I love it when people say "I haven't got any kids, I resent paying taxes for a service I don't use". Tell you what, if I promise never to shit at home can I get my water rates reduced? :-)
IMHO everyone benefits from a state system which is of the highest quality possible. The nation as a whole benefits from a well educated workforce. Every kid is entitled to a decent education, but we must also accept that not all people (kids, adults) are the same. Some kids want to go to uni, others would rather do something less academic. It's all about giving them opportunities, not limiting their opportunities because they happen to live in a poor household or in the wrong catchment area.
Do you believe that given the same circumstances every child would achieve the same academically or that some are more likely to excel than others ?
Could we all have been Stephen Hawking if only we had the same education ?
I don't.
Do you believe that, by studying in an environment devoid of talented peers, an under-achieving child will excel?
Would an exceptionally academic child fulfil his / her full potential if he / she had to wait for others to catch up every lesson ?
If there are educational resources made available for those perhaps educationally sub standard to improve should there not be a mechanism for those perhaps educationally above standard to excel ?
The private / public school system isn't going anywhere so best live with it - parents make choices that they think will be the best for their children and if that is a private education, violin lessons, a summer course at Chelsea FC or a Big Mac then what will be will be.
I totally agree that a kind of duopoly system of privately-funded schools and state-funded schools will persist. I don't think that will change; and I don't think it should change. There is a place for privately-funded schooling for those that are in the position to afford it and want it. I don't care how much it costs parents; I don't have an objection to those fees being paid by parents, businesses, overseas governments and so on; but I think the tax-breaks provided for privately-funded schools are iniquitous.
My preference - for what it's worth - is for all state-funded schools to provide the best possible educational framework and development opportunities for every child; and for privately-funded schools to contribute a more equitable contribution.
for the last time, private schools are not for profit. So there isn't any profit to tax them on anyway! They still have to pay national insurance etc on their employees and their employees pay income tax. If you remove their not for profit status, they become for profit, which then you have a whole wing of the education system based on profit, which i find even more iniquitous.
I don't understand the notion of children waiting for other children to 'catch up' in lessons. When people write this they perhaps need to understand what goes on in a lesson, it's as if you can engineer a situation where magically all individual children, who work at their own individual pace, with their own particular interests and learning styles can all land at the same place at the same moment. To use a prosaic example people take different lengths of time to make a cup of tea, it is not uniform. The 'holding back' notion could even be a weak excuse for something where the individual ought really to look at other factors if they feel their progress is not fast enough. There are countless examples of children thriving in a child centred mixed ability situation, but it is not a cheap approach, and takes time. I suppose ranks of children sitting on their hands learning by rote is one model of teaching and learning, but it is rather a poor model, only suited to very limited circumstances.
I love it when people say "I haven't got any kids, I resent paying taxes for a service I don't use". Tell you what, if I promise never to shit at home can I get my water rates reduced? :-)
IMHO everyone benefits from a state system which is of the highest quality possible. The nation as a whole benefits from a well educated workforce. Every kid is entitled to a decent education, but we must also accept that not all people (kids, adults) are the same. Some kids want to go to uni, others would rather do something less academic. It's all about giving them opportunities, not limiting their opportunities because they happen to live in a poor household or in the wrong catchment area.
Do you believe that given the same circumstances every child would achieve the same academically or that some are more likely to excel than others ?
Could we all have been Stephen Hawking if only we had the same education ?
I don't.
Do you believe that, by studying in an environment devoid of talented peers, an under-achieving child will excel?
Would an exceptionally academic child fulfil his / her full potential if he / she had to wait for others to catch up every lesson ?
If there are educational resources made available for those perhaps educationally sub standard to improve should there not be a mechanism for those perhaps educationally above standard to excel ?
The private / public school system isn't going anywhere so best live with it - parents make choices that they think will be the best for their children and if that is a private education, violin lessons, a summer course at Chelsea FC or a Big Mac then what will be will be.
I totally agree that a kind of duopoly system of privately-funded schools and state-funded schools will persist. I don't think that will change; and I don't think it should change. There is a place for privately-funded schooling for those that are in the position to afford it and want it. I don't care how much it costs parents; I don't have an objection to those fees being paid by parents, businesses, overseas governments and so on; but I think the tax-breaks provided for privately-funded schools are iniquitous.
My preference - for what it's worth - is for all state-funded schools to provide the best possible educational framework and development opportunities for every child; and for privately-funded schools to contribute a more equitable contribution.
Mate, I think we all get this now!
You asked the question and the vast majority thought it was ok for the schools offering to 'privately' educate children on scholarships, funded by the fees they raise, to benefit from tax breaks.
We don't all agree but you have offered several examples of why it is wrong and someone has refuted most of your points both eloquently and logically. There have also been explanations as to why the tax breaks are better than neutral on the basis that educating the half a million kids that, currently, cost nothing to educate would cost significantly more than the £700m over five years (which you said was every year). I'd also throw into that the fact that most private schools offer a massively subsidised private health insurance for their pupils that must be saving the NHS millions each year as these children have their treatments in private hospitals.
