Should private schools help state schools?

mjones · May 2007

I'm astonished- private schools have been in the news for over a day and no mention on Soapbox!

See:
Private schools could be required to lend teachers to state schools and share other facilities under proposals by Education Secretary Alan Johnson.

It is p1ssing down with rain, so let's start by guessing how this might go...

spire: this is more PC anti-elitist nonsense, pandering to the loony left!

redcogs: private schools are simply a means by which the ruling classes maintain their hold on capital and the means of production!

gillan1969: sending your children to private school is an irrational investment in economic actors who may not provide the best return! Much better for the state to decide what is best!

simoncp: this is a BBC report so we can't believe it; anyway you can't trust champagne socialists and all the Guardian journalists went to public school.

etc etc...

Obviously my contributions and Patrick's will be sensible and objective! [;)]

redrobbo · May 2007

You're 'avin' a larf aintcha? Pay through the nose to mix it wiv all them oiks? Ain't what I call privilege, mate.

Titanium is for the fairies

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

I'm astonished- private schools have been in the news for over a day and no mention on Soapbox!

See:
Private schools could be required to lend teachers to state schools and share other facilities under proposals by Education Secretary Alan Johnson.

It is p1ssing down with rain, so let's start by guessing how this might go...

spire: this is more PC anti-elitist nonsense, pandering to the loony left!

redcogs: private schools are simply a means by which the ruling classes maintain their hold on capital and the means of production!

gillan1969: sending your children to private school is an irrational investment in economic actors who may not provide the best return! Much better for the state to decide what is best!

simoncp: this is a BBC report so we can't believe it; anyway you can't trust champagne socialists and all the Guardian journalists went to public school.

etc etc...

Obviously my contributions will be sensible and objective! [;)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm downright affronted that you haven't included me in the kneejerk reactions. [:(!]

mjones · May 2007

Sorry Patrick, that was remiss of me. I've edited my original post to correct for that omission. [;)]

zimzum42 · May 2007

Me too!

This is going to go down really well with the middle class liberals. Tye send their kids to these schools so they don't have to mix with the 'hoodies' from the council. Last thing they want is Tarquin having to mix with Marlon and his mates.....

[:D] www.addiscombe.org [8D] [8D] www.darhotwire.com [8D] [8D] www.muzikmedia.com [:D]
My Bikes My Commute

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by zimzum42

Me too!

This is going to go down really well with the middle class liberals. Tye send their kids to these schools so they don't have to mix with the 'hoodies' from the council. Last thing they want is Tarquin having to mix with Marlon and his mates.....

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

But what about the effect on Marlon?

Stacey, "Wadyadone in school today, Marlon."
Marlon, "Mater, can you please put that cigarette out, it's a disgusting habit. You're twenty now and really ought to know better. It was great fun in school today, Darren failed a construe and Mr. Crutchington-Cholomondley-Twisteton-Forsyth gave him a public flogging. Serves him right, he's a cad and a bounder."

mjones · May 2007

Have to say I feel very cynical about these proposals. The issue of whether private schools do enough for the common good to justify their charitable status is surely a matter for the Charities Commission, not politicians.

There is an implication that the private sector should take responsibility for improving the quality of state education, as if it is the private sector, and not the Government, that is to blame for the failings of state schools. The proposal that private schools should share their sports facilities struck me as particularly ironic- if state schools need better sports fields then why have so many been allowed to sell them off for development?

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

There is an implication that the private sector should take responsibility for improving the quality of state education, as if it is the private sector, and not the Government, that is to blame for the failings of state schools. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The other implication is the rather patronising one that the state sector is incapable of raising standards without private school input.

The worrying thing is that this may be true. I have only read reports and not seen the TV programs myself, but a year or so ago, a government education minister had a go at teaching and proved diabolical at it, yet David Cameron did it the other week and proved surprisingly good at it.

zimzum42 · May 2007

It's about time the government stopped having anything whatsoever to do with education at all, save for setting a single set of standardized exam papers, and the necessary curriculum for them.

That is more than enough for them to meddle with.

We should see the resulting tax drop as well, they'll be saving plenty......

