Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Outrider on September 24, 2019, 03:21:54 PM
-
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/22/labour-delegates-vote-in-favour-of-abolishing-private-schools (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/22/labour-delegates-vote-in-favour-of-abolishing-private-schools)
Good grief, how many times can they shoot themselves in the foot...
The failure to appreciate that Eton/Harrow/Winchester is not the same as 'Private Schools'; the implicit admission in this that private school education is fundamentally better, but that they'd rather impose a cult of mediocrity; the failure in any way to address the link between established dynasties of embedded privilege and public influence; the complete absence of any reference to these self-same 'privileged elites' in the likes of KPMG, EY, PWC.
I'm not sure what Labour thinks this will achieve - closing the schools will not in any way stop the old-boy's network, and closing private schools will push a huge number of extra students in the public sector schools whilst also reducing the overall quality of education in the country. The truly established will fall back on tutors, making them an even more highly-prized resource, taking more teachers out of the pool and increasing the price-point at which people can step up to private education, making it the domain of an even smaller, even more privileged elite.
I can see that addressing the intake of students by individual universities could be monitored, although I'm not entirely sure that at least some of them wouldn't opt out of government payments and go entirely private - and I'm not sure an attempt to outlaw private education itself would stand up in court.
As to the suggestion that the assets and endowments of the private institutions could be nationalised, that's just ridiculous - you'd struggle to do that with the infrastructure of formerly nationalised industries that have been privatised, but to think you can just seize private funds is nonsense.
O.
-
Good grief, how many times can they shoot themselves in the foot...How any sane politician can get to the stage where s/he has been elected as an MP and still think the fee-paying schools (of various kinds) could be abolished is completely barmy. It is living totally in cloud cuckoo land. It is desperate to think such MPs have so little understanding of anything to do with education - very sad actually.
-
I think that the wholesale closure of private schools is just dog whistle politics.
What I do consider justifiable, however, would be the acceptance that private schools are businesses and should be treated as such. Fees should be be subject to VAT and fee-paying schools should not be permitted to register as charities.
-
Agree with much on this thread, and just to add this will easily be portrayed as hypocritical.
-
I've heard Jeremy Corbin is competing in this years One Man and His Dog competition .
That's what I call dog whistle politics !
-
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/22/labour-delegates-vote-in-favour-of-abolishing-private-schools (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/22/labour-delegates-vote-in-favour-of-abolishing-private-schools)
Good grief, how many times can they shoot themselves in the foot...
The failure to appreciate that Eton/Harrow/Winchester is not the same as 'Private Schools'; the implicit admission in this that private school education is fundamentally better, but that they'd rather impose a cult of mediocrity; the failure in any way to address the link between established dynasties of embedded privilege and public influence; the complete absence of any reference to these self-same 'privileged elites' in the likes of KPMG, EY, PWC.
I'm not sure what Labour thinks this will achieve - closing the schools will not in any way stop the old-boy's network, and closing private schools will push a huge number of extra students in the public sector schools whilst also reducing the overall quality of education in the country. The truly established will fall back on tutors, making them an even more highly-prized resource, taking more teachers out of the pool and increasing the price-point at which people can step up to private education, making it the domain of an even smaller, even more privileged elite.
I can see that addressing the intake of students by individual universities could be monitored, although I'm not entirely sure that at least some of them wouldn't opt out of government payments and go entirely private - and I'm not sure an attempt to outlaw private education itself would stand up in court.
As to the suggestion that the assets and endowments of the private institutions could be nationalised, that's just ridiculous - you'd struggle to do that with the infrastructure of formerly nationalised industries that have been privatised, but to think you can just seize private funds is nonsense.
O.
Oh shit. I saw that in the Torygraph and just assumed they were trying to smear Labour.
It's a ridiculous idea.
-
What I do consider justifiable, however, would be the acceptance that private schools are businesses and should be treated as such. Fees should be be subject to VAT and fee-paying schools should not be permitted to register as charities.
They are engaged in the education of youth, and are non-profit organisations. In what way is that not a charitable endeavour? Is it any less 'for the general good' than, say, medical research funding? Medical research is massive business, after all. Or religious institutions?
O.
-
Another one of those areas where I think there are very good arguments on either side, apparently Finland has one of the highest educational standards in Europe and private schooling is against their law there.
I've heard most of the arguments for and against private education I no longer know what's the right answer there's so much I agree with on either side of this subject.
I'm not trying to avoid arguing on this one I really don't know the answer.
Regards, ippy.
-
Another one of those areas where I think there are very good arguments on either side, apparently Finland has one of the highest educational standards in Europe and private schooling is against their law there.
I've heard most of the arguments for and against private education I no longer know what's the right answer there's so much I agree with on either side of this subject.
I'm not trying to avoid arguing on this one I really don't know the answer.
Regards, ippy.
Finland's system, whereby the public sector schools are so well run and provided that there is not enough practical benefit in private schooling to make it worth anyone's while is an answer, but I strongly suspect that the UK electorate would balk at paying those kind of taxes.
O.
-
Finland's system, whereby the public sector schools are so well run and provided that there is not enough practical benefit in private schooling to make it worth anyone's while is an answer, but I strongly suspect that the UK electorate would balk at paying those kind of taxes.
O.
I think you may well be right about the taxes but it's still an example or an alternative, it does seem such a shame that there isn't equality of opportunity for all in education here and no I don't have the ideal answer either.
Regards ippy.
-
As long as people who have the money can opt out of public education and health services they will continue to not care very much if either or both are inadequately funded.
The story says that Labour want to "integrate" private schools into the state sector, not close them. Good for them.