I fear that you now run the risk of looking like someone that is sulking because 'they' have more than you and it's not fair.
I don't understand the notion of children waiting for other children to 'catch up' in lessons. When people write this they perhaps need to understand what goes on in a lesson, it's as if you can engineer a situation where magically all individual children, who work at their own individual pace, with their own particular interests and learning styles can all land at the same place at the same moment. To use a prosaic example people take different lengths of time to make a cup of tea, it is not uniform. The 'holding back' notion could even be a weak excuse for something where the individual ought really to look at other factors if they feel their progress is not fast enough. There are countless examples of children thriving in a child centred mixed ability situation, but it is not a cheap approach, and takes time. I suppose ranks of children sitting on their hands learning by rote is one model of teaching and learning, but it is rather a poor model, only suited to very limited circumstances.
Seth, while I agree with your sentiments it is impractical to expect one teacher to micro manage 30 different curriculums and set 30 different pieces of work in each subject. The making a cup of tea analogy is interesting as if you had a group of friends over for a cuppa and some had coffee, some had tea and come had a glass of tap water you would (I assume) deliberately plan to serve all the drinks at the same time. Thus those having water would have to wait for the tea to be made.
If you apply that same logic to children having different dinners at a birthday party you should have a look at the behaviour of the children waiting for their food and, again, those that have finished. I'm not a teacher, but I am led to believe that having children with nothing to occupy their minds for long periods is a big no no.
This is before you factor the physiological effects of children in a class being treated differently because they are not as clever/as hard working/as tired what ever reason is acceptable to compare children's abilities at school. or from feeling they are unable to ask for the help they need for fear of ridicule. Weirdly the same effect can happen with those that are very bright - feeling embarrassed to show their potential for fear of another type of bullying.
I also think you are being a little unfair on teachers by suggesting that they are only able to manage this by learning by rote.
I think unless you yourself have actually taught in a classroom then any comments you make on how easy or hard it is to manage a class of any ability are largely speculative and probably based entirely on your own experience at school.
I love it when people say "I haven't got any kids, I resent paying taxes for a service I don't use". Tell you what, if I promise never to shit at home can I get my water rates reduced? :-)
IMHO everyone benefits from a state system which is of the highest quality possible. The nation as a whole benefits from a well educated workforce. Every kid is entitled to a decent education, but we must also accept that not all people (kids, adults) are the same. Some kids want to go to uni, others would rather do something less academic. It's all about giving them opportunities, not limiting their opportunities because they happen to live in a poor household or in the wrong catchment area.
Do you believe that given the same circumstances every child would achieve the same academically or that some are more likely to excel than others ?
Could we all have been Stephen Hawking if only we had the same education ?
I don't.
Do you believe that, by studying in an environment devoid of talented peers, an under-achieving child will excel?
Would an exceptionally academic child fulfil his / her full potential if he / she had to wait for others to catch up every lesson ?
If there are educational resources made available for those perhaps educationally sub standard to improve should there not be a mechanism for those perhaps educationally above standard to excel ?
The private / public school system isn't going anywhere so best live with it - parents make choices that they think will be the best for their children and if that is a private education, violin lessons, a summer course at Chelsea FC or a Big Mac then what will be will be.
I totally agree that a kind of duopoly system of privately-funded schools and state-funded schools will persist. I don't think that will change; and I don't think it should change. There is a place for privately-funded schooling for those that are in the position to afford it and want it. I don't care how much it costs parents; I don't have an objection to those fees being paid by parents, businesses, overseas governments and so on; but I think the tax-breaks provided for privately-funded schools are iniquitous.
My preference - for what it's worth - is for all state-funded schools to provide the best possible educational framework and development opportunities for every child; and for privately-funded schools to contribute a more equitable contribution.
Mate, I think we all get this now!
You asked the question and the vast majority thought it was ok for the schools offering to 'privately' educate children on scholarships, funded by the fees they raise, to benefit from tax breaks.
We don't all agree but you have offered several examples of why it is wrong and someone has refuted most of your points both eloquently and logically. There have also been explanations as to why the tax breaks are better than neutral on the basis that educating the half a million kids that, currently, cost nothing to educate would cost significantly more than the £700m over five years (which you said was every year). I'd also throw into that the fact that most private schools offer a massively subsidised private health insurance for their pupils that must be saving the NHS millions each year as these children have their treatments in private hospitals.
I fear that you now run the risk of looking like someone that is sulking because 'they' have more than you and it's not fair.
Hello "mate"!
I think this thread has been really interesting, because it's been used to air a number of views. I won't argue the point any longer, as I have made myself clear and can't be shifted; and I think the same goes for you too! I just want to highlight a few things that you have slightly misinterpreted.
1. I originally quoted £700m a year, as that is what had been quoted on another website. (I foolishly believed Carole Cadwalladr, the journalist, would have got her number right before writing a specific article - my mistake!). When I later saw that the original quote was wrong, I volunteered the right number.
2. The £700m only covers business rates. I believe the tax-payer is contributing a far, far higher sum than this overall.