[:D] www.addiscombe.org [8D] [8D] www.darhotwire.com [8D] [8D] www.muzikmedia.com [:D]
My Bikes My Commute

redcogs · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

Have to say I feel very cynical about these proposals. The issue of whether private schools do enough for the common good to justify their charitable status is surely a matter for the Charities Commission, not politicians.

There is an implication that the private sector should take responsibility for improving the quality of state education, as if it is the private sector, and not the Government, that is to blame for the failings of state schools. The proposal that private schools should share their sports facilities struck me as particularly ironic- if state schools need better sports fields then why have so many been allowed to sell them off for development?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why? Correct me if wrong but i thought we lived in a society? Elected politicians are precisely the ones who ought to determine what happens in our schools, not quangos. If the politicians are inadequate (and of course even you and i can agree that they are, almost universally so) then we need to get rid of them and elect others who will do the job properly, and in all our interests, not simply for the already well healed, which is the tendency these days.

One education system,which is appropriately funded so that we can eliminate class sizes of 40 kids to one teacher and replace the ratio with that which pertains in the parasitic 'public schools' (so called because the 'public' aren't allowed anywhere near them), has to be the objective - if its good enough for the posh to have one on one tutoring, then its good enough for all our kids to receive the same.

Bracketing yourself together with Patrick as you do above says it all really. Old boy networking.. More than one mason is too many on a cycling forum, and obviously casts a fog over your objectivity.

please look up to the stars.. ***

stelvio · May 2007

Looks like a rather feeble attempt by Alan Johnson to distract from the ongoing uselessness of state provided education.
Nobody in their right mind sends children to a snob factory, but if local schools are cr@p, and you are prepared to work hard and make sacrifices, what choice do you have ?
Any thoughts on vouchers as an alternative approach, like the Swedish ?

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs
...

Why? Correct me if wrong but i thought we lived in a society? Elected politicians are precisely the ones who ought to determine what happens in our schools, not quangos. If the politicians are inadequate (and of course even you and i can agree that they are, almost universally so) then we need to get rid of them and elect others who will do the job properly, and in all our interests, not simply for the already well healed, which is the tendency these days.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Why is it up to the Charities Commission? Simply because, as per laws passed by elected governments, that is its job. As with many areas of public policy, implementation is devolved to arms-length bodies so that the necessary degree of objectivity and expertise can be applied. Having set up such a system the Government should either stick to it or if it doesn't like it, to change the law through the usual democratic process.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

One education system,which is appropriately funded so that we can eliminate class sizes of 40 kids to one teacher and replace the ratio with that which pertains in the parasitic 'public schools' (so called because the 'public' aren't allowed anywhere near them), has to be the objective - if its good enough for the posh to have one on one tutoring, then its good enough for all our kids to receive the same.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
All well and good redcogs, and I'd very much like to see smaller schools and smaller class sizes in the state sector. However, to get teaching ratios equivalent to the private sector would require vastly more money than is currently being spent on education, and vastly more than could be obtained by scrapping the charitable status of private schools. Yet again you seem to be trying to blame good schools for the failings of bad ones.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Bracketing yourself together with Patrick as you do above says it all really. Old boy networking.. More than one mason is too many on a cycling forum, and obviously casts a fog over your objectivity.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Actually old chap I went to to a comprehensive school and most certainly don't have an old boy network to call upon.

ankev1 · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

[
Why? Correct me if wrong but i thought we lived in a society? Elected politicians are precisely the ones who ought to determine what happens in our schools, not quangos. If the politicians are inadequate (and of course even you and i can agree that they are, almost universally so) then we need to get rid of them and elect others who will do the job properly, and in all our interests, not simply for the already well healed, which is the tendency these days.

please look up to the stars.. ***
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think you might mean "heeled".

Unless of course you want to share something with us about how the treament is going?[;)][:D]

Cunobelin · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">healed<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's the New Labour Anthem - "Things can only get better" - i.e. Healed

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Bracketing yourself together with Patrick as you do above says it all really. Old boy networking.. More than one mason is too many on a cycling forum, and obviously casts a fog over your objectivity.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

mjones and I have one thing in common - we both went to state schools. If he's a non mason too, then that'll be another thing in common.

spire · May 2007

Parents who send their children to private school are already paying twice: once for the that school and again (through taxation) for the state place they don't use.

