I am sure that you will have detected from the tone of that post that I am not altogether happy with the wider reaches of exclusion irrespective of whether it attracts formal 'fees' or not.
Indeed I did. I agree all these firms of exclusivity present challenges to overcome.
Julian, cross post. I would love to know that answer genuinely. The private system accounts for 6-7 of total school population of which a certain ( 😉 ) percentage are fee paying to various degrees. Grammars and religious schools would be relatively easy to find out. More tricky is the more "subtle forms" of exclusion that you have highlighted, but since they exist in some form (basic economics) the number must be very high eg location.
As for the more interesting point, "access to parents who care might" be more worthwhile?
Imagine the day when the independent sector says fine. OK, we close tomorrow.....
So the only option available to them if their privileged status was withdrawn would be to throw their toys out of the pram and go home in a huff, taking their lacrosse sticks with them?
How about them remaining open, becoming state funded, brought into the system, and used as centres of excellence open as a utility to be accessible by all, regardless of wealth
I know this is considered tantamount to communism by the moneyed classes, but its hardly revolutionary stuff really, is it?
I don't agree with lazy generalisations that they are all "rich" and it comes easy to them.
so you make a lazy one that they are not rich?
i doubt anyone think everyone who goes is a millionaiires child I dounbt anyoine thinks they all live in terrace houses
Given it is fee paying it is obvious the demographic would be skeewed to the wealthy
Can I just state that my school had no Lacrosse.
teamhurtmore - MemberJulian it's an average across schools and (I think) it's a year.
£200 a year increase?
Jesus wept, that is over £60 sheets a term! To put this into persective, this is half of what you would pay locally for school meals every day.
Given the overall cost of private education and (until thm provides us with source and figures/breakdown) the low proprtion of families who would genuinely struggle to afford £200 on top of whatever bursary they have, that is a fantastically weak argument against removal of charity status. As it stands and pending better arguments from both sides I am not opposed to fee-paying schools as charities at all, its just that from THM I expected something a bit more compelling than £200 a year and the rather fanciful notion of such a small proportion of the overall cost causing bursaries to fall apart families in dickensian poverty putting their children into state schools.
With regards to your second point, I am unsure that charity status is the only thing stopping these schools becoming monsters of private enterprise with escalating fees. Otherwise a few would try (and ultimately fail through competition of those that had the £200 a year 'edge' on them) or they would all ditch it and create a free market, non? There must be something else, surely?
Without the money you cannot have the choice.
I think pretty much all private schools have places for those that cannot afford the fees - below is from my daughter's school.
[i]The bursary funds provide financial support for new pupils
joining the School at Removes (Year 7) and for Sixth Form. This
year we will be spending over £400,000 supporting nearly 60
families with the cost of fees, many of whom would have been
prevented from sending their children to ######## because of
financial circumstances.
Our bursary scheme is means-tested, which ensures that
financial support is going to those who need it most. The means testing
process takes into account a family’s income and
outgoings to assess the proportion of our fees they can afford.
Whilst ######## would like to provide financial support for
everyone who is eligible, sadly there are not enough funds to
do so.
As a guide, the bursary support would cover from 5% to100% of the fees
depending on a family’s financial circumstances, which
continues throughout the child’s time at School if necessary.[/i]
Just FYI (and yes I know it probably makes no difference).
The most bonkers thing about the whole system is the 'charitable' status of private schools.
Hang on. I'm paying school fees. And tax which goes towards the state system. I demand a refund for the education my son didn't get from the state.
I think pretty much all private schools have places for those that cannot afford the fees
And given how expensive they are, there's a lot of competition for them. As such only the very brightest kids will usually ever get anything like a 100% one.
Can I just state that my school had no Lacrosse.
Maybe it did, but didn't tell you about it as it's not really a sport for clumsy tall people. 🙂
Not in this case
[i]My child is very bright. Does this mean they will receive
a larger bursary?
No, all children have to meet our academic selection criteria
before being considered for a bursary. The amount of bursary
awarded is based on financial need and not academic ability.[/i]
clubber - MemberCan I just state that my school had no Lacrosse.
Can I just state that my (state) school had no rugby either. 8)
yep, let's shake some tail feather!!!There you go twisting his post again.
1/3 of the lets say 95% of non-fee paying schools - approx 32% allocate entry on the basis of faith.
Grammar schools are roughly the same %age as the independent sector at 5-6% - allocate entry on ability
Edit: agreed from different angles, the financial impact of charity status is a red herring. No wonder red Ed has dropped his brothers idea to do away with it.
