[Closed] Private school vs state school

There you go twisting his post again.

teamhurtmore - Member

Sounds like several different forms of exclusion going on there Juilian! Neatly falsifying the idea that there is only one form of exclusivity.

I quite agree THM. How refreshing. 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.

Now, as you would seem to be a master of this topic,(and seem unusually to be keen to return the thread to it) how would you like to rank these varying forms of exclusivity i pointed out (as well as grammar, fee-paying and fee-paying-with-academic standards) in terms of:
1) %age of students it excludes
2) real-world financial and logistical cost of sending your child there?

Julian it's an average across schools and (I think) it's a year.

Deadly, why would they? They are not charities (joke!). Take away the status, and they whole charity things becomes redundant. They resort to being businesses pure and simple. They enjoy excess demand and limited/fixed supply from domestic and foreign sources (increasingly the latter), hence the consistent above inflation increases in fees.

Laughable? Laughing all the way to the bank more likely.....

Fine, I accept the categorical versus consequential point. If it's a matter of principle then so be it. At least that is honest. Not sure that it means it is fair, or correct, but it is honest.

Imagine the day when the independent sector says fine. OK, we close tomorrow.....

I expect that your idea of average salary and slightly more than average salary is some way off.

£30k is slightly above average of £27k.
Your figure of fees from the Telegraph has a bit of "South East of England" weighting I think.
Probably some bursary has been won/earned in the example I gave.

I think there is a problem of attitude from a large section of the population not valuing "free" education.
In general non-rich (the majority)of people who make sacrifices to send their children to private schools value education and bring up their children to value education and have high aspirations.
I don't agree with lazy generalisations that they are all "rich" and it comes easy to them.

Note: Neither I nor anyone in my family has ever gone to private schools.

Imagine the day when the independent sector says fine. OK, we close tomorrow.....

One can dream. 😀

Probably some bursary has been won/earned in the example I gave.

Well that skews things and means your example isn't really representative. Bursaries are still pretty hard to get hold of so your example is based on being fortunate enough to have very academic kids.

Note that in my family most of us did go to private schools (I'm letting the side down as I doubt my kids will 😉 ). I know kids whose parents were just as you describe and sacrificed a lot to get their kids though private school but they are typically still quite well off compared to the wider population. I can't think of any kids I went to (private - I did start off at state) school with who lived on a council estate or actually had 'poor' parents.

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.

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 - Member

Julian 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]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 - Member

Can I just state that my school had no Lacrosse.

Can I just state that my (state) school had no rugby either. 8)

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 - Member

Not 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

I think pretty much all private schools have places for those that cannot afford the fees

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 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 - Member

Except 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.

😉

Slough Grammar please flashy. That's the second time you have done that. Are you an OH by any chance!?!?

I used to know one of the guys in that photo, ironically he hated his school.

Correct. This is becoming a habit.

When have you ever admitted otherwise?

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.

No one "accuses" you of anything, unless you are particularly sensitive to what you experience as value judgements on what you do. If you drop hints as to your occupation attached to funny, controversial or interesting posts on a forum for long enough, people will tend to join the dots. Unless you have fabricated some of these, I think most regular readers here have a pretty good idea of what you do for a living and what your professional interests are, in the same way as they do for other regulars on here like ernie (where is he btw), JY and DD.

So anyway, when can I put my sprogs on the waiting list and what bursary will you be awarding an outstanding 9-year old from a 45k income household?

😆

An awesome contribution Binners I laughed in an office 😳

I agree!

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?

Oh, and if you put aside who is in the photo, you can just enjoy the quality of the hairdo's 😀

Fair cop - accuses is the wrong word. Things that are "attributed" would be better. Don't worry though Julian I would hate to lose the laughs.

zilch, interviewing the parents is the first step!! 😉 (hope you are not particularly sensitive)

Seriously, the last thing you would need is a bursary, that's the point. Ironically, getting rid of exclusivity is central to the project. Hence the lovely irony.

in the same way as they do for other regulars on here like ernie (where is he btw), JY and DD.

Seriously, the last thing you would need is a bursary, that's the point. Ironically, getting rid of exclusivity is central to the project. Hence the lovely irony.

Does that mean it won't be in a hollowed-out volcano in international waters either? I iz dizappoint 🙁

But more seriously, taking your educational project abroad (as you mentioned last page) is hardly going to make it equally accessible to all uk kids unless it is done on the internet. And then you still have vicarious responsibility (via the parents) for home-schooling/ofsted regs, no?

I'm glad to see this thread is still going (was out of circulation yesterday). I will read back over the many pages I've missed but a couple of comments from the two pages I've read here.