It's outrageous to suggest the schools don't deserve charitable status. Every kid at private school saves the government money.

And parents deserve tax-relief on the fees they pay; if they got it, more people would be able to afford private education.

Fab Foodie · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

Bracketing yourself together with Patrick as you do above says it all really. Old boy networking.. More than one mason is too many on a cycling forum, and obviously casts a fog over your objectivity.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

mjones and I have one thing in common - we both went to state schools. If he's a non mason too, then that'll be another thing in common.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You have being common in common then[:D]

The pessimists of this world are rarely disappointed....
Fab's TCR1

Fab Foodie · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by zimzum42

It's about time the government stopped having anything whatsoever to do with education at all, save for setting a single set of standardized exam papers, and the necessary curriculum for them.

That is more than enough for them to meddle with.

We should see the resulting tax drop as well, they'll be saving plenty......

[:D] www.addiscombe.org [8D] [8D] www.darhotwire.com [8D] [8D] www.muzikmedia.com [:D]
My Bikes My Commute
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Agreed
It seems that every-time the Government tries to make education equal for all it creates a system where education does indeed become more equal for more people...equally bad.

FFS, does it matter where educated people come-from and how?
The important point surely is to educate as many people to a high a standard as possible. Life's not fair and will never be so.
Some people sadly will never be smart-enough to attain higher education and alternatives need to found for those whose talents are outside academia.
What government needs to address is what methods/structures provide the best education for the widest group of people, my guess is that this would be a number of different types of schools. Getting private schools to have to be involved with the state sector is a shabby waste of time. So it's OK then for those families that pay for private school to have to also part "Subsidise" the public sector which they also suppport through their tax?

The issues with state-schools are:
Discipline, number 1 problem.
Class Sizes.
Streaming based on ability.
Provision of differentiated education to different need/ability groups.
Letting teachers run schools with less external influence.
More teachers, better pay.

I don't think this latest nonsense will effect the above 1 jot.

Why people get obsessed with private schools is beyond me, we should be obsessed with the poor quality of state-education which has nothing to do with the private sector which works.

The pessimists of this world are rarely disappointed....
Fab's TCR1

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

So if the government has 'nothing to do with education', how will ordinary people get educated? It sounds like you want to go back to Victorian times...

I'm with Stelvio here: we should look at the Scandanavian systems. In both Sweden and Denmark, if I'm right in thinking, parents are given vouchers which they can spend on school of all sorts of types (which still have to meet standards). Private schools are a big part of this, but the extra charges they raise (on top of the voucher amount) are very small, not like in Britain.

This is because schools in Scandanavia are primarily about educating people not perpetuating a class system...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

redcogs · May 2007

'Our' 'society' really is corrupt don't you think? Whatever area we choose to examine, it is disgustingly slanted towards favouring the rich at the enormous and tragic expense of the poor.

What is worse though, is the disgraceful greed and slavish toadying of those who come here to argue that the very well off havn't quite got enough social and economic advantages, no, they need more.

If its wealth - then the rich need tax incentives (which punish everybody)to maintain their elite positions.

If its health, the parasitic wealthy and their awful middle class support base 'need' to have access to the finest treatment (naturally in a private facility) that money can buy fu ck everyone elses needs or wellbeing.

If its education - the rich need to send their little Cuthberts to Eton to maintain their elite positions - naturally with 'charitable status'.

if its the illegal war in the gulf - then the rich (aka Harry) need exemption from having to go and fight - after all, the life of a rich kid is worth so much more than that of some poor bugger dragged up on a sink estate from what used to be the industrial north.

Some of you lot need to look very closely in the mirror and think about what it is that you see - but do bloodsuckers offer a reflection?

please look up to the stars.. ***

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

So if the government has 'nothing to do with education', how will ordinary people get educated? It sounds like you want to go back to Victorian times...