3. I don't think half a million kids would be thrown out of the fee-paying school sector completely if the tax position of privately-funded schools was made more equitable. Maybe you think that: you're entitled to, I can't argue with you.
4. I don't really know what you mean by "massively subsidised private health insurance". I'd like to know by whom you are ascertaining it is being subsidised. In my experience, it's paid for by the parents - there is no "subsidy". The central tenet of my thoughts - and this thread - is the taxation (or otherwise) of school fees, not the costs of health insurance. I am certainly not averse to anyone taking out health insurance - whether in school or later. I have never seen any evidence that public school kids are less of a burden on NHS resources than kids at any other school. But that's a totally different subject.
I have no clue as to what you mean about ""they" have more than you".
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.
This is true of life as well. There is absolutely nothing wrong with self drive and wanting to achieve X,Y & Z. My frustration is that the world seems to force upon you a 24/7 barrage of what you should be doing, what you should've achieved and what you have to show for it. This is what pisses me off. If you go on Linkedin or are in the professional world, some jobs and the way people position themselves are deemed as better off than others. I often think that when I go to Germany as my wife's family are from there, they live out in the country and have such a rural life. Her uncle is a car mechanic who takes what work he can get. He doesn't give a f*** about his personal brand or his job title. Over here in the City it is rife with people judging you by what you do and who you work for. It's not just work. Going off piste a bit here, but a good example is some of these Christmas ads that Marks & Spencer bring out. They seem to imply if you aren't having a Christmas eating theirs, or Waitrose's food, with this type of atmosphere in the background, you aren't having a 'perfect Christmas'.
As Seth says, who's to say that the person earning x working in a care home isn't achieving greatness. It's just that somewhere along the line we've swayed to far to the notion that some jobs are better than others in society and everything that is associated with it. These are all generalisations that we are referencing here, but I just think the whole bloody system wants to make you feel like you haven't achieved anything with your life, and here are millions of others that have. I think greatness sometimes can be measured in just getting up and going to work everyday and paying your bills (if you are able). God knows there exists a whole world out there to make you feel you're second rate to everyone else.
You are probably familiar with the notion of an outstanding teacher, through good, to satisfactory to poor. Those judgements on a teacher are made by Ofsted inspectors, backed by internal systems where the teacher is observed in a randomly chosen lesson. The amount of criteria the teacher has to demonstrate in those small observations can show, and does show, how much micro management is expected of a teacher, and most teachers of my acquaintance would only promote rote learning for something like the times tables. You may be right that the practical constraints drive teachers more to setting, streaming, rote learning and the like, but I suppose my contention is that such styles are poor examples of decent Education.
You are probably familiar with the notion of an outstanding teacher, through good, to satisfactory to poor. Those judgements on a teacher are made by Ofsted inspectors, backed by internal systems where the teacher is observed in a randomly chosen lesson. The amount of criteria the teacher has to demonstrate in those small observations can show, and does show, how much micro management is expected of a teacher, and most teachers of my acquaintance would only promote rote learning for something like the times tables. You may be right that the practical constraints drive teachers more to setting, streaming, rote learning and the like, but I suppose my contention is that such styles are poor examples of decent Education.
I agree with all of that.
My thought, though, (and please tell me if I'm wrong) is that the amount of micro management required is increased if the relative abilities across the classroom is increased.
I love it when people say "I haven't got any kids, I resent paying taxes for a service I don't use". Tell you what, if I promise never to shit at home can I get my water rates reduced? :-)
IMHO everyone benefits from a state system which is of the highest quality possible. The nation as a whole benefits from a well educated workforce. Every kid is entitled to a decent education, but we must also accept that not all people (kids, adults) are the same. Some kids want to go to uni, others would rather do something less academic. It's all about giving them opportunities, not limiting their opportunities because they happen to live in a poor household or in the wrong catchment area.
Do you believe that given the same circumstances every child would achieve the same academically or that some are more likely to excel than others ?
Could we all have been Stephen Hawking if only we had the same education ?
I don't.
Do you believe that, by studying in an environment devoid of talented peers, an under-achieving child will excel?
Would an exceptionally academic child fulfil his / her full potential if he / she had to wait for others to catch up every lesson ?
If there are educational resources made available for those perhaps educationally sub standard to improve should there not be a mechanism for those perhaps educationally above standard to excel ?
The private / public school system isn't going anywhere so best live with it - parents make choices that they think will be the best for their children and if that is a private education, violin lessons, a summer course at Chelsea FC or a Big Mac then what will be will be.
I totally agree that a kind of duopoly system of privately-funded schools and state-funded schools will persist. I don't think that will change; and I don't think it should change. There is a place for privately-funded schooling for those that are in the position to afford it and want it. I don't care how much it costs parents; I don't have an objection to those fees being paid by parents, businesses, overseas governments and so on; but I think the tax-breaks provided for privately-funded schools are iniquitous.
My preference - for what it's worth - is for all state-funded schools to provide the best possible educational framework and development opportunities for every child; and for privately-funded schools to contribute a more equitable contribution.
