schools that admit based on ability, (the ability to pay is a given).

If the ability to pay is a given, then the lack of inclusivity is also a given.

Plus, as you say, that only applies to private schools who admit on ability, beyond the ability to write large cheques. Of the 7% of kids that go to private school, what proportion have had to demonstrate ability.

Why do you fail to see this, it just marks you down as someone who can’t be trusted to play properly and all your posts will just be ignored.

Basically this whole private school argument started

In the 70s and had been brought up periodically since. Including when Michael Gove gave a speech about it to a room full of educators in 2014 and again in March of this year.

FTFY.

aren’t perfectly legal charities and I can’t find any evidence of any significant subsidy.

Prior to changes in 2010, their existence was proof that they were providing a public good and were therefore charities. Presumably providing the country with well educated (?) people to run it.

Since the 2010 changes, it was not sufficient to exist to prove public good. It was necessary to do something to qualify. Most schools have failed to provide proof of that, which is required to maintain charity status. One was quoted as saying the 2 50% bursary (which would still require parents to find about 17k a year) was their public good. That is viewed as insufficient.

The 100 million the treasury estimates it forgoes pa in taxes due to the dubious charity status is in effect a subsidy.

If starting from scratch I wouldn’t allow private nor religious schools but we are where we are.

I don’t think private schools should have charitable status but the most important thing is improving standards in state schools. (with more funding and smaller class sizes etc)

The Private school shut out of public life (politics, media etc) is worrying and needs addressing.

This.

And to the person who said we should raise state school funding until private withers and dies…current seconday school per pupil is less than £4k a year. School my wife works at charges £7k a term. Even Labour/momentums wildest fantasies would see state per pupil funding get to a third of that.

On the SEN, many kids with even the most severe sen difficulties are not diagnosed due to the cost. Could we see the results of your quick googling to see what you found out?

Could you show the sen working as fig C here suggests you have it very wrong.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/729208/SEN_2018_Text.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjOvJHKodvlAhWOQhUIHQaICCoQFjALegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw2dQGdnPLSdNxoK-5CXNIMi

Expect to see independent schools relocating to nearby countries

Finland?

Its a myth that Finland doesn’t have private schools, although they are different to the UK type. Here is a very reasonably priced one (16k Euro/year), that even teaches in English, to escape to!

Home

I’ve yet to see anything that will actually improve state education if private was banned. As said people would just send kids abroad or Eton would build an estate of bungalows to rent at 40k per annum or whatever. Those people you think are going to be pressured into “doing something” will do the same as they always did. Nobody is going to fix this mess (state education) for you. Instead of fighting this stupid class war we should be bringing the standards of state education up amongst ourselves. Stop blaming other people, there are more of us than there are them but there is only one ballot box. Stop voting for useless **** that throw every generation under a bigger bus to cover their own mistakes. People like to cry about the privatisation of the NHS but in England the exact same thing has happened to state education with barely a whimper. The top 1% alone didn’t vote for this, take some responsibility and if you don’t like the bigger picture do something about it. Go after the real villains rather than the toff caricatures.

I’ve yet to see anything that will actually improve state education if private was banned

1. Ban private schools
2. ????
3. …and so all kids will have a better education.

Go after the real villains rather than the toff caricatures.

You’re absolutely right, but unfortunately that’s not how politics works. It’s not what you do, it’s how you portray it, that gets you elected 🙁

when you consider that ~1pc of people pay ~30pc of uk tax

FACT-CHECK! Utter bollocks. the 1% highest earners pay 28% of income tax which doesn’t even include NI which conveniently goes from 12% to 2% at about £50k regressively lessening the impact of ‘higher rate’ tax and makes up just 25%ish of the total tax take. The rest is VAT, fuel, alcohol and tobacco tax etc, which are again much more regressive taxes.

cromolyolly

Member

Since the 2010 changes, it was not sufficient to exist to prove public good. It was necessary to do something to qualify. Most schools have failed to provide proof of that, which is required to maintain charity status. One was quoted as saying the 2 50% bursary (which would still require parents to find about 17k a year) was their public good. That is viewed as insufficient.