With regards to your second point, I am unsure that charity status is the only thing stopping these schools becoming monsters of private enterprise with escalating fees.
Indeed not. Given that many achieve global excellence, they are able to attract increasing numbers of overseas students - but do not confuse that with being broader in any way. That would be very misleading.....
Maybe it did, but didn't tell you about it as it's not really a sport for clumsy tall people
🙂 genuine lol 🙂
Given that they had no problem telling me about Rugby, Hockey or Cricket all of which I was similarly ill suited to, I suspect not...
THM re: removing charitable status making fees rise -is that £200 per term, week, year?
THM's source which is based on evidence to a Select Committee is silent on this but I imagine it is £100 million/No of pupils (500,000) = £200 so it will be per annum. (That tallies to the number of pupils reported elsewhere so works and is for all pupils.)
But frankly, this number is based on the status quo once schools had to actually manage taxpayer status it wouldn't to too difficult to arrange their affairs to wipe out the tax bill as no one benefits from them making a profit.
its as much the principle as the sums involved. The taxpayer is being asked to subsidise a system which actively disadvantages 95% of them, and entrenches social inequality.
Not taking someone's money is not a subsidy. However many of the parents do subsidise the state sector as they pay an awful lot of tax, some of which is no doubt is used to fund state schools which they don't use - or do they only fund the nasty stuff like defence so the bien pensant can sleep comfortably at night?
But well done binners, you want to make a gesture which achieves the square root of diddly squat - I thought you didn't like Ed Milliband.
so you make a lazy one that they are not rich?
No, I did not.
I pointed out that some families (not all) make sacrifices and choices that allow them to send kids to private school. In contrast to comparable income families who spend a fortune on foreign holidays, huge TVs, playstations, ipads & take-away food and then say that only "rich" people can go to private school.
sharkbait - MemberNot in this case
Of course it will: there will always be some sacrifice to make.
Sharkbait, so let's imagine for simplicity that it is all quantifiable (i bet it's not, mind!) and that your notional pass mark is 80%, and you get a number of children who want bursaries of one size or another. Do you give the 100% bursary to the best and also poorest child at the expense of 5 less poor children who didn't need as large a bursary but also didn't do so well in the test? Or do you ringfence 'bands' of bursaries and give the ten best kids who applied for 10% a place, 5 best kids who wanted 50% a place and the one best kid who applied for 100% regardless of how many more kids applied for 10%, 50% and 100% bursaries? Or substitute 'best' with "most worthy given consideration of academic ability as well as potential and 'deservingness'" and try and work it out then.
It must be a maddening and indeed sad process awarding a limited quantity of bursaries where there is more need for the money than there is money, and it must be impossible to keep the brightness of individual pupils and their parents' ability to pay [i]some[/i] of the fees entirely out of this process.
People like to claim they're not rich. It's a very British thing. Trouble is that it means that people who are reasonably well off fail to understand just how poor many people actually are.
Julian you missing the point about allocating the bursary if you can kick a ball better that the rest of them. Forget the academic stuff for one moment...
It must be a maddening and indeed sad process awarding a limited quantity of bursaries where there is more need for the money than there is money,
The essence of economics - everyday, everyone faces the same problem...balancing infinite demand and finite resource to satisfy them. How do you do it?
I pointed out that some families (not all) make sacrifices and choices that allow them to send kids to private school. In contrast to comparable income families who spend a fortune on foreign holidays, huge TVs, playstations, ipads & take-away food and then say that only "rich" people can go to private school.
We have an above average household income. We don't spend a fortune on foreign holidays, huge TVs, playstations, ipads & take-away food. We couldn't afford to send our kids to a private school, if we wanted to.
I think some peoples' idea of 'average' income might be skewed from what it really is. IIRC, the median household income is £36k per year, which is almost exactly what I earn. After tax, etc. that's about £2k per month if from one income, a bit more if from two.
That would put typical non-boarding fees for one child at about 50% of the median take home pay each month? (Plus food, uniform, etc...)
How about them remaining open, becoming state funded, brought into the system, and used as centres of excellence open as a utility to be accessible by all, regardless of wealth
It almost sounds like your advocating some kind of meritocracy binners - what a ghastly concept!
then say that only "rich" people can go to private school
You still need the actual money to make the sacrifice. You either have the income to meet the fees - whether you make sacrifices or not you still need the income first. It is true that some rich folk could meet this fee but spend the money elsewhere.
