People sending their kids to private school are doing the state an economic favour, paying taxes for school places they are not using.

I know that what i’m about to write is fundamentally pointless, but “its not just about money”.

Apart, of course, from the 20% from overseas, who aren’t.

Like universities, there is nothing stopping our state schools from charging for those who are not resident… 😉

All the pro vs anti argument aside…

Basically they should pay their taxes, like other schools do. End of argument for me.

You need to ask why people send their kids to private schools (at a cost to themselves)

Better education – No
Better chances in life through relationships built – yes
Better chances in work based on which school they went to – yes
Segregation from the poorer in society – yes

Only the first point has anything to do with education…

Like universities, there is nothing stopping our state schools from charging for those who are not resident…

I suspect that the barrier to that particular market working well isn’t on the supply side..

Chakaping – go on 2nd time of asking now. What social injustice is there of me sending my child to private school ?

People send their kids to private school in the hope of securing a prosperous future for them, partly via access to better educational resources, partly via networking and partly by instilling an unjustified sense of entitlement.

When the kids attain that prosperity after going on to Oxbridge and getting an internship with Morgan Stanley (‘cos their classmate Henry’s dad is on the board), it’s at the expense of less privileged kids who didn’t have the same opportunities.

So now you understand. But do you care?

If they don’t (for whatever political reasons) want private schools to get the benefits of being a charity why don’t they just change the rules on who can be a charity?

Because defining what is and isn’t a charity is a reserved matter and therefore under the control of Westminster. See also; minimum alcohol pricing vs alcohol duties.

I know….. bonkers, eh?

Well fairly. How would sending my son to the local under performing school make it any better ?

Well fairly. How would sending my son to the local under performing school make it any better ?

You don’t think that motivated parents avoiding local state schools is partly responsible for their poorer performance? I know that comprehensive schools get a bad rep, but on the other hand, they’re not actually comprehensive…

From the link I posted earlier:

If fee-paying schools were abolished, just think of the efforts that would be made by the parents of children transferring to the state sector to ensure that all schools were up to the mark. State schools across the country would benefit enormously from the skills, the cultural capital (and the money) of such families.
Such a move would be the most effective way of narrowing the gap between rich and poor, a move that the Finnish government had the foresight to effect back in the 1970s. Look where they are now – far ahead of Britain in the OECD’s Pisa rankings which measure educational progress around the world.
Fiona Carnie
European Forum for Freedom in Education

How would sending my son to the local under performing school make it any better ?

Do you really have to have that spelt out to you?

If the rich and privileged just opt out of the system by default, by paying for a private education, then they have absolutely no concern whether the local school is underperforming or not. And whether we like it or not, in our present society the rich and privileged are the only people who’s opinions ae considered valid

So if they had to use the same system as us urchins, which direction do you feel standards would head in overall?

Go on… gin out on a limb

Maybe ask your kids to evaluate it as a sort of exercise. See if that education you’re paying for is worth the money? 😉

it’s at the expense of less privileged kids

Sorry you are making sweeping statements there.

I am not from a rich or privileged background, neither is my wife. We have worked very hard to ge to a situation where we earn enough to now give our child what we think are his best opportunities for success. Nothing was handed on a plate. What is wrong with giving your child the best opportunity you can afford them?

If the the school fees go up we would try our best to continue paying, if it’s too much he goes to state school. Which would end up costing the state more money.

However I do like the idea of getting a tax rebate fir not currently using state schools.

What is wrong with giving your child the best opportunity you can afford them?

Because it perpetuates gross inequality of opportunity in society, in a rigged system.

Nothing was handed on a plate.

You just bought your offspring the plate. Thats fine, if you’re fine with that. But don’t get all moralistic about it

What is wrong with giving your child the best opportunity you can afford them?

That very much depends on how you wish to define “best”.

State schools across the country would benefit enormously from the skills, the cultural capital (and the money) of such families.

I thought well off people were evil and the tax system should be used to force them to leave the UK and go abroad?