This could also help to resolve the problem of so-called schools teaching religious dogma and not much else to children whose entire lives are likely to be blighted by it.
Labour politicians who send their children to private schools (or take advantage of private health care) should have to explain their hypocrisy. Their children will already have some advantages just because their parents are who they are.
Educating children from different backgrounds together is, in my view, a good thing. Finland is a good example to try to follow, even if it takes a long time, and integration with other policies, to achieve.
-
I don't think private schools should be abolished, people should have an absolute right to pay for their children's education if they so wish, which saves the State from forking out for them. My secondary school education was at the private Ladies College in my home island, admittedly it was reminiscent of Harry Potter's Hogwarts. ;D Private schools should be inspected on a regular basis, at the school's expense.
-
...
The story says that Labour want to "integrate" private schools into the state sector, not close them. Good for them.
...
I can't see how this can work. The problem is teacher pay - either people are willing to pay teachers enough to ensure a good education for all children or they are not. Most are not, so there will always be private schools or tutors.
-
As long as people who have the money can opt out of public education and health services they will continue to not care very much if either or both are inadequately funded.
I've opted my children out of state education, and I care deeply about both of those. One of the reasons that I've opted my children out of state education is because I'm disappointed in the standards they achieve.
The story says that Labour want to "integrate" private schools into the state sector, not close them. Good for them.
They want to 'integrate' the facilities - they do not want to integrate any of the various traditions, exceptional extra-curricular suites, nursery through to A-level continuums. It's not integration, it's assimilation.
This could also help to resolve the problem of so-called schools teaching religious dogma and not much else to children whose entire lives are likely to be blighted by it.
No it won't, Free Schools can set their own religious curricula - indeed, one of the factors that's guided me against putting my children into the local education system is the fact that our local state school is an explicitly Christian indoctrination station.
Labour politicians who send their children to private schools (or take advantage of private health care) should have to explain their hypocrisy.
Arguably, yes, although the argument 'if my local school system was well-funded and adequate I'd send my children to it' is pretty persuasive so long as they're passing legislation and budgets to change that fact.
Their children will already have some advantages just because their parents are who they are.
Yes, however wanting a decent education for you children can be wanting it for its own sake; the fact that some children will not get it does not mean that you're necessarily seeking advantage, even though you can't claim that you don't know it's an effect.
Educating children from different backgrounds together is, in my view, a good thing.
Agreed. The problem is that lumping children together in order to aim at mediocrity doesn't do wonders for any of them.
Finland is a good example to try to follow, even if it takes a long time, and integration with other policies, to achieve.
Agreed.
O.
-
I can't see how this can work. The problem is teacher pay - either people are willing to pay teachers enough to ensure a good education for all children or they are not. Most are not, so there will always be private schools or tutors.
My wife works in education, our children are privately educated. It's an anecdote, perhaps, but it's one that I've heard repeated: it's not about what the teacher's are paid, it's about the quality of parent, and the influence they put on their children when they're paying for the education. You get fewer of the disruptive elements that don't appreciate school or schooling, both amongst the pupils and the parents.
In my (again, admittedly limited) experience, private school teachers aren't paid significantly better than state school teachers, particularly below the senior leadership team level - they get better candidates because the working conditions and the pupils and parents they have to deal with mean that they get to pick from the crop.
O.
-
My wife works in education, our children are privately educated. It's an anecdote, perhaps, but it's one that I've heard repeated: it's not about what the teacher's are paid, it's about the quality of parent, and the influence they put on their children when they're paying for the education. You get fewer of the disruptive elements that don't appreciate school or schooling, both amongst the pupils and the parents.
In my (again, admittedly limited) experience, private school teachers aren't paid significantly better than state school teachers, particularly below the senior leadership team level - they get better candidates because the working conditions and the pupils and parents they have to deal with mean that they get to pick from the crop.
O.
Outrider
I can concur with your sentiments . My youngest girl was at private school for 6 years where she grew and flourished becoming deputy head girl and a confident young woman
She told me the learning environment was excellent being shown respect by the teachers and kids who wanted to learn
(When money is involved attitudes are different!)
-
My husband has worked mainly in state schools, but did five years in a private school early on in his teaching career, his pay wasn't any better there than in the state sector.
-
My wife works in education, our children are privately educated. It's an anecdote, perhaps, but it's one that I've heard repeated: it's not about what the teacher's are paid, it's about the quality of parent, and the influence they put on their children when they're paying for the education. You get fewer of the disruptive elements that don't appreciate school or schooling, both amongst the pupils and the parents.
In my (again, admittedly limited) experience, private school teachers aren't paid significantly better than state school teachers, particularly below the senior leadership team level - they get better candidates because the working conditions and the pupils and parents they have to deal with mean that they get to pick from the crop.
O.
Obviously there are many factors that affect the level of success of any school or individual pupil but at a gross level we can roll up working conditions, facilities and other benefits as aspects of teacher pay. The school environment and teachers that can be attracted to work in it ultimately boil down to money: directly affecting class sizes and the attention paid to each child.
To some extent these conditions can be replicated using selection but we've mostly done away with grammars. Anyway, a
school able to provide that environment and teaching quality on state funding would soon find that only well off parents would be able to live near enough to send their children there!
-
My husband has worked mainly in state schools, but did five years in a private school early on in his teaching career, his pay wasn't any better there than in the state sector.
yes, there seems to be a misconception about this however the working conditions can be a lot better !
-
...
She told me the learning environment was excellent being shown respect by the teachers and kids who wanted to learn
(When money is involved attitudes are different!)