I think pretty much all private schools have places for those that cannot afford the fees
The odd outlier and example of bursaries [ which generally reduce not remove the fees] does not disprove that the income curve for the parents of those who attend private school is skewed towards the rich.
Yes there are examples on the margins but in general the point is true.
Are we really debating whether fee paying schools are generally the preserve of the rich?
What next expensive cars tend to be owned by higher earners?
the more money you earn the more expensive your holidays tend to be?
Its not universally true, few things are, but it is generally the case.
They provide a limite dnumber of places but it is disengenous t o try and argue that the odd place negates the fact that oprivate schools are fee paying and , generally, the preserve of the well off or
How about them remaining open, becoming state funded
Many are considering becoming Free Schools, I believe. [url= http://www.polamhall.com/free-school/ ]Our local one certainly is.[/url]
How about them remaining open, becoming state funded, brought into the system, and used as centres of excellence open as a utility to be accessible by all, regardless of wealth
Fine, that will cost you £2.5bm, instead of £100m, but hey this is a matter of principle. So once you have done this, how will the small number of places be allocated? Will you still have to be catholic to use the old Ampleforth resources, or academic gifted to use Winchester or St. Paul's ?
The essence of economics - everyday, everyone faces the same problem...balancing infinite demand and finite resource to satisfy them. How do you do it?
The state school system manages by negociating a budget with the chancellor and spending it more-or-less equally (in know this is a gross generalisation but you get the point) on every child regardless of academic merit or financial status. Compare that to allocating bursaries making equal access to brighter/poorer kids.
But you knew that.
Fine, that will cost you £2.5bm
That's only about 3% of the education budget, so let's do it.
Except it doesn't - but you knew that. You have already articulated very clearly how state funds are not allocated equally at all.
If people choose to send their children away to school that's their choice.
Sending them away does seem a bit extreme but if that's what they want let them do it.
Is this the best thing to do?
I was at a "normal" school in quite a deprived area.
It did me no harm.
I loved every minute of being there and got fabulous grades.
I managed to get a first class degree and will be soon starting my next (open university this time).
Basically what I'm saying is there is no right or wrong, it's just down to what the parents want. You tend to find the child doesn't really gave a choice in the matter.
You really are violently opposed to the idea of educational equality aren't you THM? Reeking as it does of genuine meritocracy
As are most people who privately educate their children, I'd imagine. By its very nature, a meritocracy being the very last thing they'd want
Mike, there's a job for you in the Treasury?
And when you finish that - The Lord Chief Justice - as I assume the ability to set up new fee-paying schools would be outlawed.
Fine, that will cost you £2.5bm, instead of £100m, but hey this is a matter of principle.
They could still take a limited number of foreign students, and charge them through the nose - you know the kids of oligarchs etc.
Mind you they might not want to come if they had to mix with bright but poor kids I suppose. 😉
If people choose to send their children away to school that's their choice.
I think that's a different argument altogether. I certainly agree that boarding schools are a bit odd - it's like subcontracting your kids entire upbringing!
That doesn't apply to most private education.
I managed to get a first class degree and will be soon starting my next (open university this time).
Full time student waster! Well done! 😉
You really are violently opposed to the idea of educational equality aren't you THM? Reeking as it does of genuine meritocracy
100% not actually - I simply disagree with some of the proposed solutions for achieving it and the inaccurate use of terms like exclusivity etc. And the second part of my own goals re education is related to exactly that. Just not in this country because of all of the BS that prevent progress here.
Mike, there's a job for you in the Treasury?
A billion here, a billion there. Soon it adds up to real money.
And when you finish that - The Lord Chief Justice - as I assume the ability to set up new fee-paying schools would be outlawed.
Charging for schooling is illegal in Finland, so I don't see why it can't be here.
teamhurtmore - MemberExcept it doesn't - but you knew that. You have already articulated very clearly how state funds are not allocated equally at all.
Wow three times in one thread, i am flattered 😳
My point as you surely realise was about how allocating a very limited bursary to a limited range of kids of limited academic (and indeed sporting!) ability does not significantly serve to redress the inaccessibility of these schools to all children.
To compare this inequality to that perpetuated by the relatively limited way state schools can choose to be selective that i spoke of a few pages earlier, and the difference in cost of educating each child in an academy/comp/grammar/faith school is pretty weak.
