[Closed] Private School Business Rates Relief - The Scots are getting rid...

why are so many parents desperate to get their kids into academically selective state grammar schools?

Jesus ****ing Christ. If you're on the titanic and it's sinking you do your damndest to get your family onto the liferafts.

That doesn't mean you support the original decision to only supply life rafts for 1/3 of the passengers.

edlong: Okay, assume for a minute I'm an idiot

We don't need to assume. The evidence is right there for all to see.

Apologies people. Letting myself get really grumpy. I despise grammar schools.

Wouldn't mind so much if the proponents just told the truth and said "i support them because it makes life better for me and my ilk; and i dont gove a **** about anyone else"

But to cling to this bullshit that it's a better fairer system just boils my piss

I'm still waiting for someone to show me their working out on how they know this policy would be a financial disaster.

Making education “fairer”

If you ban private schools wealthier parents will move to catchment area of better schools and pay for private after school tuition. It will never be “fair” and in any case if yournoarents are nit supportive of education and the wchool system the deck is heavily stacked against you re social mobility

Academically selective schools will always outperform for those kids who get in.

A Levels and University entry are academically selective. The argument is when in the process does the selection begin, A levels (and gcse/streaming) select within an instiution and Uni you must reach the standard to get in.

Because they get a slightly better education at the expense of a poorer one for the many. Obvious really.

@aa there is no reason that the existence of selective grammers in itself means other schools are automatically disadvantaged. However it is clear under the old Comp/Grammer system governments of all colours did spend less on the Comps

@aa it’s hard to argue it will be a financial disaster, what it will be is counter productive with more pressure on the state system which will imho almost certainly outweigh the tiny amount of extra money collected. The policy will be less damaging than say putting VAT on school fees would be.

It's got nothing to do with the finances as they won't get all the £5m forecast and anyway in real terms that's next to nothing. Instead it's all about the SNP trying to shore up the left wing, working class vote. The interesting thing to watch is whether as a result their middle class voters start to look elsewhere.

Are you guys suggesting that this £5m is not going to deliver what Swinney promises?? Surely not?

It's amazing the convoluted arguments people will go to to try and make out that having a level playing field is somehow a terrible thing.

Academically selective schools will always outperform for those kids who get in.

You do know this is a discussion about Scotland where there are no state provided academically selective schools?

The attitudes to the people of Scotland towards education are usually a bit different to those south of the border. By and large children go to their nearest school, we don’t have the same competition and anxiety to get off spring into the right school that happens down south. It does mean that address is a key determinant in the school you go to, and thus potentially the effectiveness of the schooling. As a result house prices are affected by catchment areas, but generally not to the extremes in some areas of England.

It's amazing the convoluted arguments people will go to to try and make out that having a level playing field is somehow a terrible thing.

I don't think many people aren't in favour of a more level playing field, however it's whether you achieve it by dragging the lower end upwards, or the upper end downwards.

Seems an excellent “litmus test” to see those who can spot “something that hangs between a bull's hind legs” and those who cannot.

Without the option of sending their children to private schools, the option of spending more on state education (and raising the taxes to pay for this) would suddenly become a lot more important.

Without the option of sending their children to private schools, the option of spending more on state education (and raising the taxes to pay for this) would suddenly become a lot more important.

I think this is hopeful thinking as the incremental effect on their local school would be minimal. I live in an affluent area of London, and what happens here is the local state schools raise serious money every year from the PTA, far more than the private schools, parents want to put their money where it directly impacts their kids.

So thm, what exactly has John Swinney promised to achieve with the 5 million saved? You allude to it above. Or are you lying again and he hasn't promised to achieve anything with it?

To be fair, no money has been saved. The question is how much will be raised as a result.

Mefty same happens in the area of Scotland I'm in. We have two local private schools and then a couple of local state schools, and the PTA for the state schools raises some serious money. I can't see that happening in the schools situated in the less affluent areas of the city.