Yup… Essentially only a full ride, actively promoted to low progression areas, is very effective at expanding fee-paying education beyond the existing market- most scholarships, bursaries and other financial advantages operate as a discount or incentive to someone that was already a potential customer. There’s really not many people going “this 20% discount makes it possible to send my kids to private school when otherwise it would not be” or for that matter many parents on council estates saying “I can justify paying £50000 to send my kid to private school because if I do it the right way I can turn it into a £58000 tax reduction on my pension contributions”

Realistically, people who haven’t considered it to be an option won’t even see that offer, even if it would have made the difference, because before you see a scholarship you’re generally considering private schooling. It’s a bit like Harrods giving a discount and only telling you about it at the till once you’ve done your shopping, and then saying it’ll help poor people shop there.

I recall taking a detailed look at a Scottish private school’s claim that a change in Scottish Government policy would prevent them from supporting as many poorer kids. They quoted an impressive looking amount of “scholarships, bursaries and discounts” but cutting away the bullshit, it turned they offered on average 0.5 full rides every year across their entire student population, and even that was only because the OSCR required them to do so or lose their charitable status.

Now don’t get me wrong, that’s still a potentially massive thing for those 0.5 kids. But it doesn’t turn this private sector, profitmaking organisation into a charity.

Realistically, people who haven’t considered it to be an option won’t even see that offer, even if it would have made the difference, because before you see a scholarship you’re generally considering private schooling.

They do actually, which is why one of the victims of the Grenfell Tower disaster went to a Clarendon School.

But it doesn’t turn this private sector, profitmaking organisation into a charity.

They don’t make profits – there is little purpose to making them as there is no one to distribute them to.

mefty

Member

They do actually, which is why one of the victims of the Grenfell Tower disaster went to a Clarendon School.

<edits for clarity and expansion>

I thought I’d explained this pretty clearly but maybe not? The paragraph you quoted was relating to the more common partial discounts rather than the rare full ride- ie the promotion mostly targeted within the existing market, not the effective widening of that market. The Harrods discount rather than the free trolley.

The relevance of that is that many- I suspect most- schools claim those partial discounts form part of their widening access activities and represent a public good, when the reality is that only a smaller subset of scholarships and bursaries reliably have that effect. A discount to someone who was likely to send their kids to a feepaying school anyway, is not a public good- only a scholarship or bursary that enables someone who would not have gone to that school to do so can be considered such.

Or to put it a different way- scholarships such as the Clarendon Academy Trust one which you mentioned ARE a public good, as nicely demonstrated by your example. However scholarships of the type that I was discussing in that paragraph are broadly customer discounts rather than a genuine widening of access. X pounds worth of scholarships and bursaries will never deliver X pounds worth of public good, but X is the amount that they’ll always quote when talking about it.

(well, it’s mathematically possible, but I bet 20 scottish pence that it has never happened, even in the most genuinely altruistic of schools.)

I say this as someone who, til recently, distributed funding that was genuinely intended to aid people in accessing education, but in practice was almost always going to someone who would have done so anyway. Not from any ill intent, but from the difficulty of getting a message about accessing higher education out to people who didn’t think they had any chance of doing so. The funding was still worthy, it always went to a student who would genuinely benefit- but it wasn’t doing what it was supposed to, and it wasn’t providing a public good. Giving a bag of money to a needy person is surprisingly hard to do if first they have to think “I wonder if those guys would give me a bag of money if I asked them”

That’s with the absolute best of intentions. It absolutely pissed me off that we couldn’t get the money to do what it was supposed to, but that was the reality. Now do we think everyone who handles the money has the best of intentions?

mefty

Member

They don’t make profits – there is little purpose to making them as there is no one to distribute them to.

Aye, tell that to Michael Dwan, Trevor Beeson, Mike Ramsay, Liam Nolan LTD… Or to the kids of Wakefield City Academies Trust schools

I didn’t mention the Clarendon Academy Trust, a Clarendon School is one of the Public Schools as defined by the Public Schools Act 1868 which was enacted as a result of the Clarendon Commission.