This is true. Maybe state schools should also charge significant fees?
-
State schools are forever asking parents for money, they're so under funded. It's quite hard for parents who have two or three children and have to fork out on a regular basis.
I care very much about state education but if I had young children I would consider private education, depending on where I lived and what the schools in the area were like. Didn't have to with my two, they went to a grammar school as did I, my sis and cousin. We were at a private school up until eleven.
Most parents do the best they can for their children at the time even if fee paying goes somewhat against the grain.
(Liam Gallagher is on The One Show, I just turned it on it's nearly over. He's singing, what a surprise)
-
Robbie , I just saw Liam Galagher it was embarrassingly poor
You didn't miss much
-
Not that bad. Wasn't he singing a song from his Rock n Roll tour show?
-
Not that bad. Wasn't he singing a song from his Rock n Roll tour show?
i think he's had his day now and should have some self respect and PACK IT IN
Erm ? Yes he was , I think !
I certainly wouldn't pay money to see him , mind you I wouldn't pay money to see anyone (being a Yorkshire man and all) 😂😱😤
-
Btw Robbie , I've had to turn my TV off to save power until that prog on BBC2 at 9😡
-
Obviously there are many factors that affect the level of success of any school or individual pupil but at a gross level we can roll up working conditions, facilities and other benefits as aspects of teacher pay. The school environment and teachers that can be attracted to work in it ultimately boil down to money: directly affecting class sizes and the attention paid to each child.
The amount of money that's available to the school, certainly, seems to have an impact - indirect benefits, rather than direct teacher pay as we seem to agree.
To some extent these conditions can be replicated using selection but we've mostly done away with grammars. Anyway, a school able to provide that environment and teaching quality on state funding would soon find that only well off parents would be able to live near enough to send their children there!
And that's currently what seems to happen on a regular basis with the grammar schools that are in place, they become a state-sponsored 'private school light', which is the worst of both worlds. The grammar school concept, where the most academically capable are gathered together for a more advanced curriculum isn't one that I ideoligically oppose, but the current implementation doesn't work as I see it - functionally, however they try to set the format, it's selecting for parental wealth more consistently than pupil ability, and doing so with state funding which I think is wrong.
Of course, part of the issue with the grammar school concept is that there isn't the range and drive for vocational and practical skills over pure academics at the same age categories to engage those for whom academic interests are beyond their interest or capacity.
O.
-
I don't think it is realistic to abolish private schools, nor is it the answer to improving education for the vast majority.
That said I think the notion of 'stealing property' which has been banded about is mistaken. There are already many (perhaps most) schools in the state sector where the property of the school isn't owned by the state. So most faith schools - the property is owned by the church or a related foundation. Same with Foundation and Academy schools. So the same approach could be used were Labour to abolish private schools. In effect the school property remains privately owned by the education service delivered would need to be provided free to parents/pupils.
Where I do think there needs to be change is on charitable status - this is often justified on the basis that private schools make their amazing facilities available to the wider community - yet in my experience where I live this simply doesn't happen. Unless there is demonstrable and significant wider community benefit from the school then I don't think they should benefit from charitable status.
-
I don't think it is realistic to abolish private schools, nor is it the answer to improving education for the vast majority.
That said I think the notion of 'stealing property' which has been banded about is mistaken. There are already many (perhaps most) schools in the state sector where the property of the school isn't owned by the state. So most faith schools - the property is owned by the church or a related foundation. Same with Foundation and Academy schools. So the same approach could be used were Labour to abolish private schools. In effect the school property remains privately owned by the education service delivered would need to be provided free to parents/pupils.
That compromise was made with the Church on a voluntary basis, the church wasn't compelled to turn over their properties, they wanted to maintain an influence in child education so they could continue to indoctrinate recruits.
Where I do think there needs to be change is on charitable status - this is often justified on the basis that private schools make their amazing facilities available to the wider community - yet in my experience where I live this simply doesn't happen. Unless there is demonstrable and significant wider community benefit from the school then I don't think they should benefit from charitable status.
Personally, I think that a non-profit dedicated to education is as charitable an institution as there can be - it's set up purely for the benefit of the children attending and the wider society that benefits from that education going out into the world afterwards. It's at least as much a charitable work as, for instance, propping up decaying religious institutions or part funding drug research that's going to be used to boost the bottom line of for-profit pharmaceutical companies.
Any measure of providing community facilities or supporting local state education is a bonus on top of that underlying function, not a sticking plaster to try to justify charitable status after the fact.
O.
-
Personally, I think that a non-profit dedicated to education is as charitable an institution as there can be - it's set up purely for the benefit of the children attending and the wider society that benefits from that education going out into the world afterwards.
You could say that about all sorts of organisations, but not all are allowed to benefit from charitable status.
I don't see how the 'main business' of a private school, being a high-end, paid-for educational service aimed squarely at those who can afford to pay is charitable. There are secondary benefits which, to my mind could be charitable (e.g. providing places to those that cannot afford, providing facilities that are available at preferential rates to the wider community) but those are a small proportion of their total business. And therefore the benefits of charitable status should only be afforded on that proportion.
-
You could say that about all sorts of organisations, but not all are allowed to benefit from charitable status.
I don't see how the 'main business' of a private school, being a high-end, paid-for educational service aimed squarely at those who can afford to pay is charitable.
Their main business is educating the children of those who find that the state education isn't sufficient. The majority of private schools are not priced so that only the ultra-rich can afford them, we're a single-income family and were sending one of the kids to a private school when I was manning a cubicle on not much more than minimum wage. If you prioritise your kids' education over, say, going out and foreign holidays, it's amazing what you can afford.