Mate, I think we all get this now!
You asked the question and the vast majority thought it was ok for the schools offering to 'privately' educate children on scholarships, funded by the fees they raise, to benefit from tax breaks.
We don't all agree but you have offered several examples of why it is wrong and someone has refuted most of your points both eloquently and logically. There have also been explanations as to why the tax breaks are better than neutral on the basis that educating the half a million kids that, currently, cost nothing to educate would cost significantly more than the £700m over five years (which you said was every year). I'd also throw into that the fact that most private schools offer a massively subsidised private health insurance for their pupils that must be saving the NHS millions each year as these children have their treatments in private hospitals.
I fear that you now run the risk of looking like someone that is sulking because 'they' have more than you and it's not fair.
Hello "mate"!
I think this thread has been really interesting, because it's been used to air a number of views. I won't argue the point any longer, as I have made myself clear and can't be shifted; and I think the same goes for you too! I just want to highlight a few things that you have slightly misinterpreted.
1. I originally quoted £700m a year, as that is what had been quoted on another website. (I foolishly believed Carole Cadwalladr, the journalist, would have got her number right before writing a specific article - my mistake!). When I later saw that the original quote was wrong, I volunteered the right number.
2. The £700m only covers business rates. I believe the tax-payer is contributing a far, far higher sum than this overall.
3. I don't think half a million kids would be thrown out of the fee-paying school sector completely if the tax position of privately-funded schools was made more equitable. Maybe you think that: you're entitled to, I can't argue with you.
4. I don't really know what you mean by "massively subsidised private health insurance". I'd like to know by whom you are ascertaining it is being subsidised. In my experience, it's paid for by the parents - there is no "subsidy". The central tenet of my thoughts - and this thread - is the taxation (or otherwise) of school fees, not the costs of health insurance. I am certainly not averse to anyone taking out health insurance - whether in school or later. I have never seen any evidence that public school kids are less of a burden on NHS resources than kids at any other school. But that's a totally different subject.
I have no clue as to what you mean about ""they" have more than you".
I believe that the schools have access to a block policy which means that for a notional fee (from memory about £80 a term) the children are added to the policy.
I love it when people say "I haven't got any kids, I resent paying taxes for a service I don't use". Tell you what, if I promise never to shit at home can I get my water rates reduced? :-)
IMHO everyone benefits from a state system which is of the highest quality possible. The nation as a whole benefits from a well educated workforce. Every kid is entitled to a decent education, but we must also accept that not all people (kids, adults) are the same. Some kids want to go to uni, others would rather do something less academic. It's all about giving them opportunities, not limiting their opportunities because they happen to live in a poor household or in the wrong catchment area.
Do you believe that given the same circumstances every child would achieve the same academically or that some are more likely to excel than others ?
Could we all have been Stephen Hawking if only we had the same education ?
I don't.
Do you believe that, by studying in an environment devoid of talented peers, an under-achieving child will excel?
Would an exceptionally academic child fulfil his / her full potential if he / she had to wait for others to catch up every lesson ?
If there are educational resources made available for those perhaps educationally sub standard to improve should there not be a mechanism for those perhaps educationally above standard to excel ?
The private / public school system isn't going anywhere so best live with it - parents make choices that they think will be the best for their children and if that is a private education, violin lessons, a summer course at Chelsea FC or a Big Mac then what will be will be.
I totally agree that a kind of duopoly system of privately-funded schools and state-funded schools will persist. I don't think that will change; and I don't think it should change. There is a place for privately-funded schooling for those that are in the position to afford it and want it. I don't care how much it costs parents; I don't have an objection to those fees being paid by parents, businesses, overseas governments and so on; but I think the tax-breaks provided for privately-funded schools are iniquitous.
My preference - for what it's worth - is for all state-funded schools to provide the best possible educational framework and development opportunities for every child; and for privately-funded schools to contribute a more equitable contribution.
Mate, I think we all get this now!
You asked the question and the vast majority thought it was ok for the schools offering to 'privately' educate children on scholarships, funded by the fees they raise, to benefit from tax breaks.
We don't all agree but you have offered several examples of why it is wrong and someone has refuted most of your points both eloquently and logically. There have also been explanations as to why the tax breaks are better than neutral on the basis that educating the half a million kids that, currently, cost nothing to educate would cost significantly more than the £700m over five years (which you said was every year). I'd also throw into that the fact that most private schools offer a massively subsidised private health insurance for their pupils that must be saving the NHS millions each year as these children have their treatments in private hospitals.
I fear that you now run the risk of looking like someone that is sulking because 'they' have more than you and it's not fair.
Hello "mate"!
I think this thread has been really interesting, because it's been used to air a number of views. I won't argue the point any longer, as I have made myself clear and can't be shifted; and I think the same goes for you too! I just want to highlight a few things that you have slightly misinterpreted.
1. I originally quoted £700m a year, as that is what had been quoted on another website. (I foolishly believed Carole Cadwalladr, the journalist, would have got her number right before writing a specific article - my mistake!). When I later saw that the original quote was wrong, I volunteered the right number.