Aye, tell that to Michael Dwan, Trevor Beeson, Mike Ramsay, Liam Nolan LTD… Or to the kids of Wakefield City Academies Trust schools

That’s the state sector isn’t it.

mefty

Member

I didn’t mention the Clarendon Academy Trust

Ah, my mistake- I actually thought you were referring to Clarendon Academy rather than one of the clarendon nine, and as a result I also missed the distinction you made in your post. Apologies for that! Doesn’t change my argument, but I tried to reuse your example purely out of smartarsedness when I didn’t actually understand it, serves me right…

(are we talking about Peaky Saku? Or have I got hte wrong person entirely?)

So, a correction. Your example is a perfect example of a public good. But it’s not representative of the type of scholarships and bursaries which I was discussing which are not.

But there are far more than you seem to believe, there are 32 children from similarly challenged backgrounds benefiting from the same scheme at the same school as the Grenfell victim. This is, in addition, to the kids benefiting from the initial foundation. The same is true at many schools, Eton is very generous too as it has redirected its original endowment, and then there is Christ’s Hospital which is the gold standard where over 30% over the kids are on 90% plus discounts.

mefty

Member

But there are far more than you seem to believe

I disagree, and I’ll explain why.

According to Eton, in 16/17 they offered 73 full scholarships out of 1300 students. That’s more than in the Scottish example I used earlier, but still demonstrates my point. I don’t know what proportion of those will be decisive changes (ie, enabling a kid who couldn’t hope to access private education to do so) so for the same of argument, let’s assume it’s all of them.

Across the 270 students receiving some manner of financial assistance (including the 100%s), the average is a 65% discount- and a 65% reduction on £42000 per annum does not enable a low income family to send their kids to Eton. At the very highest end, the “near to 100%” discounts, it will still be able to make a decisive difference, but it rapidly becomes a discount for people who’re comfortably off and for whom private school was already an option. (bear in mind that the distribution will be skewed by the 100%s; the median is almost certain to be less than 65%)

In fact, that 65% average discount is almost exactly the difference between the average private school fees, and Eton’s very high fees. So in practice it’s mostly a way for people who could already afford cheaper private education to afford Eton, rather than widening access. And that doesn’t just show in the finance, it also shows in the system…

They say that 1/3d of applications for this funding are successful- which if it’s proportional, suggests that only 200-250 kids a year apply for the full ride. Again, not a criticism, but it shows how narrow the scope really is, if less than .05% of all the school kids in the UK apply for it. It’s not as though the goal is only to attract the top .05% of academic achievers.

You have to apply, and receive an offer, before you can apply for funding… So I think it’s fair to assume that the vast majority of kids who could have made a successful application didn’t think it was worth trying, were put off by the process, or never even knew they could. My nice middle class school might have had some idea, but does Scumbag Primary down the road?

(Not a criticism of Eton, it’s pretty much how it has to be- if you take funding applications before you make offers, you get absolutely drowned in applicants, and you have no way of knowing what commitments you make will be taken up, so no way to manage the funds. “My” bursary was the same, the logic applies whether you have £75000 or £6000000 to place.)

So- they’re proud of their 20% and their £6.4m and of course that’s what they quote in all the literature. But the amount that’s actually going to provide a decisive change in someone’s access to private education- the real public good- is under half of the total cash sum, and I would assume quite a bit less than half in numbers. The rest, realistically, is going to people already within the market- the Harrods discount.

Just to restate, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter. I think it’d be easy to misread my comments as a criticism of the funding model. Actually, what I’m mostly critical of is the portrayal of those funds. By no means restricted to the private schools. (I see Eton actually receives more in donations in a typical year than it gives out in bursaries and scholarships- it’s easier to be generous with someone else’s money)

(ironically, we don’t currently quote a headline figure for our total disbursements; apparently nobody’s totally sure how much it is! Less than Eton, that’s for sure. But if we did, it’d be misleading in the same way, no doubt in my mind)

Was the example I used an extreme one? Quite possibly. Does the example you used lead us to a different conclusion? Nope. I’m not certain which school you’re referring to with the grenfell example and I don’t want to make another wrong assumption there and look stupid again, but it doesn’t sound on the face of it that it’s any different.