There are secondary benefits which, to my mind could be charitable (e.g. providing places to those that cannot afford, providing facilities that are available at preferential rates to the wider community) but those are a small proportion of their total business.
They are - most of the schools I'm aware of do some version of this, as well as support bursaries and scholarships.
And therefore the benefits of charitable status should only be afforded on that proportion.
Why? Education is a public benefit, as well as a benefit to the individual, it's an investment in the future of society. Do you think people like Cancer Research UK who are doing work on the part of large pharmaceutical companies should retain their charitable status?
O.
-
Their main business is educating the children of those who find that the state education isn't sufficient. The majority of private schools are not priced so that only the ultra-rich can afford them, we're a single-income family and were sending one of the kids to a private school when I was manning a cubicle on not much more than minimum wage. If you prioritise your kids' education over, say, going out and foreign holidays, it's amazing what you can afford.
Sorry, I don't understand why that should accrue charitable status any more than any other paid-for service that might be offered and taken up by people who don't like the free state provision that is otherwise on offer. Plenty of people make all sorts of financial sacrifices for their kids, but that doesn't mean the thing they are buying must accrue the benefits of charitable status.
Why? Education is a public benefit, as well as a benefit to the individual, it's an investment in the future of society.
True - but that would be an argument for all education providers to be able to benefit from charitable status - but they don't.
-
Sorry, I don't understand why that should accrue charitable status any more than any other paid-for service that might be offered and taken up by people who don't like the free state provision that is otherwise on offer.
Like private health-care? If the companies involved were non-profit I'd suggest they should be charities too, but they are generally run for profit.
Plenty of people make all sorts of financial sacrifices for their kids, but that doesn't mean the thing they are buying must accrue the benefits of charitable status.
That wasn't the point I was making, the point I was making was that private education isn't solely the preserve of the obscenely wealthy.
True - but that would be an argument for all education providers to be able to benefit from charitable status - but they don't.
Maybe they should.
O.
-
Like private health-care? If the companies involved were non-profit I'd suggest they should be charities too, but they are generally run for profit.
Not all not for profit organisations are charities - to be a charity you need to do more than just not make a profit. And in the case of independent schools that shouldn't merely be that you provide educational benefit to fee paying students, according to the requirements they must demonstrate a meaningful amount of public benefit (i.e. benefits for the public, in addition to the benefits that fee-paying pupils received). But the problem is that an independent school that pays lip service to that public benefit requirement (maybe 5% of their time and effort) yet gains charitable status gains the benefits of charitable status on 100% of their activities.
So for example if you have charitable status then you only pay 20% of business rates, which saves the school (and costs the tax payer) millions. Why should they gain 80% tax relief on their whole site if only a tiny proportion is used for wider public benefit for a few hours a year. Happy for them to gain relief on the party of their business that is genuinely charitable (i.e. not education benefit to fee paying students) but not on the rest.
-
Sorry, I don't understand why that should accrue charitable status any more than any other paid-for service that might be offered and taken up by people who don't like the free state provision that is otherwise on offer. Plenty of people make all sorts of financial sacrifices for their kids, but that doesn't mean the thing they are buying must accrue the benefits of charitable status.
True - but that would be an argument for all education providers to be able to benefit from charitable status - but they don't.
As they are not run as businesses, but are providing education that would otherwise be paid for by the state, I don't agree that they should be required to pay VAT. It may be reasonable that, as charities, their books should be audited to ensure that funds were not directed to uses that were not of educational benefit and that any "profit" is used to provide bursaries.
It could be interesting to look at the maths of imposing VAT: Some public schools could be forced to close (as many parents already struggle to pay fees) - which would increase demand on state education. If many schools close because of VAT, state education costs could increase more than the VAT income obtained?
-
As they are not run as businesses, but are providing education that would otherwise be paid for by the state, I don't agree that they should be required to pay VAT. It may be reasonable that, as charities, their books should be audited to ensure that funds were not directed to uses that were not of educational benefit and that any "profit" is used to provide bursaries.
And here lies the problem - how do you assess whether or not surplus generated is channeled back into charitable activities. My impression is that many private schools are engaged in an 'arms race' of more and more outlandish facility provision to compete for parental fees.
An anecdote from a family I met on holiday who send both heir kids to private schools. The father has talking about the marketing approach of the two schools they were looking at for their son. Much of this was on the notion that they provided more and better facilities as a key selling point. Apparently (I kid you not) one of the schools claimed their unique feature was that not only did they have swimming pool, music rooms stuffed with Steinway pianos, profession quality recording studio, indoor and outdoor tennis courts etc, etc, etc just like everyone else ... but they also had ... wait for it ... flamingoes. Yup, that's right, flamingoes.
My point being that if schools are to have tax exemptions, they need to demonstrate that surplus is channeled back into supporting the wider public good, not into pianos that no oik from the local community will ever get near, nor ... flamingoes!!
-
Yes, agreed. The money they make must be used for education not luxury/status/frippery.
-
Yes, agreed. The money they make must be used for education not luxury/status/frippery.
Or flamingoes!
-
As they are not run as businesses, but are providing education that would otherwise be paid for by the state,
Hence they are businesses.
Private schools are businesses in the education sector. They are organisations which contract with customers to provide a service. They extract a fee from customers from which they expect to cover all costs - and hopefully retain a surplus. Depending on how they are structured they may be sole traders, partnerships, private limited companies, public companies ... even charities - but charities are businesses, too.