2. The £700m only covers business rates. I believe the tax-payer is contributing a far, far higher sum than this overall.
3. I don't think half a million kids would be thrown out of the fee-paying school sector completely if the tax position of privately-funded schools was made more equitable. Maybe you think that: you're entitled to, I can't argue with you.
4. I don't really know what you mean by "massively subsidised private health insurance". I'd like to know by whom you are ascertaining it is being subsidised. In my experience, it's paid for by the parents - there is no "subsidy". The central tenet of my thoughts - and this thread - is the taxation (or otherwise) of school fees, not the costs of health insurance. I am certainly not averse to anyone taking out health insurance - whether in school or later. I have never seen any evidence that public school kids are less of a burden on NHS resources than kids at any other school. But that's a totally different subject.
I have no clue as to what you mean about ""they" have more than you".
I believe that the schools have access to a block policy which means that for a notional fee (from memory about £80 a term) the children are added to the policy.
OK, so a discount, rather than a subsidy. I am not sure how - or in fact whether - this leads to a reduced burden on the NHS.
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.
This is true of life as well. There is absolutely nothing wrong with self drive and wanting to achieve X,Y & Z. My frustration is that the world seems to force upon you a 24/7 barrage of what you should be doing, what you should've achieved and what you have to show for it. This is what pisses me off. If you go on Linkedin or are in the professional world, some jobs and the way people position themselves are deemed as better off than others. I often think that when I go to Germany as my wife's family are from there, they live out in the country and have such a rural life. Her uncle is a car mechanic who takes what work he can get. He doesn't give a f*** about his personal brand or his job title. Over here in the City it is rife with people judging you by what you do and who you work for. It's not just work. Going off piste a bit here, but a good example is some of these Christmas ads that Marks & Spencer bring out. They seem to imply if you aren't having a Christmas eating theirs, or Waitrose's food, with this type of atmosphere in the background, you aren't having a 'perfect Christmas'.
As Seth says, who's to say that the person earning x working in a care home isn't achieving greatness. It's just that somewhere along the line we've swayed to far to the notion that some jobs are better than others in society and everything that is associated with it. These are all generalisations that we are referencing here, but I just think the whole bloody system wants to make you feel like you haven't achieved anything with your life, and here are millions of others that have. I think greatness sometimes can be measured in just getting up and going to work everyday and paying your bills (if you are able). God knows there exists a whole world out there to make you feel you're second rate to everyone else.
RE KHA s original referral to "greatness" maybe he just meant "success" ....I cant accept that private schooling is doing the rest of us all a favour by lightening the burden on the public purse ,of course its a byproduct/incidence but this isnt the motivation of going to one ...and its a bit crass to promote it as a defence .I speak with Muttley on the subject as i like to see more fairness in the world .
The 13 descriptions of purposes listed in the Charities Act are:
(a) the prevention or relief of poverty
(b)the advancement of education
(c) the advancement of religion
(d) the advancement of health or the saving of lives
(e) the advancement of citizenship or community development
(f) the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science
(g) the advancement of amateur sport
(h) the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity
(i) the advancement of environmental protection or improvement
(j) the relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage
(k) the advancement of animal welfare
(l) the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown, or of the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services
(m) any other purposes currently recognised as charitable or which can be recognised as charitable by analogy to, or within the spirit of, purposes falling within (a) to (l) or any other purpose recognised as charitable under the law of England and Wales
I suspect there are topics there we'd all like to remove from the list. In my view the whole concept of "advancing religion" is laughable; others would disagree. In any event, it would likely be tricky to redraft the legislation to include some educational bodies (Universities) while excluding others (private schools) without creating difficulties and loopholes. So, in short, it ain't gonna happen. It was precisely this sort of fine tuning and micro-management by Gordon Brown that turned the whole UK tax regime into a vast avoidance industry, caused "tax bibles" to be bigger than the Encyclopaedia Britannica and caused chaos. Letting it be would be for more sensible even if it does get a few peoples' backs up.
Where do boarding schools fit into your view on education, Chizz?
I don't make a distinction between day schools and boarding schools, insofar as taxation is (or should be!) concerned.
PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE NOT FOR PROFIT AND SO WILL HAVE NO PROFIT TO BE TAXED
hope that helps
I believe there are around 30,000 overseas students currently studying in British boarding schools. This must bring quite a boost to the UK economy. Many of these stay on to study in UK universtites. I imagine this brings a decent revenue to the UK economy. I just thought that this sector of independent education might have been interesting.
In terms of the NHS burden, most fee-paying schools will have on-site nurses or medical staff. Whenever I'm unlucky enough to have to visit a GP or a walk-in centre after work there are usually at least half a dozen to a dozen parents waiting with a kid in school uniform who has something most people would call a 'booboo', but because the parent is so thick they just assume a cut or graze or bruise means a trip to the doctors, whereas a school nurse or doctor will simply slap some Savlon and a plaster on and off they run.
