best (even within that failing inner city comprehensive) to get you the help and support that you need... Or maybe I am just being naïve? This is all very close to home at the moment as my son starts secondary school in Sept 2016.
The sad truth is that there is no point in giving all children the kind of aspirations that the top private and grammar school pupils have.
As much as we can all discuss the fairness or unfairness of certain people having a lot of 'wealth' someone has to work at McDonalds at 11pm on a Friday night or those that want a burger wouldn't be able to get one. If, literally, everyone worked at a Merchant Bank earning £5m bonuses there would be no one working in Waitrose and there would be no where to buy the food we eat.
Thus some children are destined for greatness, but some are destined for minimum wage. If might not be fair, but it is what it is and there is no solution where we are all super rich and can buy anything we want as if we were, there would be no one to sell it to us as they'd all be at the tennis club drinking Pimms with us.
The whole idea that we push those children that are just not in the same bracket for potential is very romantic, but at some point those not able to keep up have to drop back or we hold them all back. Eleven seems as good a place as any. Those with more academic ability go to a school with a more academic curriculum and those with less academic ability go to a school that focuses on other things. That might not be the best way to sort children, but I, personally, can't think of a better one.
There is, and never will be, any chance of the world being completely equal and it is true that those with the money and desire to spend it in the appropriate way will be able to buy themselves, and their families, better opportunities than those with less money and/or less willingness to make sacrifices. Education, health, low crime estates, fresh healthy/organic food, safer cars, larger houses, bigger gardens, access to gyms with exercise equipment, top of the range facilities for sport, the list is virtually endless.
Should private schools be allowed charitable status? For those that will never get any chance of benefitting from one then I guess the inclination is to say no. For those families that have children that are awarded a scholarship I should think the answer is yes. If the schools were withdrawn the charitable status they would just not declare any profit but would reinvest any surplus funds as virtually all private schools are based in buildings that are massively underfunded as they are judged on the educations they provide.
Removing charitable status would remove the requirement for scholarships. They don't, in the main, offer them because the children getting them can make a noticeable difference to the school's results. It is part of the deal for them to qualify for charitable status. If these scholarships were withdrawn private schools would become even more elitist!
As for the money that the taxing of the schools would raise. I don't know where the calculations come from but one would need to offset the cost of educating (in the state sector) all the children that benefit from a scholarship and all the children that would be removed from the private schools because their parents were unable to fund it any more.
Also there has been a new introduction in recent years of 'Free Schools' where local residents can set up their own school and receive funding from the tax payer to run their own school. If charitable status was removed from private schools many of them would become one of these free schools and then the tax payer would not only fail to receive the tax that they don't get now, but they would actually have to pay to educate these 'spoiled brats' in, exactly, the same venues. Some private schools have, already, explored becoming free schools.
Thus some children are destined for greatness, but some are destined for minimum wage.
This bit troubles me. It is such a sad state of affairs to say 'greatness' as if those on a minimum wage are not also 'great', and enjoying 'greatness'. I don't believe at all that education can be, or ought to be measured by eventual financial results. If I compared a premiership footballer, earning millions, and wiping their backside with a £50 note, with a care worker doing a 12 hour shift with folk who have dementia, for the minimum wage, I know which one I think is 'great', and it isn't measured by wealth. Throughout this thread there is talk of standards and achievement, which many consistently relate to money, the job market, and so called academic results which is such a very narrow view of the notion of Education it is rather saddening.
Had a quick look at the stats. As of Jan 14 there were 7.7m pupils in state funded schools and 580,000 (7%) in independent schools. If we assume that the average cost per pupil year in a state school is £4,000 then the 'filthy rich' are saving the country £2.3 billion every year. It's the equivalent of another 20,000 classes of 29 pupils. I'd say if you took away charitable status and imposed VAT at 20% then the very wealthy would not be affected but lots of struggling parents would revert to the state sector and probably top up with additional tuition instead. On top of that, there would be absolutely no incentive for independent schools to offer grants, scholarships and bursaries, and those places would also be lost.
