We have pooled thoughts on the NHS, how about education?

Education is not a business, and no one has the right to cash in on our children's learning. Academy bosses currently pay themselves huge salaries, all while paying teachers less and cutting corners for pupils

That about sums it up - state education should not be a business, and no-one should profit financially from it.

schools themselves aren't very transparent about their accounting

They are actually all very transparent about their accounting because their annual accounts are free to download on the Charities Commission website. Few schools make large surpluses (profit), but where they do it would be very easy for them to be even more creative with their accounting to offset depreciation.
There are no shareholders, so no one benefits from the business. All the money is ploughed directly back into the school.

The donkeys in donkey sanctuaries are the poor, the old, the mistreated, abandoned donkeys that no-one wants. Perfect subjects for charity. Not the pampered pets of wealthy owners.

What a terrible analogy...

MaizieD I believe you are a numbers person and grateful for statistics. This might be of interest to you. If not, sorry.

www.isc.co.uk/media/8858/economic-impact-report-2022.pdf

volver

^Velvet Are you supporting the Platonic approach of removing children at birth from their parents?^

No.

And stop calling me Velvet.

Volver it’s the auto correct…

Luckygirl3

*Education is not a business, and no one has the right to cash in on our children's learning. Academy bosses currently pay themselves huge salaries, all while paying teachers less and cutting corners for pupils*

That about sums it up - state education should not be a business, and no-one should profit financially from it.

All that sums up is your opinions. Who says your are right? You seem to have very little to underpin them except the odd outrageous statement.

ronib

volver

Velvet Are you supporting the Platonic approach of removing children at birth from their parents?

No.

And stop calling me Velvet.

Volver it’s the auto correct…

Of course it is but you need a brain and an ounce of empathy to take that into account.

Volver this site works better with half a brain cell…

This is an aside, and not education, but I can’t post it in another thread as we’re not allowed to cross threads.
I’ve just read Fleurpepper’s post
Someone said that no-one should have the right to dictate how people spend their money. Well, I was always taught that freedom should be limited at the point it hurts others.
The number of holiday/second homes in the area where one GD lives means she can’t find a house they can afford. Does that mean that freedom to spend your money on second homes should be limited because it hurts others?

Good lord lassies.

I knew it was the autocorrect. It was a refence to Airplane but obviously too obscure for you.

Of course it is but you need a brain and an ounce of empathy to take that into account.

Volver this site works better with half a brain cell…

What wrong with you folk?

DaisyAnne

Luckygirl3

Education is not a business, and no one has the right to cash in on our children's learning. Academy bosses currently pay themselves huge salaries, all while paying teachers less and cutting corners for pupils

That about sums it up - state education should not be a business, and no-one should profit financially from it.

All that sums up is your opinions. Who says your are right? You seem to have very little to underpin them except the odd outrageous statement.

Are you happy about people making profits from state education? I would be very happy to listen to your reasoning.

DaisyAnne

Luckygirl3

Education is not a business, and no one has the right to cash in on our children's learning. Academy bosses currently pay themselves huge salaries, all while paying teachers less and cutting corners for pupils

That about sums it up - state education should not be a business, and no-one should profit financially from it.

All that sums up is your opinions. Who says your are right? You seem to have very little to underpin them except the odd outrageous statement.

Academy leaders' salaries are in the public domain, so they're easy to prove. The terms and conditions of teachers employed by academies are a matter of public record too.

State academies aren't allowed to make a profit. However, some academies have set up profit-making companies, from which they buy services, such as IT contracts, curriculum plans, teaching resources or management consultancy. These companies are allowed to make a profit. It doesn't take much detective work to see that the same people are often involved with the management of the academies themselves.

Personally, I find it outrageous that you should accuse Luckygirl of making unfounded comments.

schoolsweek.co.uk/best-paid-trust-ceos-wages-rise-fastest-but-some-rein-in-pay/

Worth reading if you are interested in academies. What isn't discussed is the top slice that each academy school hands over from it's budget. When my school joined it was less than we lost to the LEA and the support we got was infinitely better. The Head of the Secondary school continued in that role as well as taking on responsibility as CEO of the mixed MAT. Her salary was enhanced , not hugely, but she was worth every penny and she worked extremely hard. Apart from an enhanced Finance officer role, there was no other additional cost for management. Although we were in a poorly funded LA, it left money to buy in additional FT SEND teacher who worked across all 4 schools and a home school liaison worker. There was also a great many inter schools training opportunities. There are dedicated educationalists out there, in academies, state schools, independents and private schools who really care about the children they work with and want the best for them. They are not in it for the money but they do deserve to be paid properly for the work they do even if it comes from the public purse. If you do take the time to look at the article, I think some salaries are questionable but others are not and they are for the highest paid CEOs, ours was certainly not paid anything like that!

Joseanne

^schools themselves aren't very transparent about their accounting^

They are actually all very transparent about their accounting because their annual accounts are free to download on the Charities Commission website. Few schools make large surpluses (profit), but where they do it would be very easy for them to be even more creative with their accounting to offset depreciation.
There are no shareholders, so no one benefits from the business. All the money is ploughed directly back into the school.

Yes, their accounts are available on the Charities Commission website, but where do they account for the charitable nature of their spending? I've looked at some of them in the past and they're extremely woolly about how their tax savings actually benefit the public.