CH’s approach is different, I completely agree- they are phenomenal, I could barely believe it when I first heard about them from one of their alumni. But that makes it a poor example when looking at the whole sector.

Yawn.
As I said before, Eton is not representative of the majority of private schools. You are basing your whole concept on a single example.

You are basing your whole concept on a single example.

I don’t believe he is because the argument he is making generalizes across the sector

The average fees for boarding schools have been above the average income or a while now. There are about 1300 ‘independent” schools – why we don’t just call them private and be honest I don’t know – serving about 500,000 students. When the charity commission tried to enforce the new rules they were taken to court. Apparently they were asking far too much of those 1300 schools to actually demonstrate public good through bursaries between 5 and 15% of the fees received with very few 100% bursaries, most being 50% or less. 1% of children were schooled for free and means tested bursaries went up to incomes of £140000.
Even the newer guidance that they could achieve charity status by sharing facilities and expertise by twinning with state schools has largely gone ignored. Much easier to have a Latin language masterclass on the weekend to satisfy the ridiculously low bar. For this they extract between 5 and 700 million from the exchequer, once all the taxes they avoid by being charities is taken into account

That’s not just Eton, that’s 80% of those 1300 schools. They may not charge as much as Eton in fees, they may be quite reasonable but they still aren’t charities. They still are a major cause of inequality. Since they will go to great lengths and pay large amounts of money to lawyers to avoid being held to the same standard as real charities, it’s time we stopped playing silly games with them. They have only themselves to blame for the fact that it’s time they went.
Stripping them of charitable status, as Scotland did, stops the loss of money but does nothing to address the other problems. Alll the evidence suggests that siphoning off affluent pupils – and the power of their parents – damages the state education system.

I’ve yet to see anything that will actually improve state education if private was banned

You have been – its been explained several times. You choose not to believe it or you don’t understand it but that is somewhat different to not having it explained to you

TJAGAIN -just because someone explained something it doesn’t make true, or that we should agree with it. I agree, I’ve seen little evidence that banning private schools will improve state schools.

Yawn

How dare someone use reasoning and facts and figures to back up an argument.

I agree, I’ve seen little evidence that banning private schools will improve state schools.

In isolation no one has said there is much evidence for it. I tried to explain how the negative impact of grammar schools on the majority could be good evidence that removing small numbers of pupils can haveca big impact on the much larger majority left but you refused to accept it. Bottom line is, like climate change, direct evidence cannot be produced. Doesnt make it untrue though. You can keep wailing all you like though.

I see its gone quiet on more sen kids in private schools after a bit of evidence was produced!!

Suspect if private schools all got closed down many parents will just come up with a plan B. Overseas schools, home tuition, move abroad.

Sure private schools contribute to some of the imbalance but have to identify what the problem is that needs addressing – far more complex than just close some schools and it all gets better.

Would it help? Might. Would it be the key change needed? Not convinced. Just makes a good headline.

Could you show the sen working

If you quote something I’ve written that you dispute (with plenty of context) then I’m happy to justify it with a link or concede the point if I can’t.

when you consider that ~1pc of people pay ~30pc of uk tax

FACT-CHECK! Utter bollocks. the 1% highest earners pay 28% of income tax

Sorry, I missed out the word ‘income’, thanks for correcting me.

My partner is a state school teacher and I am pretty sure that their most demanding SEN kids end up in Private schools. Googling “private sen schools” suggests I’m right

See fig C from the link above, although I have no doubt if you only google forcwhat you want to find you no doubt think you’re rightvall the time!!

My experience of private schools is that they push put the sen kids, ruins their results profile.

My partner is a state school teacher and I am pretty sure that their most demanding SEN kids end up in Private schools. Googling “private sen schools” suggests I’m right and there are many such schools.

See fig C from the link above

So what?

My experience of private schools is that they push put the sen kids, ruins their results profile.

Not if they’re an independent school specifically for SEN kids which is the context of this little digression.

So what?