I love it when people say "I haven't got any kids, I resent paying taxes for a service I don't use". Tell you what, if I promise never to shit at home can I get my water rates reduced? :-)
IMHO everyone benefits from a state system which is of the highest quality possible. The nation as a whole benefits from a well educated workforce. Every kid is entitled to a decent education, but we must also accept that not all people (kids, adults) are the same. Some kids want to go to uni, others would rather do something less academic. It's all about giving them opportunities, not limiting their opportunities because they happen to live in a poor household or in the wrong catchment area.
Do you believe that given the same circumstances every child would achieve the same academically or that some are more likely to excel than others ?
Could we all have been Stephen Hawking if only we had the same education ?
I don't.
Do you believe that, by studying in an environment devoid of talented peers, an under-achieving child will excel?
Would an exceptionally academic child fulfil his / her full potential if he / she had to wait for others to catch up every lesson ?
If there are educational resources made available for those perhaps educationally sub standard to improve should there not be a mechanism for those perhaps educationally above standard to excel ?
The private / public school system isn't going anywhere so best live with it - parents make choices that they think will be the best for their children and if that is a private education, violin lessons, a summer course at Chelsea FC or a Big Mac then what will be will be.
I totally agree that a kind of duopoly system of privately-funded schools and state-funded schools will persist. I don't think that will change; and I don't think it should change. There is a place for privately-funded schooling for those that are in the position to afford it and want it. I don't care how much it costs parents; I don't have an objection to those fees being paid by parents, businesses, overseas governments and so on; but I think the tax-breaks provided for privately-funded schools are iniquitous.
My preference - for what it's worth - is for all state-funded schools to provide the best possible educational framework and development opportunities for every child; and for privately-funded schools to contribute a more equitable contribution.
Mate, I think we all get this now!
You asked the question and the vast majority thought it was ok for the schools offering to 'privately' educate children on scholarships, funded by the fees they raise, to benefit from tax breaks.
We don't all agree but you have offered several examples of why it is wrong and someone has refuted most of your points both eloquently and logically. There have also been explanations as to why the tax breaks are better than neutral on the basis that educating the half a million kids that, currently, cost nothing to educate would cost significantly more than the £700m over five years (which you said was every year). I'd also throw into that the fact that most private schools offer a massively subsidised private health insurance for their pupils that must be saving the NHS millions each year as these children have their treatments in private hospitals.
I fear that you now run the risk of looking like someone that is sulking because 'they' have more than you and it's not fair.
Hello "mate"!
I think this thread has been really interesting, because it's been used to air a number of views. I won't argue the point any longer, as I have made myself clear and can't be shifted; and I think the same goes for you too! I just want to highlight a few things that you have slightly misinterpreted.
1. I originally quoted £700m a year, as that is what had been quoted on another website. (I foolishly believed Carole Cadwalladr, the journalist, would have got her number right before writing a specific article - my mistake!). When I later saw that the original quote was wrong, I volunteered the right number.
2. The £700m only covers business rates. I believe the tax-payer is contributing a far, far higher sum than this overall.
3. I don't think half a million kids would be thrown out of the fee-paying school sector completely if the tax position of privately-funded schools was made more equitable. Maybe you think that: you're entitled to, I can't argue with you.
4. I don't really know what you mean by "massively subsidised private health insurance". I'd like to know by whom you are ascertaining it is being subsidised. In my experience, it's paid for by the parents - there is no "subsidy". The central tenet of my thoughts - and this thread - is the taxation (or otherwise) of school fees, not the costs of health insurance. I am certainly not averse to anyone taking out health insurance - whether in school or later. I have never seen any evidence that public school kids are less of a burden on NHS resources than kids at any other school. But that's a totally different subject.
I have no clue as to what you mean about ""they" have more than you".
I believe that the schools have access to a block policy which means that for a notional fee (from memory about £80 a term) the children are added to the policy.
OK, so a discount, rather than a subsidy. I am not sure how - or in fact whether - this leads to a reduced burden on the NHS.
Well, the way it works is that you take your child to your local GP and rather than him referring the child to the NHS where he is seen by a doctor being paid by the NHS in about three months, he gets to see the, exact, same doctor the following week and the doctor is paid by Bupa - probably a lot more money, but he does need that extra money to pay his children's schools fees, of course.
Then any tests that are required are carried out on machines that are owned by the private hospital, opposed to the ones owned by the NHS that are in such short supply that the waiting list to use one is several months. All of this reduces demand for, already under resourced, facilities and doctors.
Maybe the reduced burden on the NHS is insignificant, but it is certainly there.
You are probably familiar with the notion of an outstanding teacher, through good, to satisfactory to poor. Those judgements on a teacher are made by Ofsted inspectors, backed by internal systems where the teacher is observed in a randomly chosen lesson. The amount of criteria the teacher has to demonstrate in those small observations can show, and does show, how much micro management is expected of a teacher, and most teachers of my acquaintance would only promote rote learning for something like the times tables. You may be right that the practical constraints drive teachers more to setting, streaming, rote learning and the like, but I suppose my contention is that such styles are poor examples of decent Education.