On awarding bursaries - yes there are difficult choices, people face those every day. Doctors make decisions based upon budget considerations (whether they admit that or not), that's far harder than educational decisions.

As for banning fee paying schools this won't impact the real elite as they will send their kids to school abroad and the elitist issue will still remain although perhaps at a lower scale.

I say again the real solution in to better fund state education to reduce the gap (real or perceived)

In our lifetime jambalaya, the proportion of state spending allocated to education has risen threefold from 4% to 13% of total Gov spending. It has been argued that over this same period both standards and equality of education have gone down. Perhaps rather than simply more money, we need to spend it more wisely?

In our lifetime jambalaya, the proportion of state spending allocated to education has risen threefold from 4% to 13% of total Gov spending. It has been argued that over this same period both standards and equality of education have gone down. Perhaps rather than simply more money, we need to spend it more wisely?

+1

There isn't a public budget (of that kind of size) that couldn't be spent more wisely.

We do need to spend it wiser for sure - more bursaries for private schools to enable choice 😉

we certainly need to stop wasting it in apprenticeships and colleges offering expensive courses to which their are no/limited/few/ employment opportunities Motor vehicle, construction, forensic studies, Hairdressing, Beauty Therapy, Animal studies etc
I would love to knwow the figure for what % of folk with these "trades" dont work ever in the job. My sample size is skewed as I meet only those who fail but I would imagine it is way over 50% and in some cases over 90%

Same for degrees it is pointless having 50 % of our population degree educated when 50% of jobs dont require a degree

Threefold, wow! (Is that a basic percentage or are we adjusting for and comparing to expenditure in other areas, I am specifically thinking justice/police and health (also more) and defence which if we are talking lifetimes that began in the 60's would be way less)

Also I put forward that class sizes, vocational training in fe rather than simple apprenticeships, choice of subjects and IT were major components of this rise, but nevertheless worth it.

Edit:sorry ignore those stats, they were bllx. It's actually been constant as a % at approx 12% in a rising pool. Sorry!

Gov spending has increased as a percentage of GDP - from mid 30s to nearly 50% and within that education has stayed broadly the same percentage.

Basic point still stands - we spend an increasing amount of our national output in education, but the results by all accounts have been disappointing.

Same for degrees it is pointless having 50 % of our population degree educated when 50% of jobs dont require a degree

The people at our uni who were doing stupid degrees tended to be the dim-witted, privately-educated offspring of home counties dwellers. Clearly having been sent north to get a BA in anything their limited intellect would allow, so that hopefully there wouldn't be too much resentment when daddy parachuted them into a highly paid berth in the company, where hopefully he couldn't do too much damage. They weren't difficult to spot…..

[img] [/img]

[s]It's risen strongly in absolute terms and in relation to other types of spending.[/s]

[edit] just seen your edit above. Much easier to see where 50% hass gone than 300%! See below..

What changes are people really disappointed about with education?
Class sizes? Safety? Safeguarding? Governance? (as opposed to governments!) real world vocational training? (as a sometime arts graduate who has used these skillz for maybe 40 hours of my career since I finished the degree) I agree with JY about the absurdity of there being far more degrees than jobs that need them though) Computer literacy though? According to ceops and most IT teachers, what teenagers can do with computers today is totally beyond the understanding of a majority of the population over 35.

fwiw my own bugbear is the expense of inspectors/regulators who are burnt out teachers (same follows for medicine and social care imho) and the money that goes into preparing for and 'responding to' inspections which didn't go all that badly, and meaningless kpi's and figures. It is also still too hard to sack underperforming staff and I honestly believe that we (as in public service all over) could learn much from private enterprise about this: only thing worse than out-of-touch HR is a slow, toothless and timid out-of-touch HR!

so let's attack the one small part that has thrived over the period instead????

Of course that thriving part wasn't funded by taxpayers (well, apart from the parents!)

-so some data would be very welcome about the relative changes in school fees, and any financial implications good or bad of their charitable status (including, if significant, changes to and if so financial changes from the delicate arrangement between the tax some of the parents pay elsewhere, and the usefulness to their personal finances of making large charitable donations from time to time 😉

-of course any increase in money spent there also should be adjusted for the considerable and welcome investment in improving food and living conditions for boarders since the 60's!

Sorry, Julian my edit for my incorrect figs (got the deniminator mixed up!) crossed with your post. Looks odd now.

No the thriving wasn't, although there were other thriving parts that were eg faith schools.

Cost of better food and boarding facilities (very true) were met by private sources not gov spending, just to be complexly clear (I think that is what you are saying too)

Over the period, percentage of student in private education fell from 8% to 5% and then recovered (excuse the choice of phrase) to 7%. So it's good to see how we sweat on the small stuff!!! It makes a great diversion though as all these pages show!!!