Are we now saying they’re actually quite good and should be encouraged to stay and get involved?

Might be a bit too late, a vast number of people have voted leave in the hope of chasing those nasty bankers away to Frankfurt and Switzerland.

If people only sent their kids to these schools to avoid the poor and for networking opportunities, I wonder why academically selective state grammar schools are also so damn popular? There are *gasp* poor people there and yet there are also plenty of affluent parents, who could afford private options, who send their offspring there too.

And if you compare their academic results and the number of kids they send to top universities, the best state grammars outperform a lot of very expensive private schools.

There are many reasons why selective schools serve their pupils very well. There not being poor people there really isn’t one of them.

Self contradictory as usual – if they can afford to move right into the heart of the any catchment area they want then a relatively small increase in the fees isn’t going to put them off sending their kids to private school (the only ones who might be are those struggling to pay the mortgage they already have – the rest will just be buying smaller luxury yachts).

It’s nice to know how altruistic the people buying private education are – I’m assuming such people also wouldn’t consider dodging tax by varying their official country of residence?

Because it perpetuates gross inequality of opportunity in society, in a rigged system.

Fair comment. However unfortunately utopia will never exist.

Ever noticed how well-off people have always “worked very hard” to get where they have?

They often don’t even notice the opportunities they’ve been given to do that hard work.

What is wrong with giving your child the best opportunity you can afford them?

I just explained.

However I do like the idea of getting a tax rebate fir not currently using state schools.

Yeah…. welll…… er……

I’ve not been into hospital this year so I’m due LOADS of tax back. Come to think of it, I’ve not had a house fire or been the victim of crime either. Not needed anything from the social care system, now I come to think of it. WHERE’S MY MONEY???!!!????

There are many reasons why selective schools serve their pupils very well.

Yes, they are of benefit to the minority who are able to go there.

Self contradictory as usual – if they can afford to move right into the heart of the any catchment area they want then a relatively small increase in the fees isn’t going to put them off sending their kids to private school (the only ones who might be are those struggling to pay the mortgage they already have – the rest will just be buying smaller luxury yachts).

No, because private schools are often on the edge. A local private school closed when it lost *3* pupils from the same family. The remaining students had to find new schools and typically got soaked up by two other local private schools and the state sector, I’ve no idea in what ratio.

So a small increase will close schools and those kids will be going somewhere. A handful leaving will have a big impact.

…but from an English perspective it’s not day pupils who matter. It’s the boarders. A small number of borders moving schools to near (say) Gatwick could make a big difference to the private sector down in England which (from my limited experience) is really struggling.

There are many reasons why selective schools serve their pupils very well.

Yes, they are of benefit to the minority who are able to go there.[/quote]

And yet when Mrs May wanted to expand the state grammar school offering….

However unfortunately utopia will never exist.

What sort of actions do you think are stopping it ?

Can you think of an example based on this thread and your attitude ?

And yet when Mrs May wanted to expand the state grammar school offering….

“What about the education for the majority of kids who won’t go to Grammars”. Said no Tory, ever.

Chakaping – sorry to me your reasoning suggests that you shouldn’t aspire to do better in life.

And yet when Mrs May wanted to expand the state grammar school offering….

…people rightly said that they didn’t really want a return to the 11plus and the Secondary Modern.

FunkyDunc – Member
…What is wrong with giving your child the best opportunity you can afford them?…

Absolutely nothing. That’s very worthy and good parenting.

So long as you’re not expecting me and the other taxpayers to afford it for you when we already have provided an education system.

In these days of foodbanks and people starving to death, or committing suicide because of DWP decisions, scarce state monetary resources should go only to the needy.

Better education – No
Better chances in life through relationships built – yes
Better chances in work based on which school they went to – yes
Segregation from the poorer in society – yes

Only the first point has anything to do with education…

And you have got it wrong. You would have to have a private education system with the very worst teachers and leaders in the land to end up with no better education than the state schools seeing as how facilities and budgets are much much higher and the classes are half the size.