£5 million is peanuts, he will do nothing of note with it. Whole thing is pure politics, you just have to decide whether philosophically you agree or don't. An actually real improvements with those tiny sums are likely to be sweet FA.

The interesting thing to watch is whether as a result their middle class voters start to look elsewhere.

Most middle class voters don't send their kids to private school. Only about 4% of Scottish kids go to private school, though oddly in Edinburgh it's about 25%.

Looks like a good idea really, for a lot of reasons many organisations have held advantages that are not needed now, if the private schools simply raise prices to maintain a profit then they're a business, if they keep fee's lower then they might be slightly charitable.
If they put VAT on fees then if 1 in 6 or 7 take their kids back to the public system the VAT should easily cover them.

As for tax rebates for sending your kids to private school, get in line behind those who don't have kids - state owes me for your kids being born, medical care and many other things like the annoying child benefit that they can't work out how to means test...

Again the role of charities and charitable status seem to be very different. The whole system needs looking at where various organisations have a nice status for tax but have a wealth of assets and money making abilities that do not match their giving/doing.

[quote=jambalaya ]If you ban private schools wealthier parents will move to catchment area of better schools

Ah, sorry jamba I misunderstood you, I was being dim. So it's one of these:

[img] [/img]

dragon - Member
...£5 million is peanuts, he will do nothing of note with it. Whole thing is pure politics...

Money is tight, so where should it be saved?

Stopping subsidies for a wealthy sector of the community is a good start.

Isn't Austerity a bitch when it bites the bourgeois?

It's not an SNP idea of course despite all the SNP BAAAAD stuff, they've more or less pinched it from Labour. Anyway- lots of very confident predictions of the effects of this, and none of them are based in anything but total guesswork and most seem to come from vested interests so let's treat them with the appropriate level of seriousness. We'll see if it actually leads to the fall in private school rolls that has been claimed.

I do find it interesting that people can fit in their head "it's too small an amount of money to be worth saving" and "It's a huge amount of money and it'll destroy the school sector". Too small an amount? It'd run LEAPS for a decade and help out more disadvantaged kids that way than there are students in the entire private school system. Or buy about 5% of a F35B

Too small an amount? St Leonards says it'll stop them supporting "as many" poorer kids. St Leonards it turns out give out one full bursary every 2 years on average, maybe we should be talking about a different too small number? Think of the .55% of a children!

And that's after the OSCR forced them to increase their support tenfold. Oh, you thought they do it out of the kindness of their hearts? One in three of feepaying schools tested by the OSCR failed and were forced to increase their support for poorer kids or be removed entirely from the charities register. And the SCVO says categorically that private schools shouldn't be considered charities unless they drastically improve access and support.

So no, private schools, you will not be reducing your support for poorer students, unless you want to lose all charitable benefits. And you all know this, so when you say it in the same breath as your predictions for school numbers, let's take it with a pinch of salt.

Now me, I'm not sure. Maybe the numbers will work out, maybe they won't, it really has to be tested and I think if it proves counterproductive it should be reversed. But if trusting the regulator and the charities commissioners is the politics of envy then I guess that's me.

This is a shocking idea.
All the rich people I know are now not sending their kids to private schools and are being forced to move.
It's preposterous.

Importantly for this type of discussion where no ordinary small violin will do this is one of the smallest stradivarius made...
https://tarisio.com/cozio-archive/property/?ID=40113
Of course we will need somebody with a good private education to play it....

A good move both for its practicality and its symbology. Why should the general taxpayer subsidise privilege?

@aa there is no reason that the existence of selective grammers in itself means other schools are automatically disadvantaged.

Yes there is. I posted an example on the previous page.

@aa it’s hard to argue it will be a financial disaster, what it will be is counter productive with more pressure on the state system

Why? Private schools pay more tax, put up fees a small amount. Very few kids are pulled out of private schooling. Or some private schools that are cheaper spend less but still offer a better education than state grot holes. Not much changes. Its an easy argument to make and as well backed up as the counter one.