So you are wrong. The most demanding have echp’s and private schools have a very small proportion of kids with echp’s and only what 10% of the school population go to private schools. So unless your wife works in some sort of twilight zone thats vastly different to the rest of the country I cant see how you can be right, I’m sure you can though as you googled something or other and convinced yourself.

BTW – those of you accusing me and others of the politics of envy. I was offered a place at Hutchinsons in glasgow – the “top” private school in the area. I refused it because the school facilities were shit compared to my state school which was state of the art.

My partner is a state school teacher and I am pretty sure that their most demanding SEN kids end up in Private schools. Googling “private sen schools” suggests I’m right and there are many such schools.

See fig C from the link above

So what?

So you are wrong.

Which of the two sentences is wrong?

Both I expect although I will be amazed if all your wifes most demanding sen kids have parents who can afford private, no doubt your quick google can account for this anomaly too.

My partner is a state school teacher and I am pretty sure that their most demanding SEN kids end up in Private schools. Googling “private sen schools” suggests I’m right and there are many such schools.

Which of the two sentences is wrong?

Both I expect

Expect? You don’t sound very confident, and you’re right!

First sentence. I was “pretty sure about” it. You’re getting that from the horse’s mouth!

Second sentence: Yes, there are many such schools, you can google “private sen schools” and count them.

Perhaps, in turn, you could explain what “fig C” has do do with either of my assertions?

Not if they’re an independent school specifically for SEN kids which is the context of this little digression.

Ah fair enough.

Its pretty simple outofbreath you made a bullshit backed up by nothing but what your wife said and a quick google that private sen schools exist, that most of your wife most demanding sen kids go private. I posted some evidence to show that private schools account for a very very very small proportion of kids with echp’s which either means you miss heard your wife, she is talking bollocks, she lives in a bizarre twilight zone very different from the rest of the country where all the worst sen problems have parents who can affird private education. The simple fact is the overwhelming majority of kids with echp’s are educated by the state.

Its pretty simple outofbreath you made a bullshit backed up by nothing but what your wife said and a quick google that private sen schools exist, that most of your wife most demanding sen kids go private. I posted some evidence to show that private schools account for a very very very small proportion of kids with echp’s which either means you miss heard your wife, she is talking bollocks, she lives in a bizarre twilight zone very different from the rest of the country where all the worst sen problems have parents who can affird private education. The simple fact is the overwhelming majority of kids with echp’s are educated by the state.

Take a deep breath, calm down.

You’ve picked two things I’ve said and I think we’ve sorted them out conclusively.

If you quote something else I’ve written that you dispute (with plenty of context) then I’m happy to justify it with a link or concede the point if I can’t.

Its a myth that Finland doesn’t have private schools, although they are different to the UK type. Here is a very reasonably priced one (16k Euro/year), that even teaches in English, to escape to!

Home

There is just one fee-paying school in the Finland, the International School of Helsinki, which has mainly catered for international employees of Nokia and other industries

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/27/top-class-finland-schools-envy-world-ofsted-education

There’s no need to try to work out from first priciples how to fix segretated education in this country = we can just look at how others have done it.

You’ve picked two things I’ve said and I think we’ve sorted them out conclusively.

Ok love, you keep thinking.

There’s no need to try to work out from first priciples how to fix segretated education in this country = we can just look at how others have done it.

Why pick Finland? Singapore is best in every PISA test area. (..and has private schools.)

If we *do* want to use Finland as our target then we can be optimistic – we’re not far behind – 19pts behind on Maths ~20-30 odd points behind on Reading and Science. Not sure we really need to kick 600,000 kids out of their schools to claw back 20/500 points.

I’m pretty sure Finnish is a pretty simple language to learn as a native speaker (if you already speak English in which case it’s a nightmare) so more perhaps time is left for maths and science while our kids are learning to write our odd spellings and irregular verbs. No future tense, no gender, phonetic:

https://www.fluentin3months.com/learn-finnish/

In 2018, Singapore was ranked 151st out of 180 nations by Reporters Without Borders in the Worldwide Press Freedom Index

Yeah, I think I rather Finland. Sometimes it’s about the country you want to live in rather than how good your children do at maths.