Should private schools help state schools?

Gary Askwith · 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

It is possible to imagine a society that encourages collective responsibilty for all children - <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Including the 40 children left to their fates in an inferior school as you used your economic muscle to buy a house in the catchment area of a better school?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I acknowlege you enjoy a spot of that noble sport of red-baiting Patrick[;)] but this repitition is becoming a tad tedious.... redders has already explained that this feature was one of many reasons he 'emigrated'...I for one see no history of deception/evasion (or reluctance to call a spade a spade even his own) in his character therefore please desist from this line of scolding
Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Simon L2 · May 2007

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

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

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

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.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I disagree (and, yes, the kid does go to private school). It's our choice. If we want to make it we should pay for it. And the tax-exemption thing is daft. These schools are businesses. Why shouldn't they pay rates on the buildings?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, you're alright Jack. But what about the folk that can't quite afford it, but could with tax relief?

And if the tax relief costs less than the government spends per head on state education, everybody wins.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
- that's just tough - it's one of the inequalities that capitalism throws up. Happily, almost forty years advocacy of a proletarian dictatorship, and the building of a communist state, exempts me from feeling bad about it! (Although, if it's any consolation, Mrs L2 is going to set up a fund to assist others with the fees).
- the argument for tax relief on school buildings is no better than tax relief on private armies.

Cecy · May 2007

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

Whats your beef about teachers not working hard enough? i direct your attention to the size of the class that redcogs junior attended in England (above). You would need to be superhuman to teach a class size of 41 lively primary kids effectively. my experience suggests that teachers work really hard in an increasingly difficult and under resourced environment. When you throw your dart at a target try and hit the bulls eye not the wall.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Your experience might suggest that [all] teachers work really hard. My experience, as I've outlined if you could be bothered to read what I've written, is that while some of my schoolteachers were saints, some were lazy and incompetent or both. And my personal experience is important in the context of this discussion because we were talking about how when parents take their kids away from rubbish schools, they no longer know what the problems are.

I wouldn't disagree for a second that 41 kids in class is too many and that that is ONE problem of the state sector. But my personal experience was of class sizes well below 30 where the teacher did nothing. Our English literature class consisted of reading a set text around the class. No discussion of it, and for some reason it took an entire year to read. Almost every kid in the class had some different book behind their textbook to keep from dying of boredom. And I don't remember any English language classes, but I remember that when it got to the o-level exam I read the instruction "write an essay" and could not recall when I had last written an essay. The English teachers didn't have less resources or more difficult environment than the Science teachers who routinely delivered A-grades.

Teacher performance is a knotty problem, and it is compounded by having people pretend that all state-school teachers are satisfactory.

cc

Pizzaman · May 2007

"Teacher performance is a knotty problem, and it is compounded by having people pretend that all state-school teachers are satisfactory."

Or indeed by people denigrating teachers as 'lazy and incompetent'.

Cecy · May 2007

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

"Teacher performance is a knotty problem, and it is compounded by having people pretend that all state-school teachers are satisfactory."

Or indeed by people denigrating teachers as 'lazy and incompetent'.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I did not say that about teachers in general, I said SOME are, and provided evidence to support that. If your kid was getting English classes like that how would you describe the teacher? The point that I made was that other teachers in the same derelict building teaching the same kids got good results.

cc

mjones · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2
...
- the argument for tax relief on school buildings is no better than tax relief on private armies.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Simon, hyperbole is of course an honourable tradition on Soapbox, so I'll let the private army comparison pass [;)], however I don't think you are being wholly fair about the tax treatment of private schools.

Surely tax exemption is simply a consequence of their charitable status, which is being reviewed by the Charities Commission using new public interest criteria? So if they meet the criteria then why would they be less deserving than other organisations the CC has approved? And being a charity is not solely a benefit- as charities they cannot make profits, which must limit opportunities for investment, so they cannot be considered to be businesses in the way that other private sector service providers would be. Private schools are much more tightly regulated as charities than they would be as plcs.

spire · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

1. - that's just tough - it's one of the inequalities that capitalism throws up. Happily, almost forty years advocacy of a proletarian dictatorship, and the building of a communist state, exempts me from feeling bad about it! (Although, if it's any consolation, Mrs L2 is going to set up a fund to assist others with the fees).
2. - the argument for tax relief on school buildings is no better than tax relief on private armies.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

1. I support private education, but your selfish attitude i find shocking.

2. Absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

babyjebus · June 2007

Spire, you ever dimmer bulb. He's joking. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean everyone else is equally confused.

I'm always amused by the way you bullet-point everything, as if you can't comprehend people capable of expressing more than one idea at once.

spire · June 2007

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

Spire, you ever dimmer bulb. He's joking. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean everyone else is equally confused.

I'm always amused by the way you bullet-point everything, as if you can't comprehend people capable of expressing more than one idea at once.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Is this another identity bimblywavydougierothbook?

Simon L2 · June 2007

Not at all. I have it on good authority that babyjebus is the nom-de-plume of the Pope, who is a staunch supporter of private education, having sent his love-children to Gordonstoun where they have been schooled in the Catechism, Rhetoric and Martial Arts.