As businesses they are traders ... and providing they reach the appropriate threshold ... they should pay the appropriate taxes.
Private schools are no less businesses as are private hospitals or private care homes or Marks & Spencer. They should all be treated in the same way.
-
hmm ... semantics!
-
Hence they are businesses.
Private schools are businesses in the education sector. They are organisations which contract with customers to provide a service. They extract a fee from customers from which they expect to cover all costs - and hopefully retain a surplus. Depending on how they are structured they may be sole traders, partnerships, private limited companies, public companies ... even charities - but charities are businesses, too.
As businesses they are traders ... and providing they reach the appropriate threshold ... they should pay the appropriate taxes.
Private schools are no less businesses as are private hospitals or private care homes or Marks & Spencer. They should all be treated in the same way.
I think that is correct - they might not be profit making but they are run as a business.
Private schools have to compete in a very competitive market to attract fee paying 'customers'.
Which is one of the reasons they feel they need to pour surplus generation from their core business operations into the arms race of facilities - that is what they use in an attempt to persuade 'punters' to choose them rather than the school down the road that doesn't have flamingoes.
-
Private schools are no less businesses as are private hospitals or private care homes or Marks & Spencer. They should all be treated in the same way.
I'd disagree. Pretty much all the private healthcare providers are for-profit organisations that pay out regularly to shareholders - I'm not sure on the status of private care homes, but I suspect that many of them are part of larger organisations which do the same. Like Marks and Spencers, they are in the business of making money, and they provide services to do so.
Private schools, by contrast, typically are not for profit - they provide a service as a raison d'etre, and have to use money to do so. That, to me, is a pretty fundamental difference.
O.
-
Private schools, by contrast, typically are not for profit - they provide a service as a raison d'etre, and have to use money to do so. That, to me, is a pretty fundamental difference.
Can you tell me of ANY business which does not provide a service as a raison d'etre?
Private schools are business enterprises providing a particular service to customers. They charge fees which at the very minimum cover their costs. If they do not cover their costs then they will be insolvent. The fees they charge will be expected to generate a surplus, another name for that surplus is profit. How that profit is used is entirely up to the enterprise - I suspect that you are confusing (or conflating) profit with return to shareholders.
-
Can you tell me of ANY business which does not provide a service as a raison d'etre?
As I said in that post, the likes of Marks and Spencers, private healthcare providers and the like whose purpose is to make money for an owner or shareholders - in their case, providing as service the means to that end.
Private schools are business enterprises providing a particular service to customers. They charge fees which at the very minimum cover their costs. If they do not cover their costs then they will be insolvent. The fees they charge will be expected to generate a surplus, another name for that surplus is profit. How that profit is used is entirely up to the enterprise - I suspect that you are confusing (or conflating) profit with return to shareholders.
No, I'm not - a not-for-profit enterprise is obliged to reinvest any excess in the organisation. In the case of private schools that excess is typically used for things like offering scholarships and tuition support.
O.
-
No, I'm not - a not-for-profit enterprise is obliged to reinvest any excess in the organisation. In the case of private schools that excess is typically used for things like offering scholarships and tuition support.
And buying new flamingoes.
While I understand the need to provide bursaries as part of their social mission, in order to be able to do that they need to get sufficient fee-paying bums on seats. And that requires significant investment of the surplus into marketing in its broadest sense. That will, of course, include direct advertising approaches, but will also involve investment in facilities to gain an advantage over their competitors. Hence, the common investment in facilities way beyond that necessary for a high quality educational environment. Sure the flamingoes is at the extreme end (but true) but there are countless other examples.
I have a friend who is the bursar at a local private school, so is responsible for the finances of the school. I also have another friend who is a piano tuner - what's the link I here you ask. Well the latter was asked to set up and tune the 20 brand new Steinway pianos they had just bought. Now there is no way that all but the very, very best budding pianist in a secondary school needs a piano of that quality and certainly there can be no pedagogical justification for needing 20 of them. But it of course looks good on open days for prospective new parents - look your darling daughter will be able to play chopsticks on one of the best pianos in the world ... but sorry we can't offer flamingoes.
-
And buying new flamingoes.
While I understand the need to provide bursaries as part of their social mission, in order to be able to do that they need to get sufficient fee-paying bums on seats. And that requires significant investment of the surplus into marketing in its broadest sense. That will, of course, include direct advertising approaches, but will also involve investment in facilities to gain an advantage over their competitors. Hence, the common investment in facilities way beyond that necessary for a high quality educational environment. Sure the flamingoes is at the extreme end (but true) but there are countless other examples.
I have a friend who is the bursar at a local private school, so is responsible for the finances of the school. I also have another friend who is a piano tuner - what's the link I here you ask. Well the latter was asked to set up and tune the 20 brand new Steinway pianos they had just bought. Now there is no way that all but the very, very best budding pianist in a secondary school needs a piano of that quality and certainly there can be no pedagogical justification for needing 20 of them. But it of course looks good on open days for prospective new parents - look your darling daughter will be able to play chopsticks on one of the best pianos in the world ... but sorry we can't offer flamingoes.
If you think it's overly competitive now, what do you think adding VAT and removing charitable status will do to that market? Now, if someone were to suggest that the Charity Commission should be conducting more rigorous checks, and that schools should be able to demonstrate an educational benefit for such things, I wouldn't argue that in the slightest.
To the other points, marketing and investment: Cancer Research UK does this, it markets heavily, it invests in new equipment for partner laboratories and research centres - and then it passes its findings over to commercial enterprises in pharmaceuticals and healthcare equipment who make heavy profits from it, yet I don't see anyone (and I wouldn't agree with them) claiming that these should not be charities.