The interesting thing to watch is whether as a result their middle class voters start to look elsewhere.

As already said most middle class voters don't send their kids to private school and those than do are very, very likely to be voting tory already so nothing to lose for SNP.

Having worked in both sectors (top Edinburgh day school and a borders high school where 60%are SIMD 1&2) I don't think it's a bad thing to make private schools pay the rates due as long as that money then goes into "closing the attainment gap" the poorest in society deserve more spent and independent schools indirectly supporting then through taxation would be a great thing.

I also think independent schools are fine and perhaps should be sector leaders. But then I'm thinking Watson's, Heriots, stew Mel, The Academy. As opposed to fettes and Merchiston. The former are pretty much on par with the best state schools in Scotland with possible only the extras being the difference.

This is a shocking idea.
All the rich people I know are now not sending their kids to private schools and are being forced to move.
It's preposterous.

Most middle class voters don't send their kids to private school. Only about 4% of Scottish kids go to private school, though oddly in Edinburgh it's about 25%.

The Scottish private school sector is indeed pretty weird in comparison to England and Wales. Geography plays a big part I guess. If you live in most of Scotland and don't want to use a boarding school there is no option but to send your kids to the local state school because that is the only school in the area and the population density is such that it can't support a private day school option.

In Edinburgh however nearly 25% of kids are privately educated. And they are not all Fettes money (£33k pa); some are a 'relatively' modest fee. Still the preserve of the middle classes and above but not exclusively an 'elite' only decision.

Re grammar schools (declaration - I went to one in Kent in the 80's) I think it would be a really interesting social experiment to plonk a grammar school right in the centre of deprived area with an entrance priorities that meant you had to live in the area and prioritised those in social housing. Would it flourish? Would it attract teachers? I'm not convinced it would. Teachers are by and large middle class and educated. Grammar schools (by hook or by crook) attract a disproportionate number of middle class kids. I have a theory that many teachers (I am one) by and large enjoy being surrounded by their own. Would they flood to work in a selective school full of socially deprived students. Not convinced.

Those that 'hate' grammar schools. I'm assuming its because of what it does to do the remainder - being branded a failure etc. I have some sympathy. However, I've worked in a comp that streamed from day one - A, B and C. You were in that stream for 5 years and did all your classes in that stream (inc PE etc). The only time you mixed with kids from another stream was at break and lunch. A more in your face reminder of your 'failure' I can't think of. At least in the grammar system the 'boffins' are out of site and out of mind.

Finally I have been to Swaziland half a dozen times as part of an ongoing project installing running water at rural schools and as such I’ve spent a lot of time in schools and with their pupils, teachers and parents. Every time I go (but especially in the early years in 2007-9 when the country was on it's knees) it reminds me of how messed up we are in the west. There you have kids walking 5 miles barefoot to school everyday to receive some pretty brutal teaching in terrible conditions but their attitude to education is so much better than ours. The motivation, the positive attitude of poor and uneducated parents to their kids receiving good education and the appreciation that an education (and a pretty crap one at that) was a ticket to a better life makes me ashamed to be British (or western tbh). Until we have what they have in all levels of society hand wringing about private/ public sector and selective education is just messing with the periphery. You can drag a horse to water etc.

They are also allowed to deflect VAT for certain purposes too. And yet we've always charged the NHS VAT.

I can tell you this , some of them are run with the typical asset stripping glee of the neoliberals, whilst still wearing salmon coloured statist trousers.

Bad pay, cutting of essential things like heat and food whilst ploughing loads into look at me projects.

I think this is hopeful thinking as the incremental effect on their local school would be minimal. I live in an affluent area of London, and what happens here is the local state schools raise serious money every year from the PTA, far more than the private schools, parents want to put their money where it directly impacts their kids.

Which goes some way to explaining this report published today...

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-42425343 ]Born in the wrong place for good schools[/url]

Its increasingly looking like instead of a two tier education system that serves the rich and privileged, we now have a 3 tier system, with private education at the top, then schools in [i]affluent areas[/i] able to '[i]raise serious money every year from the PTA'[/i], then the rest that have been progressively starved of funds.

