"I've never seen anything like it!"

Sorry, but your statement is illogical.
Not all independent schools are gold standard obviously means that some are.
Therefore if you get rid of all independent schools, you must get rid of some gold standard schools.
Some state schools must be gold standard if by getting rid of independent schools you do not get rid of all gold standard schools.
That is logical.

Whether you have knowledge of Polam School or not is immaterial.
Earlier on in the discussion there was comment on free schools and independent schools becoming free schools to the detriment of other pupils.
It's the principle that matters, not the individual school. Surely you can see that.

That first paragraph is illogical durhamjen

Not all independent schools are gold standard
Therefore getting rid of all independent schools does not mean you loose any gold standard ones.

Not logical.

I have no knowledge and probably less interest in Polam Hall School - sorry.

I do want better opportunities for education for everyone but do not see it requires closing down schools that are functioning well just for an ideology. If they closed because the states schools were so good - fine.

So if all independent schools are not gold standard, getting rid of them does not necessarily get rid of gold standard teaching. There must be some gold standard schools left.

I have just been reading a magazine which advertises independent schools among other things. There is a full page advert for a school in Darlington called Polam Hall. The heading on the advert is "No more tuition fees at Polam Hall."
From September 2015 it will be a free school, which means it is paid for out of the same money as every other school in Darlington. However, it can still advertise a high staff-to-pupil ratio. That is most unfair to every other school where the pupils are taught in classes of over thirty. It offers quality education in small classes from age 4-18, giving children who go there an obvious advantage over other pupils in the area.

If buying smaller classes would prove helpful - I can't really believe it is the only problem in some school - then we need to be prepared to invest in this - simples.

What does not help is Mr Gove castigating the teachers and talking about no one being able to tell the difference between independent and state schools without, it appears, any more money going into state schools. Having said that our four local outstanding comprehensives do not have smaller classes than anywhere else and they not only produce good results but also a good all round education although, over the years we have preferred the ethos of one over another (not always the same one).

durhamjen I said "Why get rid of gold standard teaching just to prove a point". I did not say all independent schools provided gold standard teaching. I think, perhaps, your prejudice is showing in your reply.

I too went to an independent secondary school and also to a state school and a RAF school so I feel I have a good, but very personal, view of the education provided. My conclusion, again it can only be a personal opinion, is that not all schools suit all pupils so a variety is good.

Teaching in private schools is not gold standard. They get better results because of smaller classes, bought by their parents.
Not politics of envy. I went through the private system so know what I am talking about.
Private school pupils always got longer holidays so their parents did not have to abide by the school holiday problem. I always had a week longer than my siblings. Private school pupils quite often did things that would get pupils in state schools expelled. It was usually hushed up if the parents were rich enough.

I did not make any comment about the politics of envy Eloethan I said "dog in the manger" because that is what I meant. We have five secondary (comprehensive) schools in our area, four are outstanding and one good. We also have two independent secondary schools, one girls and one co-ed. The only difference I can see in these schools by comparison to other areas are the parents.

Obviously more money needs to go into the state system. I have three close relatives working in the state system and three of the family went to independent schools, each on scholarships. We, as an extended family, believe totally in education and in the choices it gives and have been prepared to give up much both for our families and, in the case of those working in the education system, those they teach or deal.

Why get rid of gold standard teaching just to prove a point. I would say again you will hear the biggest cheer from me when all schools are as good as our local state schools or better. Meanwhile, parents who feel they have a "right" to anything that occurs to them, parents who threaten staff if they can't see a particular teacher as they walk through the door and parents who, when asked to collect child who has been in the school for three years because he/she is unwell, have to ask where exactly the school is ... These are some of the things I have personally seen and I could come up with more and worse as I imagine others who are on this forum can.

I'm sorry but although the state can help parents, schools are there to teach. Meanwhile I really cannot see why you would deprive the children of parents who know they must turn up at the appropriate time, know their child will be punished up to and including expulsion and therefore make sure their children behave should have choices taken away from them.

The comment that there is a "dog in the manger" attitude about those who oppose private provision is another version of the "politics of envy" put down.

It seems that people who express opposition to what they believe are systemic inequalities are either labelled as "envious" because they are poor/less well off or "hypocritical" because they are rich/comfortably off.

Many of the people who campaign about injustice and inequality do so not because they have a particular personal axe to grind, but because they believe we should be aiming for a fairer society.

Gracesgran It hadn't really occurred to me that some private hospitals are classified as charities, so thank you for that. I investigated further and found a Daily Express report:

"According to a report by London’s Cass Business School, Nuffield Health, The London Clinic and King Edward VII’s Hospital saved £28.6 million in tax in 2011 by taking advantage of their charitable status, even though they ­operate and charge fees similar to private hospitals...

"The hospitals named in the Cass report have a combined income of more than £760 million. Under their charitable status, they benefit from relief on corporation tax, business rates and VAT."