I stand by the original position - education is a public good, and they are providing an alternative, better, broader education for its own sake, not for profit. I fail to see how that doesn't qualify as a charity, no matter how badly some individual decisions might reflect that.
O.
-
...
I stand by the original position - education is a public good, and they are providing an alternative, better, broader education for its own sake, not for profit. I fail to see how that doesn't qualify as a charity, no matter how badly some individual decisions might reflect that.
O.
I generally agree with this, however we should really move the discussion on to the basic issues of the education system and private schools and what to do about it - which is not really about charities or VAT or flamingoes and Steinways (20??)
The issue is actually "unfairness": That private schools give an unfair advantage to their pupils over state schools. Is this actually true - and what sort of advantage is it? If it is academic then why can't we use the same methods to bring state schools to the same level? If it is just money, why can't appropriate funding be found for state schools? Or maybe it is something else? If so how can that be addressed?
-
Here's a thought about VAT. If the private schools were forced to charge VAT, their fees would effectively rise which means that some parents who currently send their children to private schools would, instead send them to state schools. This will increase the costs of the state sector. So the question is, would the extra VAT income for the government offset the extra education costs for the government.
-
I disagree with a number of you about the rightness of being able to pass on privilege to your children while a very large number of children in our society are fundamentally disadvantaged in a startlingly unequal system. If we had a more equal society, like say, Denmark's, providing options for individuals to exercise personal preferences would be OK. Currently, parents dissatisfied with state provision who are rich enough can save their children from suffering at its hands by paying. I think this entrenches inequality in society and is unfair.
There would still be the opportunity to give your children unfair advantages over their peer group if private schools were abolished and there would still be inequality due to location and selection policies, but I still think it would be a change for the better. Standardising mediocrity is not necessarily the outcome.
The products of Eton we've had running the country recently are supposed to be the cream of the crop, aren't they? I went to a comprehensive in the 70s and I don't think I could have made a worse job of it. Of course where I went to school "be Prime Minister" wasn't an acceptable answer to the question "what do you want to do when you grow up?"
-
jeremyP
Some quick googling produced the following:
The total government expenditure for 2017-18 was £42billion. This works out at £4,700pa for primary school children and £6,200ps for secondary school children.
An Independent article dated 27 April 2018 states that the average fee for one term at a private day school is £4,618. For a complete academic year this amounts to £13,854. VAT at the standard rate would add £2770. So the tax loss for each deserting student would be about half the cost of a primary student and rather more than a third of a secondary student to the state. If there was a loss of 10% of the private school population, the VAT income would more than offset the additional education costs.
-
The issue is actually "unfairness": That private schools give an unfair advantage to their pupils over state schools. Is this actually true - and what sort of advantage is it? If it is academic then why can't we use the same methods to bring state schools to the same level? If it is just money, why can't appropriate funding be found for state schools? Or maybe it is something else? If so how can that be addressed?
There are a number of different elements, some of which are present in some private schools and others in others. In purely academic terms, there are a number of studies which show that some private schools do manage to establish a better academic performance, on average, than their state sector equivalents, primarily through maintaining very small class sizes, but even that is limited to more capable pupils - that method isn't particularly effective at improving the performance of the less academically gifted. In general, it seems, there isn't a huge amount of increased academic performance from private education - some private schools are selective, which has a tendency to improve their league-table performance on results achieved, but they don't score particularly well if 'value-added' is considered (although there are a number of debates about how effective we are at measuring that).
Typically private schools offer a broader curriculum - certainly things like arts, music and sport are typically better funded than state schools, perhaps part of the reason so many Olympians and actors in recent years have emerged from the private school sector.
Both of these - smaller classes and a broader curriculum - tend to cost more per pupil to maintain, so funding is at least likely to be part of the issue. That said, there is also a flexibility private schools have with respect to if and how they teach against the National Curriculum - academies and free schools have a similar freedom, as I understand it, but typically choose not to exercise it particularly heavily except in the area of the faith schools who diverge on RE.
Within the teaching profession - from my contacts with teachers - there are some teachers who would never go near the private sector, but there are significantly more that would, and the private schools tend therefore to be able to pick and choose their staff more selectively. They don't necessarily offer better pay, but they offer a better employment environment and better working conditions and (tellingly, according to some teachers) freedom from Ofsted. Having the freedom to pick better teachers perhaps helps.
As a parent, what particularly appeals to me about private schooling is that you tend not to have disruptive, aggressive, bullying children - whether it's because the parents who are interested in paying for education are likely to have brought their children up better, or the teachers are able to more effectively manage the pupils I don't know, but the exclusion rates are typically lower than state sector and yet the issues don't seem to arise.
Overall, I'd say, there's a slight academic advantage for the particularly capable, but there's a better atmosphere and broader education that seems to stand privately education children in good stead. That doesn't, in any way, justify the sheer rate at which they are over-represented in places like Parliament, the big four accountancy firms, the Judiciary, Oxbridge and the like; in those instances, though, although 'private schools' are accused it is in reality a very small subset of those schools that are overrepresented. Rather than looking at private schooling, I think we should be looking at the selection processes for those places to see why things are skewed as much as they are.
O.
-
I disagree with a number of you about the rightness of being able to pass on privilege to your children while a very large number of children in our society are fundamentally disadvantaged in a startlingly unequal system. If we had a more equal society, like say, Denmark's, providing options for individuals to exercise personal preferences would be OK.
I agree, if we had a more equal society - we don't, though. Should I sacrifice my children's prospects for that, or should I bring them up with both the capacity (from their schooling) and the drive (from my parenting) to create a more equal society?