@mutleyCAFC I am of the belief that every child/individual who is clever and has a willingness to learn will get the education that they desire/deserve - it may not be at school, it may be that they become self taught, it may be through spending too long on the internet, but if you are a potential rocket scientist then you will most likely have the drive and tenacity to make sure you don't end up working at McDonalds for your life. I also think that home environment is extremely important when it comes to education...if you are brought up in a house where education is not considered important, then chances are that you are going to think the same....if your parents are concerned, then they are going to do their best (even within that failing inner city comprehensive) to get you the help and support that you need... Or maybe I am just being naïve? This is all very close to home at the moment as my son starts secondary school in Sept 2016.
I do agree with you. I think the home and family are very important. In fact the most important thing without a doubt. The expectations set on a child and the support they are given are essential. But, past that point – the little bit of extra stretch that some of the most able kids need may not always be provided in their schools. My point is about fairness, but I realise our society is not fair. What I am not going to do is say it is a good thing to have public schools when it is not. I know I have no chance of getting rid of Public Schools, but I state they are not fair and have the potential to inhibit the development of others. Whether they do or not is a different matter, but if the establishment can opt out of services, they lose their stake in them. For some they will still be passionate, but for many, they won’t care too much. As long as their kids get the best!
Had a quick look at the stats. As of Jan 14 there were 7.7m pupils in state funded schools and 580,000 (7%) in independent schools. If we assume that the average cost per pupil year in a state school is £4,000 then the 'filthy rich' are saving the country £2.3 billion every year. It's the equivalent of another 20,000 classes of 29 pupils. I'd say if you took away charitable status and imposed VAT at 20% then the very wealthy would not be affected but lots of struggling parents would revert to the state sector and probably top up with additional tuition instead. On top of that, there would be absolutely no incentive for independent schools to offer grants, scholarships and bursaries, and those places would also be lost.
Pretty much all you need to know in a nutshell. All well and good that one is opposed to private school but they never have any plans or ideas about what to do when half a million pupils flood the state sector.
The sad truth is that there is no point in giving all children the kind of aspirations that the top private and grammar school pupils have.
As much as we can all discuss the fairness or unfairness of certain people having a lot of 'wealth' someone has to work at McDonalds at 11pm on a Friday night or those that want a burger wouldn't be able to get one. If, literally, everyone worked at a Merchant Bank earning £5m bonuses there would be no one working in Waitrose and there would be no where to buy the food we eat.
Thus some children are destined for greatness, but some are destined for minimum wage. If might not be fair, but it is what it is and there is no solution where we are all super rich and can buy anything we want as if we were, there would be no one to sell it to us as they'd all be at the tennis club drinking Pimms with us.
The whole idea that we push those children that are just not in the same bracket for potential is very romantic, but at some point those not able to keep up have to drop back or we hold them all back. Eleven seems as good a place as any. Those with more academic ability go to a school with a more academic curriculum and those with less academic ability go to a school that focuses on other things. That might not be the best way to sort children, but I, personally, can't think of a better one.
There is, and never will be, any chance of the world being completely equal and it is true that those with the money and desire to spend it in the appropriate way will be able to buy themselves, and their families, better opportunities than those with less money and/or less willingness to make sacrifices. Education, health, low crime estates, fresh healthy/organic food, safer cars, larger houses, bigger gardens, access to gyms with exercise equipment, top of the range facilities for sport, the list is virtually endless.
Should private schools be allowed charitable status? For those that will never get any chance of benefitting from one then I guess the inclination is to say no. For those families that have children that are awarded a scholarship I should think the answer is yes. If the schools were withdrawn the charitable status they would just not declare any profit but would reinvest any surplus funds as virtually all private schools are based in buildings that are massively underfunded as they are judged on the educations they provide.
Removing charitable status would remove the requirement for scholarships. They don't, in the main, offer them because the children getting them can make a noticeable difference to the school's results. It is part of the deal for them to qualify for charitable status. If these scholarships were withdrawn private schools would become even more elitist!
As for the money that the taxing of the schools would raise. I don't know where the calculations come from but one would need to offset the cost of educating (in the state sector) all the children that benefit from a scholarship and all the children that would be removed from the private schools because their parents were unable to fund it any more.
Also there has been a new introduction in recent years of 'Free Schools' where local residents can set up their own school and receive funding from the tax payer to run their own school. If charitable status was removed from private schools many of them would become one of these free schools and then the tax payer would not only fail to receive the tax that they don't get now, but they would actually have to pay to educate these 'spoiled brats' in, exactly, the same venues. Some private schools have, already, explored becoming free schools.