Mollygo

This is an aside, and not education, but I can’t post it in another thread as we’re not allowed to cross threads.
I’ve just read Fleurpepper’s post
Someone said that no-one should have the right to dictate how people spend their money. Well, I was always taught that freedom should be limited at the point it hurts others.
The number of holiday/second homes in the area where one GD lives means she can’t find a house they can afford. Does that mean that freedom to spend your money on second homes should be limited because it hurts others?

Yes, it would be interesting to know how many who think they know exactly how others spend their money in fact have second homes themselves.

Some parents may go without holidays and sacrifice much to pay for private education for their children because they know their local state school is not even "bog-standard".

Mollygo

This is an aside, and not education, but I can’t post it in another thread as we’re not allowed to cross threads.
I’ve just read Fleurpepper’s post
Someone said that no-one should have the right to dictate how people spend their money. Well, I was always taught that freedom should be limited at the point it hurts others.
The number of holiday/second homes in the area where one GD lives means she can’t find a house they can afford. Does that mean that freedom to spend your money on second homes should be limited because it hurts others?

Do you think second home owners should be exempt of tax?

Second home owners should NOT be tax exempt, that is a definite. And I would expect the Government, and especially the local Council, where local families cannot afford a home due to second homes in the area- to do something about it. Taxing those second homes more, and ensuring affordable homes for local families.

Fleurpepper

Mollygo

This is an aside, and not education, but I can’t post it in another thread as we’re not allowed to cross threads.
I’ve just read Fleurpepper’s post
Someone said that no-one should have the right to dictate how people spend their money. Well, I was always taught that freedom should be limited at the point it hurts others.
The number of holiday/second homes in the area where one GD lives means she can’t find a house they can afford. Does that mean that freedom to spend your money on second homes should be limited because it hurts others?

Do you think second home owners should be exempt of tax?

There is a loophole exempting second home owners from paying Council tax but this loophole will be closed in April 2023.

However, it is up to Councils whether or not full or partial tax is paid.

Wow- what loophole. We certainly have paid full Council Tax on ours.

This discussion is being derailed by nonsense however. Back to education. Ban all private schools? I'd rather state schools are so well funded and provided for, that most parents will not consider them. As in so many countries. And where it is accepted overall, private schools are actually not as good as state schools, and their qualifications not so respected in the world of academia and work.

But there is NO doubt whatsoever that Charity status and tax exemption should go asap.

Are private clinics and hospitals exempt of tax? Do they carry charitable status?

Luckygirl3

DaisyAnne

Luckygirl3

Education is not a business, and no one has the right to cash in on our children's learning. Academy bosses currently pay themselves huge salaries, all while paying teachers less and cutting corners for pupils

That about sums it up - state education should not be a business, and no-one should profit financially from it.

All that sums up is your opinions. Who says your are right? You seem to have very little to underpin them except the odd outrageous statement.

Are you happy about people making profits from state education? I would be very happy to listen to your reasoning.

Do you understand the phrase "not for profit" Luckygirl?

Can you tell me why no democratic country has done what you are suggesting?

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1011171/Changes_to_the_payment_process_of_schools__business_rates_-_government_consultation_response.pdf

for information: LEA maintained schools do not pay business rates, they are paid by the ESFA. Independent schools which are reg charities pay 20%.

I do; but that is a very simple way of looking at it. That is what the government want you to think.

The CEOs and others on these boards are making huge salaries. Why are they making these salaries? - because they are running academies and MATs. Were these huge salaries being made before academies and MATs existed? - the answer is No.

Business people are jumping on the bandwagon of academisation for a reason - and it is not because they are public spirited - it is because they can make good money out of it; money that is taken from school budgets and away from the pupils and teachers. Each academy or school in a MAT has its financial allocation top-sliced to pay the CEOs, the lawyers, the spurious advisors (and advisory businesses) who are conjured up for the purposes of making huge salaries. It is not because they care on whit about the schools of the pupils. It is because the government has handed them a money-making - many of the people running these organisations know nothing about education - they are business people who can see a good opportunity to feather their nests. Who can see the loopholes that allow them to create advisory bodies to make profits and sell their services that would once have been the role of the LA.

The last thing on their minds is the well-being of the teachers and pupils.

I have seen some of these slick glossy publicity materials that these businesses churn out and it truly is sickening in the context of schools asking PSAs to fund raise for pencils.

Every penny of the money that goes into these organisations is a penny less for education.

What I am suggesting - which is a true publicly funded education service whose aims are focussed on the pupils - is not such a radical idea. Many countries regard their education systems as a public service, not a money-making opportunity for fat cats.

Fleurpepper

Are private clinics and hospitals exempt of tax? Do they carry charitable status?

If they are reg as charities they get 80% relief, NHS hospitals pay the full whack. However, if you think logically about it, the NHS budget comes from the govt (via our taxes) and then goes to the LA. If a private hospital or clinic is a reg charity, it is a not for profit organisation and the 20% it pays comes out of the pockets of the user. I think if we look at business rates in a different way with regard to Independent schools reg as charities, part of the school fees goes to pay the 20%. fwiw I don't think focusing on "private" education contributes much to the argument about how we can improve education for the 93% of kids who go to State schools, which is, at least for me, much more important.

Ban all private schools? I'd rather state schools are so well funded and provided for, that most parents will not consider them

I'l agree to that.
Better to use a carrot than a stick.

But there will always be a need for private schools, especially boarding schools.