I agree with all of that.
My thought, though, (and please tell me if I'm wrong) is that the amount of micro management required is increased if the relative abilities across the classroom is increased.
Individualised learning plans, and approaches to learning exist, either overtly, or because teachers soon get to suss out students as individuals anyway. I would suggest class size is a bigger burden on micro management than relative ability.
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.
Good post @KHA thank you for taking the time to answer the original question.
I don't agree with your standpoint, however! I am not suggesting that public schools are banned. And I am very sure that, if they were to be taxed in a more "normalised" way, there would still be significant numbers of pupils attending British public schools. VAT would (probably) be returned to overseas pupils; tax would only be paid on the profit made by schools. In your scenario, you're painting a picture whereby, with the addition of taxation, every single Public School ceases trading immediately. This is unlikely!
If a Chinese person sends his son to England where he gets a taxi from the airport to a hotel, VAT is paid on the taxi and the hotel; and the taxi company/individual and the hotel are taxed on their profit. Why should a school be treated any differently, if the Chinese pupil is sent to a British, Public boarding school?
Private schools are not automatically given charitable status - they are required to show that they benefit the wider community too, eg in making their facilities available to others, offering bursaries, etc. You may feel that the bar is set too low, but there is a rationale for treating them differently for tax purposes.
Yes, private schools would not all disappear if charitable status were removed, but my argument is not based on this happening. I'm just saying that the cost of running the state is reduced because private achools exist and so whatever we think of their impact, we don't need to worry that the tax payer is losing out.
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.
If a Chinese person sends his son to England where he gets a taxi from the airport to a hotel, VAT is paid on the taxi and the hotel; and the taxi company/individual and the hotel are taxed on their profit. Why should a school be treated any differently, if the Chinese pupil is sent to a British, Public boarding school?
I assume you believe that rich kids ought to pay VAT on their text books and school uniforms too then? Perhaps we should set up a whole new Govt. Dept. to decide who is classified as "rich" and collect the additional money that might go some way towards paying their salaries. Then these additional taxes can be properly imposed to make sure no one tries to avoid them?
In terms of the NHS burden, most fee-paying schools will have on-site nurses or medical staff. Whenever I'm unlucky enough to have to visit a GP or a walk-in centre after work there are usually at least half a dozen to a dozen parents waiting with a kid in school uniform who has something most people would call a 'booboo', but because the parent is so thick they just assume a cut or graze or bruise means a trip to the doctors, whereas a school nurse or doctor will simply slap some Savlon and a plaster on and off they run.
In terms of the NHS burden, most fee-paying schools will have on-site nurses or medical staff. Whenever I'm unlucky enough to have to visit a GP or a walk-in centre after work there are usually at least half a dozen to a dozen parents waiting with a kid in school uniform who has something most people would call a 'booboo', but because the parent is so thick they just assume a cut or graze or bruise means a trip to the doctors, whereas a school nurse or doctor will simply slap some Savlon and a plaster on and off they run.
tend to agree but honestly had to google "booboo"
Sorry, must have picked it up from my monstrously expensive, tax-free public school education. I have no idea what the commoners call it.
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.
If a Chinese person sends his son to England where he gets a taxi from the airport to a hotel, VAT is paid on the taxi and the hotel; and the taxi company/individual and the hotel are taxed on their profit. Why should a school be treated any differently, if the Chinese pupil is sent to a British, Public boarding school?
I assume you believe that rich kids ought to pay VAT on their text books and school uniforms too then? Perhaps we should set up a whole new Govt. Dept. to decide who is classified as "rich" and collect the additional money that might go some way towards paying their salaries. Then these additional taxes can be properly imposed to make sure no one tries to avoid them?
We already have one of these. It's called income tax. Not only do those that earn more pay more but those that earn more even pay a higher percentage of their earnings in tax.
Comments
When people write this they perhaps need to understand what goes on in a lesson, it's as if you can engineer a situation where magically all individual children, who work at their own individual pace, with their own particular interests and learning styles can all land at the same place at the same moment.
To use a prosaic example people take different lengths of time to make a cup of tea, it is not uniform.
The 'holding back' notion could even be a weak excuse for something where the individual ought really to look at other factors if they feel their progress is not fast enough. There are countless examples of children thriving in a child centred mixed ability situation, but it is not a cheap approach, and takes time.
I suppose ranks of children sitting on their hands learning by rote is one model of teaching and learning, but it is rather a poor model, only suited to very limited circumstances.
You asked the question and the vast majority thought it was ok for the schools offering to 'privately' educate children on scholarships, funded by the fees they raise, to benefit from tax breaks.
We don't all agree but you have offered several examples of why it is wrong and someone has refuted most of your points both eloquently and logically. There have also been explanations as to why the tax breaks are better than neutral on the basis that educating the half a million kids that, currently, cost nothing to educate would cost significantly more than the £700m over five years (which you said was every year). I'd also throw into that the fact that most private schools offer a massively subsidised private health insurance for their pupils that must be saving the NHS millions each year as these children have their treatments in private hospitals.