Epicyclo – I agree in principle around being a level playing field about tax rebates on rates etc. There is also talk of charging 20% VAT on School fees.

All I am saying is that at a time when state schools are struggling financially and physically being able to have bums on seats it is stupid and not cost effective to change the private school charging system

It’s counter productive financially for the country, but helps win votes !

It’s counter productive financially for the country,

Could you show me your working out or did you just decide it fitted your narrative better to say that?

And you have got it wrong. You would have to have a private education system with the very worst teachers and leaders in the land to end up with no better education than the state schools seeing as how facilities and budgets are much much higher and the classes are half the size.

OK, there’s another important factor in selective schooling that improves the education for those that can benefit from it, all other things (quality of facilities, teaching, class sizes) being equal and that is simply not having to teach to such a broad ability range and deal with as much disruptive behaviour.

The fact is that, for any given size of classroom full of kids, if you don’t have the bottom x% of academic ability present, and you also don’t have the worst y% of disruptively behaving kids in the room, the kids that remain, whose academic ability is >x and behaviour better than y, will get better educated.

Selective schools do this.

As for how you meet the educational needs of x and y, well that was the problem with the grammar / secondary modern split and the fair comment that the Conservatives are probably (?) less concerned with their opportunities. In theory, they would equally best be served with schooling that is targeted to their needs, but of course that isn’t what happens.

There is also talk of charging 20% VAT on School fees.

I wasn’t aware of that.

Don’t forget that this isn’t a one way street – if the schools are making taxable supplies then they will also be able to reclaim all their input VAT, which isn’t insignificant if they’re building a huge extension..

OK, there’s another important factor in selective schooling that improves the education for those that can benefit from it, all other things (quality of facilities, teaching, class sizes) being equal and that is simply not having to teach to such a broad ability range and deal with as much disruptive behaviour.

The fact is that, for any given size of classroom full of kids, if you don’t have the bottom x% of academic ability present, and you also don’t have the worst y% of disruptively behaving kids in the room, the kids that remain, whose academic ability is >x and behaviour better than y, will get better educated.

All the state comps I’ve worked in have been setted.

Not sure what this has to do with ypur point that private education is no better though.

Selective schools do this.

So did my comprehensive.

Not sure what this has to do with ypur point that private education is no better though.

You might have to remind me where that was my point?

I think that my point was that there a number of reasons why selective schooling is better in terms of the opportunities it affords those who will benefit from it, however those aren’t mainly because there are no poor people there or that you can network with the offspring of the rich and powerful.

If it was about the money, then I’ll ask the question again from a page or so ago that has been studiously ignored by those who want it to all be about wealth and / or class – why are so many parents desperate to get their kids into academically selective state grammar schools?

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

Why wouldn’t they be?

You might have to remind me where that was my point?

Just up there ^

Better education – No
Better chances in life through relationships built – yes
Better chances in work based on which school they went to – yes
Segregation from the poorer in society – yes

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

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

edlong – Member
….The fact is that, for any given size of classroom full of kids, if you don’t have the bottom x% of academic ability present, and you also don’t have the worst y% of disruptively behaving kids in the room, the kids that remain, whose academic ability is >x and behaviour better than y, will get better educated…

While that may seem self-evident, my experience suggests otherwise.

In the days of selective testing and when schools were streamed, I was in the A class of the local academy. That put us in the top 5% of the kids of that age (based on the test).

I remember plenty disruption and misbehaviour – usually sorted out by lashings with the tawse.

(However maybe the large class sizes of the post war boom had something to do with that, or the large number of us who had fathers with what I now realise was PTSD.)

FWIW. Selective schooling isn’t the same thing as private education at all. For the most part, private schools can’t afford to be too choosy about who they take in. There were certainly plenty of thick layabouts at the private school I went to. OTOH my wife’s nice grammar school seemed to be packed with the offspring of consultants and university professors. (There wasn’t a nice grammar school in my home town at the time.)