Thus some children are destined for greatness, but some are destined for minimum wage.
This bit troubles me. It is such a sad state of affairs to say 'greatness' as if those on a minimum wage are not also 'great', and enjoying 'greatness'. I don't believe at all that education can be, or ought to be measured by eventual financial results. If I compared a premiership footballer, earning millions, and wiping their backside with a £50 note, with a care worker doing a 12 hour shift with folk who have dementia, for the minimum wage, I know which one I think is 'great', and it isn't measured by wealth. Throughout this thread there is talk of standards and achievement, which many consistently relate to money, the job market, and so called academic results which is such a very narrow view of the notion of Education it is rather saddening.
Seth, even though you didn't misquote me you managed to attribute to me a suggestion that I wasn't aiming for.
My point was that we have no need for a whole country full of maths geniuses, or doctors, or world renowned scientists, or lawyers, or merchant bankers or pop stars. The kind of careers that I was hoping to encapsulate with the word greatness are those that are, normally, associated with the word aspirations. I don't want to second guess anyone but I'm inclined to believe that your care worker would prefer better working conditions (avoiding 12 hour shifts) and more money where as a CEO of a large company doesn't crave for a pay cut or longer hours.
Also, just because you have more respect for for a care worker than a millionaire doesn't prevent one of those occupations being highly desirable and the other one, not so much.
Just because we don't like the way people think doesn't change the fact that most people desire money and want a life full of it. Ask an eleven year old what he wants to be when he leaves school and very few will say that they want low income and poor working conditions but be able to make a selfless contribution to society. At the moment the most common way to differentiate people starting their career is their educational achievement.
I've also never met anyone that was telling the truth when they said that they wish they'd achieved lower grades at school.
I attended a high-profile posh school (on a scholarship) and tutor the spawn of the wealthy for a living. I also work for an extracurricular organisation specialising in courses for gifted children. Every single one of these institutions is private. Nonetheless, the more I learn about the various systems of education, the more confused and doubtful I become. I am not convinced that private school is a good thing, or that it benefited me a great deal (I think it sheltered me and held me back emotionally). I am sure that there are a lot of incredible teachers at state level (having met and worked with loads), usually handcuffed by fucking Ofsted. I know that there are some extremely lazy teachers working at the very 'best' private schools (my one regularly ranks #1). I like the idea of supplementary paid education like the courses I help to run. I think that quality free education replete with state-of-the-art teaching resources, manageable class sizes and loosely individualised learning plans should be a right - either this or formal education should not be mandatory at all. I think that Ofsted should be abolished and the education system both simplified and diversified. I think it is up to FAMILIES, KIDS THEMSELVES AND MAYBE BUT ONLY MAYBE THEIR TEACHERS TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY ARE GIFTED AND IN NEED OF SUPPLEMENTARY LEARNING, NOT OUR BYZANTINE EXAM SYSTEM. Everything is currently weighted in favour of those with the means to game the system and this is letting a lot of kids down. Private schools play the game best of all - I'm not sure they should be taxed, but by Christ their expenditures should be
If the framework is there and available then fine, it is then up to the individual to use that framework to the best of their ability or choosing.
For example some children may not like maths or English but may thrive in practical lesson such as woodwork, metalwork that's where apprenticeships in various trades should be available so they can have a career and earn a good wage.
The sad truth is that there is no point in giving all children the kind of aspirations that the top private and grammar school pupils have.
As much as we can all discuss the fairness or unfairness of certain people having a lot of 'wealth' someone has to work at McDonalds at 11pm on a Friday night or those that want a burger wouldn't be able to get one. If, literally, everyone worked at a Merchant Bank earning £5m bonuses there would be no one working in Waitrose and there would be no where to buy the food we eat.
Thus some children are destined for greatness, but some are destined for minimum wage. If might not be fair, but it is what it is and there is no solution where we are all super rich and can buy anything we want as if we were, there would be no one to sell it to us as they'd all be at the tennis club drinking Pimms with us.
The whole idea that we push those children that are just not in the same bracket for potential is very romantic, but at some point those not able to keep up have to drop back or we hold them all back. Eleven seems as good a place as any. Those with more academic ability go to a school with a more academic curriculum and those with less academic ability go to a school that focuses on other things. That might not be the best way to sort children, but I, personally, can't think of a better one.