Mays wish for more grammar schools would just further entrench and advance this

Social mobility in this country isn't just dead in the water, its going backwards.

So getting back to the original point - why on earth should private schools, which are a fundamental factor in this, be effectively subsidised by the very taxpayers who's interests it actively acts against?

As seems quite fashionable in our deluded 'have cake, eat it' country, it appears that these private schools want to be businesses when it suits, and charities when it doesn't

^ again binners, that's an education story about England that represents itself as reflecting UK. It does not.
Scotland, NI and a slightly lesser extent, Wales are different, without such a pressure on certain postcodes around schools and over-funded London schools recently. We usually go to our local school up here. Our theory is all schools should be good, not just a few select (selective?) ones...

At the end of the day it is an ideology driven shift. Pandering to the neoliberals by removing state support, disgusting! I fully expected the usual subjects to be singing the praises of this move. Maybe because it is the SNP, they don't like it?

their attitude to education is so much better than ours. The motivation, the positive attitude of poor and uneducated parents to their kids receiving good education and the appreciation that an education (and a pretty crap one at that) was a ticket to a better life makes me ashamed to be British

Hear this a lot, and was just as guilty of it myself as a snot-nosed brat! What has no cost has no value, etc!

What has no cost has no value, etc!

And that's not just financial cost.

I will say it again - this argument for me is not anti private education.

It is purely about having an equal system of taxation. All education settings should pay Business Rates, or none should pay Business Rates. From nurseries to Schools to Universities.

So thm, what exactly has John Swinney promised to achieve with the 5 million saved? You allude to it above. Or are you lying again and he hasn't promised to achieve anything with i

I gave you the exact quote. If you think it’s an empty promise without substance then we agree.

As you comment later, this is little more than ideological posturing. It captures the attention of the gullible but does SFA for Scotland’s educational inequality that persists despite the power devolved to your government to sort it out. So they play games instead of dealing with the real issue. How very SNP.,,

. Why should the general taxpayer subsidise privilege?

They do that with tertiary education in Scotland and apparently this is a good idea.

Teachers are by and large middle class and educated. Grammar schools (by hook or by crook) attract a disproportionate number of middle class kids. I have a theory that many teachers (I am one) by and large enjoy being surrounded by their own.

Indeed and I believe I once saw some data to back this up.
Your point about the Grammar in the sink estate with tighter geographical intake is a good one too but you may just find either very few get in or the entry requirement drops so much it becomes just like the comp!

i work with someone who has two kids in the local grammar school and one at private school. the one at private school wasn't smart enough to get into the grammar...

For the most part, private schools can't afford to be too choosy about who they take in

i work with someone who has two kids in the local grammar school and one at private school. the one at private school wasn't smart enough to get into the grammar...

This is pretty much the way it is(was) in Kent. Canterbury has two brilliant grammar schools and then Kent College for the Tim nice but dims 😉

Did people stereotype the kids who went to each one?

A complaint I've heard from a teacher working in Edinburgh is that private schools are quite prepared to offload pupils to the State system if the children have difficult behavioural problems or if their academic performance is not good enough and could comprise the schools' results.

Depends if you are an independent exam factor where results are your USP. We (I work in an independent school) will have anyone! Margins are incredibly tight. If the head is forced to remove kids for behavioural reasons (we are not talking about flicking rubbers here) it is not long before he has to think about removing staf too to balance the books.

The Scottish private school sector is indeed pretty weird in comparison to England and Wales. Geography plays a big part I guess. If you live in most of Scotland and don't want to use a boarding school there is no option but to send your kids to the local state school because that is the only school in the area and the population density is such that it can't support a private day school option.

But most Scots live in the central belt with quite high population density, and that wouldn't explain the difference between Glasgow and Edinburgh.

I think it's just Edinburgh being Edinburgh 😉