Why do British royal children not go to state schools like the Scandanavian royals?

Nope, Conservative rule over the last 12 years has not made ordinary Conservative folks abandon other people.

That's still not what I said though is it?

volver

I'm sorry, where did I blame the Conservatives for that? I said that 12 years of Tory rule makes people abandon responsibility for other people.

It could be the other way around, of course. Having people who don't think they should concern themselves with other people gets you 12 years of Tory rule.

Nope, Conservative rule over the last 12 years has not made ordinary Conservative folks abandon other people.

Sorry volver neither of your statements ring true, (a life long Conservative who is now politically homeless)

I'm sorry, where did I blame the Conservatives for that? I said that 12 years of Tory rule makes people abandon responsibility for other people.

It could be the other way around, of course. Having people who don't think they should concern themselves with other people gets you 12 years of Tory rule.

volver our children went to fee paying schools when Mr. Blair was in power, sorry you cannot blame the Conservatives for that.

It's not true that French state education is the same for all Mamie. There are three lycees in Paris (for example, the Lycee St Louis) attended by children of the elite living in central arrondisments whose funding is said to be double that of other lycees. Their ex-students include J P Satre and many French politicians.

And just for clarity; I didn't ask you if you pay your taxes; I asked you if you believe in paying taxes.

Subtle but important difference.

Candelle

In response to* Volver* questioning my statement stating that no one should tell me how to spend my money, yes, of course I pay my taxes. That was a rather feeble comment!

To clarify, no one should tell me how I should spend my disposable income after paying taxes. OK?

Has anyone thought that by sending our children to independent schools, we have saved the taxpayer money?

We happily pay our taxes, some of which is for education, from which we receive no benefit...

Have you considered that by closing independent schools, the Government would not gain one extra penny in income and have to provide places for many many children?

OK, so you think paying taxes is good. Presumably so that people can contribute to the common good according to what they can afford.

Well, I am proud to pay my taxes too. Not that I pay much any more, having retired. But I'd pay more if it meant that children could all get a good education.

Has anyone thought that by sending our children to independent schools, we have saved the taxpayer money?
Yes, this thread is littered with people uttering such ridiculous things. A well educated populace doesn't emerge from crumbs from the rich man's table, and people who try to pretend that their offspring going to fee paying schools is somehow a public service make me speechless.

See this thing about it not bringing you any benefit? What if some of the doctors and dentists of tomorrow are in a state school? Do you not think that educating them brings a little bit of benefit to you? Or will you just accept treatment from a medic who went to fee-paying school?

This is what 12 years of Tory government gives you, I think. An absolute abrogation of responsibility for the rest of society. Complete short sightedness and ability to think beyond tomorrow.

Oops, an asterisk in the wrong place, apologies.

In response toVolver questioning my statement stating that no one should tell me how to spend my money, yes, of course I pay my taxes. That was a rather feeble comment!

To clarify, no one should tell me how I should spend my disposable income after paying taxes. OK?

Has anyone thought that by sending our children to independent schools, we have saved the taxpayer money?

We happily pay our taxes, some of which is for education, from which we receive no benefit...

Have you considered that by closing independent schools, the Government would not gain one extra penny in income and have to provide places for many many children

In response to* Volver* questioning my statement stating that no one should tell me how to spend my money, yes, of course I pay my taxes. That was a rather feeble comment!

To clarify, no one should tell me how I should spend my disposable income after paying taxes. OK?

Has anyone thought that by sending our children to independent schools, we have saved the taxpayer money?

We happily pay our taxes, some of which is for education, from which we receive no benefit...

Have you considered that by closing independent schools, the Government would not gain one extra penny in income and have to provide places for many many children?

Glorianny

DaisyAnne

I don't know how much having charitable status costs the state, but I would think it is probably negligible in comparison to the cost of funding state education, so it's probably an irrelevance.

More principle than practical to remove it, I think. It would make sense to phase it out.

Here's how much private schools saved by not paying business rates on their properties through having charitable status, www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jun/11/private-schools-tax-charitable-status-eton-dulwich-college
The absolute and awful disparity is that although academies and free schools are being offered similar relief, state schools have to pay the full amount!

That is, I suppose, to be expected with this government but I can't see any justification for it but I imagine those on the right can do. It's all about perspective in the end.

I think there is a consultation underway so that, rather the present more complicated way of schools being paid that amount then paying it to the LA and all the administration involved, it will be paid directly.

Perhaps Abuelamia may know more.

Gloriany, regarding State Schools paying full Business Rates. I was a School Business Manager in State Schools and you are right we did pay full rates but we received the equivalent income in our budget. The school budget was and I am sure still is, calculated from a formula consisting of several elements, pupil funding, deprivation, SEN, FSM and property rates etc. This is all quite visible to the school and parents as it is presented in separate amounts when schools receive their annual budget from the Local Authority.

I think DaisyAnne that if I am judgemental, then my view has been reinforced by living in France. Liberty, equality, fraternity is not just a slogan, it is part of the rights and responsibilities of all citizens. I hadn't realised quite how much it underpins everything until I lived here.