Yes I was saying fee payers spent on better boarding: I wouldn't want people thinking a rise in fees for boarding schools necessarly meant more investment in the education side of the whole package.

So overall, and boarding fees aside, are fee-paying schools (through fees and charitable donations) better off per student than they were in whenever-the-beginning-of-our-notional-lifetime-was? And if so how much? And does this explain why they have thrived? Also if many of these schools have expanded, what did economies of scale bring to the quality for each individual pupil?

Have they thrived? They educate less of the UK population that they did in the 60s.

More recently, entrance figures and %s have rising again. But this is skewed. An exclusive 😉 group are thriving and even expanding overseas. At the same time, an increasing number are under very significant financial pressure. Some on here won't like it, but left to the market, the numbers may well drop anyway!!!! Heaven forbid.

teamhurtmore - Member

Have they thrived? They educate less of the UK population that they did in the 60s.

You alluded to thriving, yes (I cut and pasted it up there^^),

so let's attack the one small part that has thrived over the period instead????

we certainly need to stop wasting it in apprenticeships and colleges offering expensive courses to which their are no/limited/few/ employment opportunities Motor vehicle, construction, forensic studies, Hairdressing, Beauty Therapy, Animal studies etc
I would love to knwow the figure for what % of folk with these "trades" dont work ever in the job.

As someone who has taught in this area, I think that assuming that people will get a job in a particular trade is missing the point of how effective these courses are at providing basic education which is not facilitated elsewhere - I've taught hundreds of (mainly) boys with no qualifications music technology, and they ended up being pretty good and Maths, English and other really useful life skills - significantly better than they left school with at 16 - the fact it was framed round music meant that engagement was higher and they were much better able to learn in the more practical and task oriented framing of a college course.

Yes, it would be great if they all went on to get job X - and a good number did, I still hear from people touring with bands, DJing here there and everywhere and working in some nice studios all from these courses - but lots of them don't, but I would be more concerned about where they would be without them.

This kind of data is also sadly not the kind of data which is collated to illustrate my anecdote with actual evidence.

Are you in forensic medicine Julian? yes, the ones largely referred to here are thriving. As others have pointed out though, Staines Grammar is not representative of the whole sector.

Not in forensic medicine, no... but a useful tool in my job is indeed "sweating the small stuff" as you put it. with my systemic hat on, I am also trained to be curious and 'circular': why did you edit that bit out, and especially given your own forensic examination of others' posts here and elsewhere, did you really not expect anyone to notice and mention it?

??? Hardly hidden Julian, come on. I posted figures about 4-13% and commented on them twice. They seemed strange so I rechecked them and realised that I had made a mistake and posted that clearly with the correct data. I would have been disappointed (having made the effort to be accurate) if no one had noticed. Play fair....

In case you missed it

Sorry, Julian my edit for my incorrect figs (got the deniminator mixed up!) crossed with your post. Looks odd now.

This point may have been made, but any discerning middle class parent would spend the money for tutition on a nice house near a good state school. That way the kid gets a good education [i]and[/i] you get to live in nicer area.

This point may have been made, but any discerning middle class parent would spend the money for tutition on a nice house near a good state schoo

My colleague complains she can't afford tuition for her two sons (11 and 13), despite them probably needing it. Both around £20 each per week.

But at Xmas she bought them (each!) a new iPad Air, xbox and 50" LCD TV.

I just laughed.

(I wonder how many other people fall into this situation?)

??? Hardly hidden Julian, come on. I posted figures about 4-13% and commented on them twice. They seemed strange so I rechecked them and realised that I had made a mistake and posted that clearly with the correct data. I would have been disappointed (having made the effort to be accurate) if no one had noticed. Play fair....

Who said anything about hidden?

Play fair....

I think I learnt this one from you thm, 'play the ball' -the ball in this case being that you seemed to be questioning where I had the notion (from you) that fee-paying schools had thrived (and that n spite of this they were being laid into), and that just because the rise in spending on state education had not risen as much as you had originally said (note my acknowledgement of this in my own edited post) this does not now mean that fee paying schools hadn't thrived after all, that they might not be subject to undue criticism in spite of this, or that you hadn't said it. I can't be responsible for your poor editing but forgive me for [i]not[/i] joining up a change in the understanding of funding and the perceived success/failure for one sector (state) with a change in the relative/perceived success of another one (fee-paying).

Or is it up to Sir who gets to sweat which bits of the small stuff?

This point may have been made, but any discerning middle class parent would spend the money for tutition on a nice house near a good state school. That way the kid gets a good education and you get to live in nicer area.

If you're really good, you bring up bright, intelligent, motivated kids. That way you don't need to waste money on expensive houses near 'good' schools as they will do well in any school.