There is, and never will be, any chance of the world being completely equal and it is true that those with the money and desire to spend it in the appropriate way will be able to buy themselves, and their families, better opportunities than those with less money and/or less willingness to make sacrifices. Education, health, low crime estates, fresh healthy/organic food, safer cars, larger houses, bigger gardens, access to gyms with exercise equipment, top of the range facilities for sport, the list is virtually endless.
Should private schools be allowed charitable status? For those that will never get any chance of benefitting from one then I guess the inclination is to say no. For those families that have children that are awarded a scholarship I should think the answer is yes. If the schools were withdrawn the charitable status they would just not declare any profit but would reinvest any surplus funds as virtually all private schools are based in buildings that are massively underfunded as they are judged on the educations they provide.
Removing charitable status would remove the requirement for scholarships. They don't, in the main, offer them because the children getting them can make a noticeable difference to the school's results. It is part of the deal for them to qualify for charitable status. If these scholarships were withdrawn private schools would become even more elitist!
As for the money that the taxing of the schools would raise. I don't know where the calculations come from but one would need to offset the cost of educating (in the state sector) all the children that benefit from a scholarship and all the children that would be removed from the private schools because their parents were unable to fund it any more.
Also there has been a new introduction in recent years of 'Free Schools' where local residents can set up their own school and receive funding from the tax payer to run their own school. If charitable status was removed from private schools many of them would become one of these free schools and then the tax payer would not only fail to receive the tax that they don't get now, but they would actually have to pay to educate these 'spoiled brats' in, exactly, the same venues. Some private schools have, already, explored becoming free schools.
Quite a sad viewpoint. I think the point is that all children should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential. Some will end up working in MacDonalds of course, but it is criminal if a potential rocket scientist or doctor ends up there because that is their pre-set place in life.
Of course they should, but some of them will have less potential than others and it is not sensible to try to push those that have less potential any more than it is sensible to try to restrict those that have a lot of potential.
It is difficult to know when children will develop but we can't give them all the exact same education all the way through without risking disappointment for some and ending up with a lack of training in areas we need and too many that have been trained for something they will never do.
I suspect that eleven is as good a time as ever to 'pigeon hole' children.
Incidentally many children that go to state schools end up with careers that Seth wouldn't like me to call great, and a lot of those that go to private schools end up unable to get or hold down a job that they (or their parents) might have aspired to.
Sure if you pay and your child ends up in a class with a teacher and an assistant and twelve children their chances of achieving their potential is better, but until we are going to, literally, double the resources put into education that's not going to happen.
The sad truth is that there is no point in giving all children the kind of aspirations that the top private and grammar school pupils have.
As much as we can all discuss the fairness or unfairness of certain people having a lot of 'wealth' someone has to work at McDonalds at 11pm on a Friday night or those that want a burger wouldn't be able to get one. If, literally, everyone worked at a Merchant Bank earning £5m bonuses there would be no one working in Waitrose and there would be no where to buy the food we eat.
Thus some children are destined for greatness, but some are destined for minimum wage. If might not be fair, but it is what it is and there is no solution where we are all super rich and can buy anything we want as if we were, there would be no one to sell it to us as they'd all be at the tennis club drinking Pimms with us.
The whole idea that we push those children that are just not in the same bracket for potential is very romantic, but at some point those not able to keep up have to drop back or we hold them all back. Eleven seems as good a place as any. Those with more academic ability go to a school with a more academic curriculum and those with less academic ability go to a school that focuses on other things. That might not be the best way to sort children, but I, personally, can't think of a better one.
There is, and never will be, any chance of the world being completely equal and it is true that those with the money and desire to spend it in the appropriate way will be able to buy themselves, and their families, better opportunities than those with less money and/or less willingness to make sacrifices. Education, health, low crime estates, fresh healthy/organic food, safer cars, larger houses, bigger gardens, access to gyms with exercise equipment, top of the range facilities for sport, the list is virtually endless.
Should private schools be allowed charitable status? For those that will never get any chance of benefitting from one then I guess the inclination is to say no. For those families that have children that are awarded a scholarship I should think the answer is yes. If the schools were withdrawn the charitable status they would just not declare any profit but would reinvest any surplus funds as virtually all private schools are based in buildings that are massively underfunded as they are judged on the educations they provide.