DaisyAnne

^I don't know how much having charitable status costs the state, but I would think it is probably negligible in comparison to the cost of funding state education, so it's probably an irrelevance.^

More principle than practical to remove it, I think. It would make sense to phase it out.

Here's how much private schools saved by not paying business rates on their properties through having charitable status, www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jun/11/private-schools-tax-charitable-status-eton-dulwich-college
The absolute and awful disparity is that although academies and free schools are being offered similar relief, state schools have to pay the full amount!

I don't know how much having charitable status costs the state, but I would think it is probably negligible in comparison to the cost of funding state education, so it's probably an irrelevance.

More principle than practical to remove it, I think. It would make sense to phase it out.

Why would people want to deny that to children?

This sounds rather judgemental. I don't think people even think of it as denying others. Most people just get on with their lives. Again, I go back to how you persuade.

Mamie

I don't think it is about telling people how to spend their money. I think it is about putting available resources into a state system that provides equality of opportunity for all children.
If you have a parallel independent school system (with charitable status) then you take resources away from the state system.
If you have a complex system of grammar, secondary modern, independent, comprehensive, academies, church schools and free schools then you are not going to have clarity, efficiency or equality of opportunity.
Why would people want to deny that to children?

I don't know how much having charitable status costs the state, but I would think it is probably negligible in comparison to the cost of funding state education, so it's probably an irrelevance.
Most independent schools offer bursaries and scholarships to children from less advantaged backgrounds.

This cost is in part offset by tax paying parents not taking up state school places for their children. I know that has been ridiculed but it is a fact.

Mamie

I don't think it is about telling people how to spend their money. I think it is about putting available resources into a state system that provides equality of opportunity for all children.
If you have a parallel independent school system (with charitable status) then you take resources away from the state system.
If you have a complex system of grammar, secondary modern, independent, comprehensive, academies, church schools and free schools then you are not going to have clarity, efficiency or equality of opportunity.
Why would people want to deny that to children?

Your first paragraph is why I mentioned a proper tax system in my post to Maizie, Mamie. Wasn't it tax, after WW1 that changed so much.

I can't see how anyone can justify charitable status unless you are running the whole school as a not-for-profit charity. That's where this comes from as some once were.

Callistemon21

^Being a centrist can be uncomfortable sometimes^
Isn't it just.

But we're the ones who can make the changes at a General Election ?

You would think the extremists would discuss nicely, wouldn't you but then they would be extremists.

I don't think it is about telling people how to spend their money. I think it is about putting available resources into a state system that provides equality of opportunity for all children.
If you have a parallel independent school system (with charitable status) then you take resources away from the state system.
If you have a complex system of grammar, secondary modern, independent, comprehensive, academies, church schools and free schools then you are not going to have clarity, efficiency or equality of opportunity.
Why would people want to deny that to children?

MaizieD

You're all still ignoring the funding factor. State schools will never become universally 'good' unless they are given the funding, and so are the services which support children and families.

But the other factor that few have touched on, is the social aspect of keeping these children in a bubble of the wealthy and privileged. They should be getting an idea of how the less wealthy and privileged live. They should be mixing with children who don't have all their advantages and they should be doing this at an age where children are far more accepting of 'differences' than they are when they hit secondary school. A few years in a state primary wouldn't do them any harm and enable them to see a rather less sanitised world than the one they usually do.

I think the extremes of political thinking do ignore the practicalities, sadly. After all, you are, at the very extremes, on the edge of revolution. Isn't that what we have had over the last decade plus? I would love the Finnish view of "education for all" to be ours. But you do have to pay for it. Can you imagine (I daren't) what it would cost to bring our schools up to that standard after the last 12 years?

The "bubble" is what some choose. I don't think you can instruct those with that view to do what you believe is the right thing for their children. Those who like school "bubbles", gated communities, etc., will continue to do so. Again, it is how you persuade them to change. A proper tax system would help, of course, but I am not sure telling them that it wouldn't do their children any harm is going to work.

They should be mixing with children who don't have all their advantages and they should be doing this at an age where children are far more accepting of 'differences' than they are when they hit secondary school. A few years in a state primary wouldn't do them any harm and enable them to see a rather less sanitised world than the one they usually do^

I would agree this might be the case at boarding schools MaizieD, but not for day private schools which many children attend. For example, my young DGS, at private school, plays football on Tuesday eves and at weekends in the village with less advantaged, state school children and he happily invites them home. Others mix at swimming lessons, dance classes etc and get along fine, so the royals probably do the same.

Being a centrist can be uncomfortable sometimes
Isn't it just.

But we're the ones who can make the changes at a General Election ?

Yes Maizie D s second paragraph is one of the factors that is not often mentioned but is very important, not necessarily in relation to the RF but in relation to those who tend to dominate our public institutions.

Having a different viewpoint and strongly held beliefs doesn't amount to being dictated to GG13, as I'm sure you know. Having a discussion and expressing ones firmly held beliefs about equality are not dictating to people.

I read that some people here got their children into fee paying schools to avoid bullying. Perhaps my being in a state school all those years ago have helped me recognise that bullying can consist of finding a person's posts and making personal comments about them all the time. Obviously I don't mean you GG13.