Currently, parents dissatisfied with state provision who are rich enough can save their children from suffering at its hands by paying. I think this entrenches inequality in society and is unfair.
In many instances that's the outcome, but I'd suggest that it's rarely the intention - certainly, I don't come from privileged background, there is no significant privilege to entrench.
There would still be the opportunity to give your children unfair advantages over their peer group if private schools were abolished and there would still be inequality due to location and selection policies, but I still think it would be a change for the better.
This would be sacrificing some degree of access to better educational outcomes and restricting it to an even more select few; if the intention is to remove embedded privilege, making something even more exclusive is not going to achieve that, making it even more accessible should be the goal.
Standardising mediocrity is not necessarily the outcome.
It is. Again, it's not the intention, but it's what the effect would be - if you remove from private education the freedom, improved funding and employment incentives that make it better, you just end up with more of the mediocrity that you already have in a system that is increasingly designed to attain mediocrity and is largely uninterested in anything more.
The products of Eton we've had running the country recently are supposed to be the cream of the crop, aren't they? I went to a comprehensive in the 70s and I don't think I could have made a worse job of it.
Eton =/= 'all of private education'. If there are too many Eton old-boys in positions of power, let's look at why, let's not shut down all the other private educational establishments that do wonders across the country.
Of course where I went to school "be Prime Minister" wasn't an acceptable answer to the question "what do you want to do when you grow up?"
And there, right there, we have a prime example of the cult of mediocrity. Why wasn't it an acceptable answer? I'd guess it would be viewed with wry amusement in most state schools today, but why - someone has to do it, we can look at the likes of Theresa May and Boris Johnson and see that it doesn't take a member of MENSA, by any stretch.
O.
-
Christine
This concept of fairnes is is just a pipe dream , it doesn't exist .
One of my children has benefitted from a private school education . I wanted her to have an advantage over her peers and it has worked well for her .
My other two (different personalities) went to state schools and have done equally well .
-
Here's a thought about VAT. If the private schools were forced to charge VAT, their fees would effectively rise which means that some parents who currently send their children to private schools would, instead send them to state schools. This will increase the costs of the state sector. So the question is, would the extra VAT income for the government offset the extra education costs for the government.
I don't think it is that simplistic.
Over the past 20 years private school fees have spiralled, with average increase of over 5% per annum, way above inflation. So by your your argument you'd think that fewer parents could afford to send their children to private schools. Yet actually the reverse is true - pupil numbers have increased by over 10% since 2000.
-
Over the past 20 years private school fees have spiralled, with average increase of over 5% per annum, way above inflation.
Genuinely, I'm not questioning the figures, but I've not seen that cited anywhere - can I ask where you found that?
So by your your argument you'd think that fewer parents could afford to send their children to private schools. Yet actually the reverse is true - pupil numbers have increased by over 10% since 2000.
Unfortunately as this Tory government continues to underfund education and interfere in teaching more and more parents are realising that, despite the financial impact, they can't afford to leave their kids in state education.
O.
-
Genuinely, I'm not questioning the figures, but I've not seen that cited anywhere - can I ask where you found that?
...
The ISC census is a reasonable source for the summary stats:
https://www.isc.co.uk/media/5479/isc_census_2019_report.pdf
-
Genuinely, I'm not questioning the figures, but I've not seen that cited anywhere - can I ask where you found that?
In a variety of places, not least the Independent Schools Councils own report:
https://www.isc.co.uk/media/5479/isc_census_2019_report.pdf
See page 18 - the fee increases have levelled off a touch recently, but still are running way ahead of inflation.
You can see this here too:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-charts-that-shows-how-private-school-fees-have-exploded-a7023056.html
The latter also shows where much of that fee increase is going - an astonishing increase in Capital spending. In the words of the Independent article:
'The picture is unambiguous. Fees are rising fast, outstripping the cost of living and average wages. And private schools are spending a good deal of the extra revenue on sprucing up their already often impressive facilities.'
So more flamingoes for everyone, or is it Steinway pianos. Or rather, not everyone, just the select few attending independent schools.
-
The ISC census is a reasonable source for the summary stats:
https://www.isc.co.uk/media/5479/isc_census_2019_report.pdf
Oo beat me to it.
-
Hi Outrider, I don't have time to answer properly, sorry (limited opportunity to access site etc) but a couple of things - I said mediocrity isn't "necessarily" the outcome because I don't think it is necessary, as evidenced by other countries' systems. That it would probably be the outcome in our society is something that could be addressed along with the other problems we have, if there was political will.
I know Eton doesn't equal the whole of private education. As I said, Eton alumni are the supposed cream of the crop, who've got where they are mainly on the basis of contacts, expectations and bias, regardless of talent or academic (or any other kind of) achievement.
Walter - I expect people once thought women voting on an equal footing with men was a pipe dream. Change and improvement is possible, even if difficult and unlikely.
-
I don't think it is that simplistic.
It's not simplistic. Tax rises always have unforeseen consequences.
Over the past 20 years private school fees have spiralled, with average increase of over 5% per annum, way above inflation. So by your your argument you'd think that fewer parents could afford to send their children to private schools. Yet actually the reverse is true - pupil numbers have increased by over 10% since 2000.
Have you got your cause and effect the right way around? Maybe fees are going up because of the increased demand? In fact, that seems more logical to me.
The argument "fees have gone up and numbers have gone up, therefore adding 20% to fees won't have any effect" is obvious nonsense. Maybe the rise in demand will only be slowed by the sudden 20% price rise (I hardly think so) but that still means more children will be going to states schools than were projected to be.