Removing charitable status would remove the requirement for scholarships. They don't, in the main, offer them because the children getting them can make a noticeable difference to the school's results. It is part of the deal for them to qualify for charitable status. If these scholarships were withdrawn private schools would become even more elitist!
As for the money that the taxing of the schools would raise. I don't know where the calculations come from but one would need to offset the cost of educating (in the state sector) all the children that benefit from a scholarship and all the children that would be removed from the private schools because their parents were unable to fund it any more.
Also there has been a new introduction in recent years of 'Free Schools' where local residents can set up their own school and receive funding from the tax payer to run their own school. If charitable status was removed from private schools many of them would become one of these free schools and then the tax payer would not only fail to receive the tax that they don't get now, but they would actually have to pay to educate these 'spoiled brats' in, exactly, the same venues. Some private schools have, already, explored becoming free schools.
Thus some children are destined for greatness, but some are destined for minimum wage.
This bit troubles me. It is such a sad state of affairs to say 'greatness' as if those on a minimum wage are not also 'great', and enjoying 'greatness'. I don't believe at all that education can be, or ought to be measured by eventual financial results. If I compared a premiership footballer, earning millions, and wiping their backside with a £50 note, with a care worker doing a 12 hour shift with folk who have dementia, for the minimum wage, I know which one I think is 'great', and it isn't measured by wealth. Throughout this thread there is talk of standards and achievement, which many consistently relate to money, the job market, and so called academic results which is such a very narrow view of the notion of Education it is rather saddening.
Seth, even though you didn't misquote me you managed to attribute to me a suggestion that I wasn't aiming for.
My point was that we have no need for a whole country full of maths geniuses, or doctors, or world renowned scientists, or lawyers, or merchant bankers or pop stars. The kind of careers that I was hoping to encapsulate with the word greatness are those are, normally, associated with the word aspirations. I don't want to second guess anyone but I'm inclined to believe that your care worker would prefer better working conditions (avoiding 12 hour shifts) and more money where as a CEO of a large company doesn't crave for a pay cut or longer hours.
Also, just because you have more respect for for a care worker than a millionaire doesn't prevent one of those occupations being highly desirable and the other one, not so much. It also doesn't change the fact that many people would rather be in a relationship, or marry, someone with money than someone without.
Just because we don't like the way people think doesn't change the fact that most people desire money and want a life full of it. Ask an eleven year old what he wants to be when he leaves school and very few will say that they want low income and poor working conditions but be able to make a selfless contribution to society. At the moment the most common way to differentiate people starting their career is their educational achievement.
I've also never met anyone that was telling the truth when they said that they wish they'd achieved lower grades at school.
Thanks for your reply.
I think my agenda is more about the purpose of Education on a fundamental level. Grades, jobs, money are commonly used measurements of the purpose of Education and I get that, I get these things are 'desired'. I suppose I wish other measurements were brought into the equation alongside those I've mentioned above, both on a personal level for the individual, and even related to the non-economic benefit of wider society. I am not saying the diversity you describe, in that not everybody will be a banker, and some will work in Sainsbury's is wrong or unrealistic, but a cohesive society measured in Educational terms as much as anything, should place more value on everybody's achievement however apparently humble. The zeitgeist that seems to be driving the Educational debate is so narrow right now that I wonder what one of the greatest Educators of all, Socrates*, would make of it.
Comments
And while we're at it, I'd like G4S guarding my house 24/7...that will ensure the police won't need to patrol my street so frequently, so that's a charity, right? And my use of a Bentley means you don't have to spend quite so much public money subsidising public transport...
The whole enterprise gets classed as a charity, but that doesn't sit right with articles like this
http://www.scmp.com/business/money/wealth/article/1417298/nearly-third-chinas-super-rich-favour-british-schools
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/example-charitable-objects
Bit more on Charitable Purposes
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/what-makes-a-charity-cc4/what-makes-a-charity-cc4#part-3-about-the-descriptions-of-purposes
I would much prefer to have sent her to a state school as my mortgage would now be paid off, I'd have the prospect of some kind of pension, earlier retirement and a much better car. But I chose not to, because that was the school that was right for her and she loved every minute of it and benefitted from very high, stretching standards of teaching and a great atmosphere and work ethic. She's now completing her second year at Durham.