The King Edward, which saved £900,000 in tax because of its charitable status, is well known for ­treating ­members of the Royal family, with the Duchess of Cambridge spending time there ­during her pregnancy.

The commercial director of HCA, a private hospital that does not have charitable status, said “The public may be ­unaware that they are helping to fund some ­private hospitals while ­being unable to access the benefits. These hospitals are actively ­competing with other top private hospitals but they aren’t paying the same amount of tax as the others. It is financially and competitively unfair, and unfair on the taxpayer.”

Some people are beginning to question what activities a private hospital must undertake in order to qualify for charitable status and whether all hospitals that have been awarded charitable status meet the criteria.

This is yet another example, on top of that of public schools, of tax relief being given to institutions that almost exclusively benefit the wealthy. I think the whole subject of charitable status needs to be examined as I feel it is being misused.

Eloethan says "why not give charitable status to private hospitals? Many of the none profit making organisations are. More than a third of the UK private healthcare sector is made up of charities, which must reinvest any profits they make.

There always seems to me to be a bit of dog in the manger view of anything provided privately. Raise the standards of the state provision and they would all be out of business. I would loudly cheer if that happened. We are not, after all, a communist state.

A good comment by Oakeshott. I agree with Bags

Isabel Oakeshott on why Emily Thornberry should be given her job back. Oakeshott is right.

Rose

Who is Ben Goldacre, is he Jeremy Hunt's GP?

Ben Goldacre thinks Jeremy Hunt taking his children to A&E was the most ridiculous thing he could do.

nhaspace.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/huntmustgo/

I fail to see how a private/independant school can be classed as a charity. It is a service that you choose to use. Afterall there is a free school system available to all. Exactly the same as choosing not to use the NHS for an operation or an NHS dentist or whatever. They are all services that one would choose to use (if you could afford it) and therefore pay for. Not charities at all.

People who pay taxes but who choose not to send their kids to a state school benefit, just like the rest of us, from a well-educated population—doctors, teachers in private and state schools, hospitals, roads, etc. If private schools have charitable status, state schools should too. The issue is whether schools are charitable institutions. I'd say they aren't.

With all due respect Eloethan, I realise that was the point you were answering, but I was taking you up on your implied assertion that wealthy people are probably tax-dodgers.
It just seemed rather unfair.
I don't know how you can generalise either about the financial status of people who choose to send their children to either state or independent schools.
My children all went to the local state comprehensive, and there were some very wealthy parents there.
Although one local resident was convicted a few years ago of drug trafficking/ money laundering, as far as I know there haven't been any convictions for tax evasion.

janeainsworth The comment was that people who send their children to private schools have paid tax but are not using state education - so it is fair that private schools have charitable status. My main point was should we therefore give private hospitals charitable status? In some of the very expensive private boarding schools, 25%-50% of the pupils are from overseas and I wonder how much tax their parents contribute to this country.

As to the point about some wealthy parents using the state system, I expect some do, but I suspect that the overwhelming majority don't.

Our local grammer school was given charitable status some years ago now. John Redwood's son was there at the time. I could never understand how it could be classed as a charity.

Eloethan you seem to be saying that because some very wealthy people evade paying taxes, independent schools to which some very wealthy people, who may or may not evade taxes, should have their charitable status withdrawn.

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, should state schools to which very wealthy people send their children also have cuts to their funding?

rosequartz, I dont read many comments of newspapers online any more, as they are getting filled with bile.

gracesgran If you use the argument that charitable status for private schools is fair because people have paid tax but are not using the state system, why not give charitable status to private hospitals? Where would it all end if people were given some monetary benefit to compensate them for not using a particular public service? Also, given that the most expensive schools attract the very wealthy who can afford expensive tax lawyers, how do we know they have contributed their fair share of tax?

I don't agree with Labour policy to let these schools retain their charitable status even if they fulfil their obligations to share facilities/teachers, etc. I believe they should lose that benefit and the resulting income be ploughed into the state system.

There are other countries with very successful education systems that do not give special concessions to private schools and have very few of them.

The choice is not to wait to see a GP or go to A&E. The choice is to ring your GP and if nobody is there, you get put through to 111, the system which the Tory party set up to replace NHS Direct. If Hunt cannot do that, then why should he expect the rest of us to do so?

111 is cheaper than NHS Direct was, because it does not use medically qualified people to run it. That's why he did not ring 111, because his children are more important than anyone else's.

State schools would cope with an extra 7 per cent of children going in. They would just do what they always do and increase class sizes.

Gracesgran If all the children who live locally and attend the private school were to try to get into local state schools the system would not cope here. One young child moved from a local state school (for about a year, living abroad) and they could not find a place for him when he returned. Mother decided to home-educate him for nearly a year until they moved away again permanently rather than travel many miles to another town.