I'm with Stelvio here: we should look at the Scandanavian systems. In both Sweden and Denmark, if I'm right in thinking, parents are given vouchers which they can spend on school of all sorts of types (which still have to meet standards). Private schools are a big part of this, but the extra charges they raise (on top of the voucher amount) are very small, not like in Britain.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I think zimzim was arguing against micro-management of education by the state, not saying that education shouldn't be funded by the state. Which surely isn't that different from what you are advocating above? Education vouchers can only work if state schools have the freedom to improve. Assuming that is the case then I'd agree that there is a strong case for this approach- the state acting as an enabler of education rather than assuming it must always be the provider.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

This is because schools in Scandanavia are primarily about educating people not perpetuating a class system...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Not sure what you are saying here. I'd agree that educational failings perpetuate social inequality; on the other hand many of the underlying causes of the failings of state education (lack of discipline, aspiration or parental support) arise because of social problems. But that is a very different thing from suggesting that social inequality is the intended outcome of the educational system.

spire · May 2007

redcogs

Private education is massively taxed, here's how:

It costs over œ26k per annum to send one sprog to Eton. To get that nett you need to earn œ44k, so that's œ18k for the taxman for you. And if you've got two sprogs there, œ36k for the taxman.

Jaded · May 2007

spire, you forgot to account for the monies paid for education that aren't used.

If state education is run anything like the NHS (I helped run it in my local area for 5 years) then there will be too much red tape, too much interference from Head Office, and a lot of very dedicated people who work in it despite the system.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by redcogs

'Our' 'society' really is corrupt don't you think? Whatever area we choose to examine, it is disgustingly slanted towards favouring the rich at the enormous and tragic expense of the poor. [1]

What is worse though, is the disgraceful greed and slavish toadying of those who come here to argue that the very well off havn't quite got enough social and economic advantages, no, they need more.

If its wealth - then the rich need tax incentives (which punish everybody)to maintain their elite positions.[2]

If its health, the parasitic wealthy and their awful middle class support base 'need' to have access to the finest treatment (naturally in a private facility) that money can buy fu ck everyone elses needs or wellbeing.[3]

If its education - the rich need to send their little Cuthberts to Eton to maintain their elite positions - naturally with 'charitable status'. [4]

if its the illegal war in the gulf - then the rich (aka Harry) need exemption from having to go and fight - after all, the life of a rich kid is worth so much more than that of some poor bugger dragged up on a sink estate from what used to be the industrial north. [5]

Some of you lot need to look very closely in the mirror and think about what it is that you see - but do bloodsuckers offer a reflection?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Oh dear redcogs, unnecessary 'bloodsucker' insults aside, your quaintly 19th century class struggle is getting a bit cliched now. Few of your comments above have any real connection with what we were discussing, but it's Sunday and raining hard so I'll bite...

[1] As ever you conveniently ignore the fact that most people now have a vastly better standard of living than any previous generation; and their taxes fund a vast welfare state for those at the bottom of the pile. Whether that welfare state is effective at eliminating poverty is another matter.

[2]So what exactly are those tax incentives that the rich need to maintain their elite positions? Gordon Brown's budgets have actually been redistributive, with more paid by the better off as more people get into the top tax rate, capital gains tax, inheritance tax etc etc

[3]What tax incentives are there for those using private medicine?

[4] The charitable status is because those schools don't make profits and provide scholarships for those who can't afford the full fee. Getting rid of charitable status would be an excellent way to ensure private education is only an option for the very wealthy.

[5] The war wasn't 'illegal'. Whether it was wise or morally justifiable is another matter. Harry wasn't let off becuase he was rich, he was prevented from going to war when he wanted to because going would interfere with the normal operations of the army and put his fellow soldiers at risk.

Russell_john · May 2007

... As long as people have money there will always be an alternative market, if it be education or health care. Why shold we be so anti-it? This post is so typical of many here who bleat on about the needs of the 'masses' Yet by taking away the choices of people to seek and PAY FOR private education reeks of opression and restriction: the state will supply what we need. Yep, like hell it does.

But the reality is thankfully it's my choice. If I choose to spend MY money on my childs education and the better choice is a private education then I will damned well do it. Bleating on about the needs/wants of this jurassic concept called the 'working classes' is archic, naive and actually rather stupid. The concept of the 'working classes' mercifully died in the 1980s and thank god it did because lets face it, this was a pretty crap place to live back then...

are they wibbin me Centurwion?