Again, I will go back to the percentage of children excluded even accounting for limited bursaries to limited children versus the real-world financial cost of sending the child there, compared and contrasted for all the types of schools we have already discussed.
I simply disagree with some of the proposed solutions for achieving it.
What's your solution for achieving it THM?
I think you facing up to the reality of the current situation would be a start. Your comments about what represents a broad range of society were very telling.
To compare this inequality to that perpetuated by the relatively limited way state schools can choose to be selective that i spoke of a few pages earlier, and the difference in cost of educating each child in an academy/comp/grammar/faith school is pretty weak.
You're being a bit generous there.
Ok, granted there is other private education which is not boarding. If parents want to send their kids there they will. To many people middle class state schools are classed as "common" and would
not want little Farquar mixing with the "commoners" 😆
If's their choice that's fine
I graduated in 1993 and have worked ever since. Just wanted to do something different so decided on a OU degree.
inaccurate use of terms like exclusivity etc.
Is it not you that's labouring on the exclusivity thing thm? I've asked a couple of times now if you equate exclusion on the grounds of location with that of exclusion on the grounds of religion with that of exclusion on the grounds of wealth? None is desirable of course, but are they all equally bad? Is that what you're saying?
And the second part of my own goals re education is related to exactly that. Just not in this country because of all of the BS that prevent progress here.
Go on, give us a hint.
I am thinking you are planning the "TeamHurtMore International Academy for special kids who can't read good." Inside a hollowed-out volcano in international waters (no visa or minimum wage issues, and you can sail your kids there at the start of term, see?) where you can teach the IB and have less or indeed no cqc/ofsted paperwork/inspections. (actually that all sounds pretty cool, will you do bursaries?)
inaccurate use of terms like exclusivity etc.
Fair play. Christ only knows how us state educated plebs had ended up lobbing terms like exclusivity, and superiority about eh? Must be the politics of envy, because we never got to dress up and stare moodily into the middle distance 😆
[img] 
[/img]
My point as you surely realise was about how allocating a very limited bursary to a limited range of kids of limited academic (and indeed sporting!) ability does not significantly serve to redress the inaccessibility of these schools to all children.
Correct. This is becoming a habit.
Go on, give us a hint.
No that would take the fun away. Comparing what I am accused off with what I do in real life, makes me smile even more. I enjoy the irony and happy for it to continue. It makes me smile.
I think you facing up to the reality of the current situation would be a start. Your comments about what represents a broad range of society were very telling.
As were yours Grum, as were yours!
Back to Bursuries, my old school had three programmes:
The original bequest that set up the school which is aimed at the local town and is principally academic I think but don't know - this covers 5% of the children.
Scholarship programee - awarded based on exam for academic, art and music. I don't know how they do the sport ones which didn't exist in my day but when you go co-ed you need to do something to maintain the quality of the Rugby team. These were straight financial awards ranging from 75% to 10% based on performance. Now they are means tested so a rich scholar will only get a small financial award for recognition purposes only.
Boarding Foundation - This is relatively new is separately financed and represents 100% of fees and extras in all cases and is awarded in consultation with partners who operate in deprived areas. Whilst the kids have to be able to meet the entrance requirements, these are not awarded for academic excellence - they are awarded to those who will benefit most from the boarding experience and have the ability to become a role model for aspiration in their local community. It is quite a novel approach and has been very successful. Again this accounts for 5% of the pupils.
iolo,
I went to comprehensive school too and I also have two degrees (but don't tell anyone :wink:)
I think most parents that send kids to private school are [u]not motivated by snobbery like you say.
I think that a lot of parents (and teachers) feel that state school education is blighted by poor behaviour leading to "crowd control" teaching. This is not helped by a very poor attitide by a large minority of parents towards teachers and schooling - "it's free, it's my right, my little prince/princess is always right".
Of course brilliant kids (like you and me were :-)) can overcome this. But many can't due to temperament or ability level.
In an ideal world, you could get state schools up to the standard of the private schools. But it won't happen in a democratic country. In the RUD (Robbespierre Undemocratic Dictatorship) it would work well!
Fair play. Christ only knows how us state educated plebs had ended up lobbing terms like exclusivity, and superiority about eh? Must be the politics of envy, because we never got to dress up and stare moodily into the middle distance
And of course Eton is a typical private school, isn't it? 🙄
[img] 
[/img]
Oh… you went to the other place?
😆
And of course Eton is a typical private school, isn't it?
Nah, it's a mediocre Slough comp.
😉