I fear that you now run the risk of looking like someone that is sulking because 'they' have more than you and it's not fair.
If you apply that same logic to children having different dinners at a birthday party you should have a look at the behaviour of the children waiting for their food and, again, those that have finished. I'm not a teacher, but I am led to believe that having children with nothing to occupy their minds for long periods is a big no no.
This is before you factor the physiological effects of children in a class being treated differently because they are not as clever/as hard working/as tired what ever reason is acceptable to compare children's abilities at school. or from feeling they are unable to ask for the help they need for fear of ridicule. Weirdly the same effect can happen with those that are very bright - feeling embarrassed to show their potential for fear of another type of bullying.
I also think you are being a little unfair on teachers by suggesting that they are only able to manage this by learning by rote.
I think this thread has been really interesting, because it's been used to air a number of views. I won't argue the point any longer, as I have made myself clear and can't be shifted; and I think the same goes for you too! I just want to highlight a few things that you have slightly misinterpreted.
1. I originally quoted £700m a year, as that is what had been quoted on another website. (I foolishly believed Carole Cadwalladr, the journalist, would have got her number right before writing a specific article - my mistake!). When I later saw that the original quote was wrong, I volunteered the right number.
2. The £700m only covers business rates. I believe the tax-payer is contributing a far, far higher sum than this overall.
3. I don't think half a million kids would be thrown out of the fee-paying school sector completely if the tax position of privately-funded schools was made more equitable. Maybe you think that: you're entitled to, I can't argue with you.
4. I don't really know what you mean by "massively subsidised private health insurance". I'd like to know by whom you are ascertaining it is being subsidised. In my experience, it's paid for by the parents - there is no "subsidy". The central tenet of my thoughts - and this thread - is the taxation (or otherwise) of school fees, not the costs of health insurance. I am certainly not averse to anyone taking out health insurance - whether in school or later. I have never seen any evidence that public school kids are less of a burden on NHS resources than kids at any other school. But that's a totally different subject.
I have no clue as to what you mean about ""they" have more than you".
As Seth says, who's to say that the person earning x working in a care home isn't achieving greatness. It's just that somewhere along the line we've swayed to far to the notion that some jobs are better than others in society and everything that is associated with it. These are all generalisations that we are referencing here, but I just think the whole bloody system wants to make you feel like you haven't achieved anything with your life, and here are millions of others that have. I think greatness sometimes can be measured in just getting up and going to work everyday and paying your bills (if you are able). God knows there exists a whole world out there to make you feel you're second rate to everyone else.
You are probably familiar with the notion of an outstanding teacher, through good, to satisfactory to poor. Those judgements on a teacher are made by Ofsted inspectors, backed by internal systems where the teacher is observed in a randomly chosen lesson.
The amount of criteria the teacher has to demonstrate in those small observations can show, and does show, how much micro management is expected of a teacher, and most teachers of my acquaintance would only promote rote learning for something like the times tables.
You may be right that the practical constraints drive teachers more to setting, streaming, rote learning and the like, but I suppose my contention is that such styles are poor examples of decent Education.
My thought, though, (and please tell me if I'm wrong) is that the amount of micro management required is increased if the relative abilities across the classroom is increased.
The 13 descriptions of purposes listed in the Charities Act are:
(a) the prevention or relief of poverty
(b)the advancement of education
(c) the advancement of religion
(d) the advancement of health or the saving of lives
(e) the advancement of citizenship or community development
(f) the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science
(g) the advancement of amateur sport
(h) the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity
(i) the advancement of environmental protection or improvement
(j) the relief of those in need, by reason of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage
(k) the advancement of animal welfare
(l) the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown, or of the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services
(m) any other purposes currently recognised as charitable or which can be recognised as charitable by analogy to, or within the spirit of, purposes falling within (a) to (l) or any other purpose recognised as charitable under the law of England and Wales
I suspect there are topics there we'd all like to remove from the list. In my view the whole concept of "advancing religion" is laughable; others would disagree. In any event, it would likely be tricky to redraft the legislation to include some educational bodies (Universities) while excluding others (private schools) without creating difficulties and loopholes. So, in short, it ain't gonna happen.
It was precisely this sort of fine tuning and micro-management by Gordon Brown that turned the whole UK tax regime into a vast avoidance industry, caused "tax bibles" to be bigger than the Encyclopaedia Britannica and caused chaos. Letting it be would be for more sensible even if it does get a few peoples' backs up.
hope that helps
:-)
Then any tests that are required are carried out on machines that are owned by the private hospital, opposed to the ones owned by the NHS that are in such short supply that the waiting list to use one is several months. All of this reduces demand for, already under resourced, facilities and doctors.
Maybe the reduced burden on the NHS is insignificant, but it is certainly there.
Yes, private schools would not all disappear if charitable status were removed, but my argument is not based on this happening. I'm just saying that the cost of running the state is reduced because private achools exist and so whatever we think of their impact, we don't need to worry that the tax payer is losing out.