Fab Foodie · May 2007

I don't also go for this line that because you send your children to Private school you must therefore be rich and ipso-facto upper class. What B0ll0cks.
Apart from our kids all the other children in our street are at private school. Are their parents rich and upper class? Are they F**k. The parents are all from "humble working class stock" (for redcogs benefit) and have not been to private schools themselves, BUT, they have worked hard in their particular jobs, saved their money, run old cars have cheap holidays and made a lot of sacrifices for their choices, put mortgages on hold, borrowed from Grandparents etc to give their children the best education they can. It's their choice, they earned the right and good luck to them.
A lot of people we know sending their kids to the private school are builders, plumbers, publicans, software developers, a wide variety of hard-working regular folk.
The private schools here do so well because they are the only alternative to the 3 incredibly avarage middle schools in the town.

We should be concentrating on why a relatively affluent and cosmopolitan town like Abingdon has 3 very average schools. That's the issue, not where hard working people choose to spend their cash.

I always liked the Lib-Dem idea of putting a 1p in the pound extra tax to be spent on education alone, maybe we need such a ring-fenced levy to put the money into education this country needs. Let's face it, if we don't we will be reliant on immigration to provide the skills we require to remain a leading nation.

The truly rich will have got-out by then and good luck to them.

The pessimists of this world are rarely disappointed....
Fab's TCR1

Pizzaman · May 2007

The ONLY reason this has come up is that Alan Johnson desperately needs to secure the votes of the left-wing MPs who reckon (rightly) that behind his "I'm a working class postman made good" front, he is in fact a bit of a Blairite cack-bag. What better way to make sure those votes don't go to Hain and Cruddas (who are also going for the left-wing votes) than to start threatening private schools, which represent everything these MPs hate most in life.

This isn't about helping state schools, this is about bashing private schools for one man's personal gain. Nothing can disguise that.

Flying_Monkey · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Flying_Monkey

This is because schools in Scandanavia are primarily about educating people not perpetuating a class system...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Not sure what you are saying here. I'd agree that educational failings perpetuate social inequality; on the other hand many of the underlying causes of the failings of state education (lack of discipline, aspiration or parental support) arise because of social problems. But that is a very different thing from suggesting that social inequality is the intended outcome of the educational system.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

mjones - have a look at the history of the private ('public') school system, in particular its growth in C19th. You'll see a system designed to produce emotionally-stunted imperial administrators with unquestionable self-belief in their status as top of the heap. This aim was for most of the history of public schools far more than intellectual endeavour.

State education until the invention of comprehensives was also designed to separate out people into class categories (it allowed limited mobility between categories, but this largely acted to confirm the belief of those who benefitted that nothing was wrong with the system...).

You might think this mentality has disappeared, but I don't think it has...

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

spire · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Pizzaman

The ONLY reason this has come up is that Alan Johnson desperately needs to secure the votes of the left-wing MPs who reckon (rightly) that behind his "I'm a working class postman made good" front, he is in fact a bit of a Blairite cack-bag. What better way to make sure those votes don't go to Hain and Cruddas (who are also going for the left-wing votes) than to start threatening private schools, which represent everything these MPs hate most in life.

This isn't about helping state schools, this is about bashing private schools for one man's personal gain. Nothing can disguise that.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Spot on.

spire · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

1. mjones - have a look at the history of the private ('public') school system, in particular its growth in C19th. You'll see a system designed to produce emotionally-stunted imperial administrators with unquestionable self-belief in their status as top of the heap. This aim was for most of the history of public schools far more than intellectual endeavour.

2. State education until the invention of comprehensives was also designed to separate out people into class categories (it allowed limited mobility between categories, but this largely acted to confirm the belief of those who benefitted that nothing was wrong with the system...).

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

1. This may have some historical truth, but is completely irrelevant today.

2. Grammar schools mixed the classes allowing the aspirant working class to succeed. Comprehensives segregate the classes as the middle class manipulates the system by either moving or opting to go private if the local comp is bad.

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Pizzaman

What better way to make sure those votes don't go to Hain and Cruddas (who are also going for the left-wing votes) than to start threatening private schools, which represent everything these MPs hate most in life.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hain went to a private school and Cruddas does not live in his constituency, preferring to live in the catchment area of a four times over subscribed Roman Catholic school with compulsory latin which at least one of this children attends.

Should private schools help state schools?

Comments

Categories