-
Not sure how forcing more people to choose state instead of public schools helps in any way.
There are two main considerations: quality of education and how fairly that eduction is delivered.
Wouldn't widening the gap between the two systems just exacerbate the inequalities?
Outrider (in #49) covered the main differences between the two kinds of school due to funding; clearly the quality of state school eduction can be raised to be closer to that of the public schools by reasonable increases in funding.
However, as Christine suggests in #47, if we lived in a much more equal society it would be much easier to ensure that all children fairly received an education of a quality that enabled them to achieve to the best of their abilities. And, surely, having a more equitable and fair society is a worthwhile objective in itself?
Another factor, as mentioned by Outrider, is the attitude of the children themselves. Although I don't agree that there is less bullying in private schools, the attitudes of children to the teachers and the value of education itself in public and grammar schools can be very different to those in many (not all) comprehensives due to parental influence, peer influences ....
Essentially, it is likely that educating those "middle class" children separately from other children contributes to the success of their schools and detracts from educational success in large comprehensives. This also has to be addressed by ensuring a fairer society and just more attention paid to family welfare and support.
-
It's not simplistic. Tax rises always have unforeseen consequences.
But you are portraying it as simplistic - add VAT, fees increase by 20%, some parents think it is too high and opt out. Those aren't the only potential outcomes, unless you are thinking in a simplistic manner.
Have you got your cause and effect the right way around? Maybe fees are going up because of the increased demand? In fact, that seems more logical to me.
The argument "fees have gone up and numbers have gone up, therefore adding 20% to fees won't have any effect" is obvious nonsense. Maybe the rise in demand will only be slowed by the sudden 20% price rise (I hardly think so) but that still means more children will be going to states schools than were projected to be.
Firstly you are making an assumption that if VAT was imposed fees would instantly rise by 20% - that isn't necessarily true because:
1. VAT could be added at a lower rate or tapered in, and more importantly ...
2. These schools are operating in a market and can choose the fee levels they set. If they think that market cannot stand a 20% rise in fees they have options to reduce the base fee, ex VAT so that the overall fee inc VAT doesn't rise by 20%, indeed could even stay level if that is what the market force dictates.
How would they do that - well by reducing costs and driving efficiencies. That could be reducing staff costs by slightly increasing staff/student ratios. They could reduce spend on bursaries and scholarships or they could decide to ditch the flamingoes and buy cheaper pianos. Or they could look to raise income via other routes, e.g. more fund raising from alumni, more commercial letting of facilities etc.
Given the huge amounts independent schools are pouring into enhanced facilities there is plenty of slack in the system if the school feels the need to be more efficient as they don't believe that parents will stand the 20% fee increase if the total value of the VAT is passed onto parents.
If on the other hand if the market will stand 20% fee rise then that is likely to be applied, but by definition the school would anticipate that parents would pay that higher fee - and indeed they may well be right as they have good evidence of raising fees by way above inflation and still seeing more parents wanting to come to their schools.
-
Outrider (in #49) covered the main differences between the two kinds of school due to funding; clearly the quality of state school education can be raised to be closer to that of the public schools by reasonable increases in funding.
Whilst an increase in funding could improve the situation of state education (presuming it was spent wisely?) I'm confident that there's a range of opinions on what might be considered 'reasonable' and whether it would approach what would be required; however, to listen to the various teachers I know tell it, unless there's a fairly fundamental change in mindset around the role and methods of Ofsted, that's not likely to help very much.
However, as Christine suggests in #47, if we lived in a much more equal society it would be much easier to ensure that all children fairly received an education of a quality that enabled them to achieve to the best of their abilities. And, surely, having a more equitable and fair society is a worthwhile objective in itself?
Agreed, but if we lived in a society that was actually interested in that we wouldn't have had Tory governments for over a decade.
Another factor, as mentioned by Outrider, is the attitude of the children themselves. Although I don't agree that there is less bullying in private schools, the attitudes of children to the teachers and the value of education itself in public and grammar schools can be very different to those in many (not all) comprehensives due to parental influence, peer influences ...
I'm not sure that I'd say there's less bullying - perhaps I didn't phrase it particularly well - but the nature, extent and types of bullying are different. There's less physical abuse, and more 'institutional' bullying - the sort of enforcement of privileges for older pupils, generally distasteful name-calling of entire year groups rather than individually targetted (although that's still there, to an extent).
Essentially, it is likely that educating those "middle class" children separately from other children contributes to the success of their schools and detracts from educational success in large comprehensives. This also has to be addressed by ensuring a fairer society and just more attention paid to family welfare and support.
I'm not sure what the answer is - there are working class families' children at private schools who thrive and fit in, and there are middle-class families' children at comprehensives who are absolute shits... I'm not sure it's a class-based thing at all, and certainly not entirely.
O.
-
...
I'm not sure what the answer is - there are working class families' children at private schools who thrive and fit in, and there are middle-class families' children at comprehensives who are absolute shits... I'm not sure it's a class-based thing at all, and certainly not entirely.
O.
I didn't put my point very well, it wasn't about how different children do in different schools, just that pupils arrive with a different set of behaviours and attitudes that influence the other children and teacher performance. Parent involvement is also key. eg:
If you took a comprehensive school and from every new years intake you take, say, the 15% of the pupils with the most affluent and/or well educated parents and move them to a school only for 15%'ers, even if the schools have equivalent funding and the same quality of teachers and facilities, you will end up with two different schools: a sink school and an elite school that does well academically.