It's unfair that not everyone has access to that standard of education, but you have to do the best you can for your own child - ask Diane Abbott or Harriet Harman. I didnt resent that by sending her there I was having to pay twice for her education, it was my choice. But at the same time, I dont see why I should be penalised again when I'm not using state services which I am already paying my fair share for.
(That said, there are some fee paying schools at 30-40k per year full of chinless wonders who aren't very bright but will doubtless get a city job at daddy's firm after they've got their single A level and done their gap year in Asia. I dont have much time for them).
I am not sure how the education process can pretend it doesn't exist unless we are entering North Korea territory and only telling people what the Master thinks they should know.
may be we are discussing that politically hijacked term "aspiration" ...
Not sure why you think North Korea was worth mentioning.
I am not comfortable however, with politicians who may at some point carry responsibility for education, or civil servants involved in education, sending their kids to public school.
Much of the ire that people seem to have for fee-paying schools is the myth that they are attended almost entirely by the children of hedge bank owners or oligarchs who are perpetuating some kind of privilege cycle where the only people who can afford to send their kids to private school also went to private school themselves. This is completely false.
The biggest difference between fee-paying schools and their state-funded counterparts is largely the facilities and range of extra-curricular activities and support available, as well as more resources for special educational needs. Academic standards for state-funded schools is extremely rigorous nowadays - you will hear about these so-called failing schools, the environment within which makes it much harder for someone to realise their potential, but this is not the experience faced by most schoolchildren nowadays and these issues are largely socio-economic rather than down to myopic division between fee-paying and state-funded schools. Some state-funded schools face a far more dangerous kind of rich versus poor warfare, where a state-funded school has become so excellent that the rich outbid everyone for houses in the catchment area to get their kids into that school, which has far greater implications on the local community than the existence of a fee-paying school.
As many posters have said, the existence of private schools reduces the cost to the state of having to provide education for these pupils. This saving is almost certainly much greater than the loss of tax revenue. Around 7% of pupils are at private schools. I don't know how many children are at school at any time, but let's say 10% of the total population are - say 5 million. This gives us 7% of 5 million = 350,000. I believe the cost of state education is estimated to be about one third of the fees for day pupils at private schools - say, £4000 per year. Therefore the saving to the state from not having to provide for the 350,000 is around £1.4bn. If these figures are even roughly correct, we don't need to worry about tax payers losing out.
As much as we can all discuss the fairness or unfairness of certain people having a lot of 'wealth' someone has to work at McDonalds at 11pm on a Friday night or those that want a burger wouldn't be able to get one. If, literally, everyone worked at a Merchant Bank earning £5m bonuses there would be no one working in Waitrose and there would be no where to buy the food we eat.
Thus some children are destined for greatness, but some are destined for minimum wage. If might not be fair, but it is what it is and there is no solution where we are all super rich and can buy anything we want as if we were, there would be no one to sell it to us as they'd all be at the tennis club drinking Pimms with us.
The whole idea that we push those children that are just not in the same bracket for potential is very romantic, but at some point those not able to keep up have to drop back or we hold them all back. Eleven seems as good a place as any. Those with more academic ability go to a school with a more academic curriculum and those with less academic ability go to a school that focuses on other things. That might not be the best way to sort children, but I, personally, can't think of a better one.
There is, and never will be, any chance of the world being completely equal and it is true that those with the money and desire to spend it in the appropriate way will be able to buy themselves, and their families, better opportunities than those with less money and/or less willingness to make sacrifices. Education, health, low crime estates, fresh healthy/organic food, safer cars, larger houses, bigger gardens, access to gyms with exercise equipment, top of the range facilities for sport, the list is virtually endless.
Should private schools be allowed charitable status? For those that will never get any chance of benefitting from one then I guess the inclination is to say no. For those families that have children that are awarded a scholarship I should think the answer is yes. If the schools were withdrawn the charitable status they would just not declare any profit but would reinvest any surplus funds as virtually all private schools are based in buildings that are massively underfunded as they are judged on the educations they provide.
Removing charitable status would remove the requirement for scholarships. They don't, in the main, offer them because the children getting them can make a noticeable difference to the school's results. It is part of the deal for them to qualify for charitable status. If these scholarships were withdrawn private schools would become even more elitist!