That's the joy of it, you see. Private schools step outside the National Curriculum, a device for straightjacketing children that was invented by Thatcher and perpetuated by her bastard son. Little Miss might have been studying for her end of year exams last week. She wasn't. She was working on the staging of an opera. Take me to a state school where the there is so much freedom to study and perform drama that the A level drama performance is attended by the kids' parents, teachers and theatrical agents. It would never happen. The state schools just chase the stats.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

(Although, if it's any consolation, Mrs L2 is going to set up a fund to assist others with the fees).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Other members of your family? If you set it up as a private charitable fund, remember to make sure that the objects enable it in theory to benefit persons other than your family as otherwise you won't be able to get the charity tax reliefs.

Simon L2 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens
Other members of your family?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
actually no - we live in a neighbourhood that has a wide range family incomes. Mrs L2's motives are of the best.

spire · June 2007

Is this another identity bimblywavydougierothbook?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

Not at all. I have it on good authority that babyjebus is the nom-de-plume of the Pope, who is a staunch supporter of private education, having sent his love-children to Gordonstoun where they have been schooled in the Catechism, Rhetoric and Martial Arts.

That's the joy of it, you see. Private schools step outside the National Curriculum, a device for straightjacketing children that was invented by Thatcher and perpetuated by her bastard son. Little Miss might have been studying for her end of year exams last week. She wasn't. She was working on the staging of an opera. Take me to a state school where the there is so much freedom to study and perform drama that the A level drama performance is attended by the kids' parents, teachers and theatrical agents. It would never happen. The state schools just chase the stats.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Thank you for answering on behalf of bimblywavydougierothbook.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

Take me to a state school where the there is so much freedom to study and perform drama that the A level drama performance is attended by the kids' parents, teachers and theatrical agents. It would never happen. The state schools just chase the stats.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I can't. A state school has a fraction of the amount that a private school has to spend on each pupil each year. Paying for education undoubtedly gives children of affluent parents considerable advantages over the children of the poor. This is of course the reason why socialists are so implacably opposed to private education.

Mark Alexander · June 2007

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

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

Not all schools cost as much as Eton though. The Comprehensive failed me. It's not just the quality of teaching its th fact that there are 30 in a year not a class. I don't believe that they have a responsibility to help out.

my elephant has more memory than my PC

Simon L2 · June 2007

I don't think it's just about money, Patrick. There's a huge wodge of reports, of statistics, or 'outputs', of 'indicators' produced by the Department of Education (or whatever it's called this week) and all the joy is being pushed out of education. I see those recruiting ads for teachers that show kids getting excited by Chemistry, and, knowing that almost every lesson is dictated by Whitehall, I wonder at the cheek of it.

Maybe we're fortunate. I've heard a parent at Little Miss's school say 'if XXX doesn't get A*s in everything then it's not worthwhile'. When we signed up I said to the Headmistress 'I don't really give a monkeys about exam results - I just want her to come out of this a good person with an interest in life and other people'. I got the impression that went down well...

- it's about œ9000 a year by the way - substantially less than Eton, but still a big deal for us, although not for a good number of the other parents

So - to go back to the original question. I doubt there's much that an individual teacher can do. It's down to the system that Thatcher brought in, and Blair perpetuated.

CometGirl · June 2007

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

I can't. A state school has a fraction of the amount that a private school has to spend on each pupil each year. Paying for education undoubtedly gives children of affluent parents considerable advantages over the children of the poor. This is of course the reason why socialists are so implacably opposed to private education.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I can't be bothered to look for the link again, but (about this time last year) I posted a link showing that state and private schools have about the same amount per pupil - it's what they spend it on that differs, and the fact that private schools are less bothered about asking parents to fund extra curricular activities.

(Although obviously I recognise that private schools chase their old pupils and hound them for cash in the way that state schools generally don't...)

Unknown · June 2007

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

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

I can't. A state school has a fraction of the amount that a private school has to spend on each pupil each year. Paying for education undoubtedly gives children of affluent parents considerable advantages over the children of the poor. This is of course the reason why socialists are so implacably opposed to private education.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I can't be bothered to look for the link again, but (about this time last year) I posted a link showing that state and private schools have about the same amount per pupil - <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'd certainly like to see it - my recollection is that for day pupils the average in the state sector is œ2,600 pa per pupil whereas in the private sector it is over œ8,000.

spire · June 2007

No time to look for anything more recent, but this old link does support CG:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2298717.stm

spire · June 2007

Extract from Brown's budget speech last year:

"In private schools there is one teacher for every nine pupils compared with one teacher for every sixteen in state secondary schools.

To secure better school results we have improved the pupil teacher ratio and doubled the money spent per year for the typical pupil from œ2,500 to œ5,000.

But this figure of œ5,000 per pupil still stands in marked contrast to average spending per pupil in the private sector of œ8,000 a year."

Simon L2 · June 2007

well, fair enough. And, as Comet says, they do come to you for a bunch of money for trips and the like.

It is a privelige, and I'm aware that our search for a liberal education has taken us in a wierd direction. My conscience tells me that Little Miss should be in a comprehensive, with me telling the head to lighten up on exams and get them into opera, but I can't really see that flying, and, when I see how happy she is all regrets disappear.

Should private schools help state schools?

Comments

Categories