As for the money that the taxing of the schools would raise. I don't know where the calculations come from but one would need to offset the cost of educating (in the state sector) all the children that benefit from a scholarship and all the children that would be removed from the private schools because their parents were unable to fund it any more.
Also there has been a new introduction in recent years of 'Free Schools' where local residents can set up their own school and receive funding from the tax payer to run their own school. If charitable status was removed from private schools many of them would become one of these free schools and then the tax payer would not only fail to receive the tax that they don't get now, but they would actually have to pay to educate these 'spoiled brats' in, exactly, the same venues. Some private schools have, already, explored becoming free schools.
I was fortunate enough to attend a grammar school and a large proportion of the students there were not what could be considered wealthy. But they were able to learn in an environment that actually encouraged success, rather than having kids who aren't interested in learning and bully the weaker characters.
This bit troubles me. It is such a sad state of affairs to say 'greatness' as if those on a minimum wage are not also 'great', and enjoying 'greatness'.
I don't believe at all that education can be, or ought to be measured by eventual financial results.
If I compared a premiership footballer, earning millions, and wiping their backside with a £50 note, with a care worker doing a 12 hour shift with folk who have dementia, for the minimum wage, I know which one I think is 'great', and it isn't measured by wealth.
Throughout this thread there is talk of standards and achievement, which many consistently relate to money, the job market, and so called academic results which is such a very narrow view of the notion of Education it is rather saddening.
As of Jan 14 there were 7.7m pupils in state funded schools and 580,000 (7%) in independent schools. If we assume that the average cost per pupil year in a state school is £4,000 then the 'filthy rich' are saving the country £2.3 billion every year. It's the equivalent of another 20,000 classes of 29 pupils.
I'd say if you took away charitable status and imposed VAT at 20% then the very wealthy would not be affected but lots of struggling parents would revert to the state sector and probably top up with additional tuition instead. On top of that, there would be absolutely no incentive for independent schools to offer grants, scholarships and bursaries, and those places would also be lost.
My point was that we have no need for a whole country full of maths geniuses, or doctors, or world renowned scientists, or lawyers, or merchant bankers or pop stars. The kind of careers that I was hoping to encapsulate with the word greatness are those that are, normally, associated with the word aspirations. I don't want to second guess anyone but I'm inclined to believe that your care worker would prefer better working conditions (avoiding 12 hour shifts) and more money where as a CEO of a large company doesn't crave for a pay cut or longer hours.
Also, just because you have more respect for for a care worker than a millionaire doesn't prevent one of those occupations being highly desirable and the other one, not so much.
Just because we don't like the way people think doesn't change the fact that most people desire money and want a life full of it. Ask an eleven year old what he wants to be when he leaves school and very few will say that they want low income and poor working conditions but be able to make a selfless contribution to society. At the moment the most common way to differentiate people starting their career is their educational achievement.
I've also never met anyone that was telling the truth when they said that they wish they'd achieved lower grades at school.
For example some children may not like maths or English but may thrive in practical lesson such as woodwork, metalwork that's where apprenticeships in various trades should be available so they can have a career and earn a good wage.
It is difficult to know when children will develop but we can't give them all the exact same education all the way through without risking disappointment for some and ending up with a lack of training in areas we need and too many that have been trained for something they will never do.
I suspect that eleven is as good a time as ever to 'pigeon hole' children.
Incidentally many children that go to state schools end up with careers that Seth wouldn't like me to call great, and a lot of those that go to private schools end up unable to get or hold down a job that they (or their parents) might have aspired to.
Sure if you pay and your child ends up in a class with a teacher and an assistant and twelve children their chances of achieving their potential is better, but until we are going to, literally, double the resources put into education that's not going to happen.
I think my agenda is more about the purpose of Education on a fundamental level. Grades, jobs, money are commonly used measurements of the purpose of Education and I get that, I get these things are 'desired'.
I suppose I wish other measurements were brought into the equation alongside those I've mentioned above, both on a personal level for the individual, and even related to the non-economic benefit of wider society.
I am not saying the diversity you describe, in that not everybody will be a banker, and some will work in Sainsbury's is wrong or unrealistic, but a cohesive society measured in Educational terms as much as anything, should place more value on everybody's achievement however apparently humble.
The zeitgeist that seems to be driving the Educational debate is so narrow right now that I wonder what one of the greatest Educators of all, Socrates*, would make of it.
Not the Brazilian footballer