Charitable status and private schools

I wasn't saying the state sector doesn't handle sensitive situations day in day out Nannarose, but this would be yet another unprecedented and tricky burden to add to their already stretched workload. Personally I am of the opinion that parental income and hardship should not be discussed in or around school, certainly not at primary level, but from what we read about bullying and tormenting on this thread alone, I feel a close eye would need to be kept on integrating these pupils who have had to leave through no fault of their own.
Drug offences can obviously happen at anytime with a pupil at any school, but leaving due to fee hardship is different. I know that where trips are undertaken in many state schools NOONE is allowed to know which parents are receiving help because they can't afford to pay for these. That's as it should be.

I essence, I fully agree with everything Wwmk2 and MaizieD say about every child deserving the best, both academically and emotionally.

I will just add that my husband was/is a legally trained and qualified teacher, as well as having studied Classics and French at university. As were the rest of the staff at his school. He did the postgraduate teacher training qualification.

Choice is is desirable.

The best education for the country’s children is essential.

And what a huge advantage Starmer enjoyed, going to a Direct Grant School. This was a private school that had a few places reserved for state school pupils who the Local Authority paid for so that they could attend the local private schools. When Direct Grant was done away with, by the Labour government in 1975, it was eventually replaced by the Assisted Places Scheme, introduced under the Thatcher government. The school my husband taught in was Direct Grant initially, then it took around 30 Assisted Place pupils. This scheme was eventually ended under the Blair government and my husband’s school became completely independent, taking many of it’s pupils from abroad, especially China as Joseann mentioned previously. Pupils also came from Russia, Africa, and other places. They also took many day children, including our two boys from age eleven, and our daughter in the sixth form. She attended a different independent school from eleven as at that time, my husband’s school only took girls in the sixth form.

The difference between Direct Grant and Assisted Placed was that in order to qualify for an Assisted Place, a child had to both pass an exam and able to show that the family was low earning. Direct Grant places were awarded on ability alone, so the family did not have to be poor to qualify.

Sadly the school my husband taught in for many years, was forced to close last year as it was no longer financially viable. What a sad day that was, a huge loss to the community as it was known for its wonderful, caring ethos and the solid education it afforded to it’s pupils, including the many it educated for free or a small contribution.

maddyone

I think that whatever type of school children attend, we have to accept that some children are academically gifted and do exceptionally well, other children are bright and do well, others are average ability and do okay, and some unfortunately struggle to learn very much at all, and don’t do well academically. As an ex teacher I know this to be true, which is why most schools, including mine, put the children into sets according to their stage of learning (ability) so that they can receive teaching at the right level to take them forward. It’s not a very acceptable thing to say, possibly particularly on Gransnet, but it is truth. And teachers know it is truth.
However, there are a few schools that refuse to set the children and this disadvantages every child, whether academically gifted, or struggling to learn. It is unfair to the children to do this and benefits absolutely no one.

I absolutely agree - my argument is though that we should be as confident as possible that every child reaches her full potential - at the moment I don’t think that happens.

In fact I would go further and say that those examples we have seen of public school education - particularly lately in the HoC have been educated beyond their abilities.

Callistemon21

Whitewavemark2

Frankly I suspect that given the same benefits a state school education would far exceed a private education.

Well, I'm not sure why you would think that.

Did you miss GG13's post earlier in which she pointed out that private schools are not legally obliged to employ trained teachers?

I'm sure there are some brilliant mavericks around who are able to teach to a great standard without any formal training, but I think it's a bit of a hit or miss issue. Schools fully staffed by trained teachers might well have the edge...

(though, having said that, a few years before I retired, thanks to slashing of school budgets, we suffered the introduction of 'cover supervisors', who could be any sentient body who could stand in front of a class and hand out worksheets. No teaching training required. A desperate money saving exercise and not at all good for a child's education IMO. Do they still exist, I wonder?)

Callistemon21

Whitewavemark2

Frankly I suspect that given the same benefits a state school education would far exceed a private education.

Well, I'm not sure why you would think that.

Because the teaching standards are higher.

Callistemon21

Whitewavemark2

Frankly I suspect that given the same benefits a state school education would far exceed a private education.

Well, I'm not sure why you would think that.

State schools are strapped for cash. If they had the same amount of 'income' per pupil as private schools they could
afford to pay their teachers (and other staff) properly
reduce class sizes a bit
pay for adequate resources
send staff on courses
If state schools weren't restricted by external forces, like private schools, they could improve not just the education pupils receive, but the support - they'd have time to build good relationships.

Joseann

Whilst on the subject, I wonder how much consideration has been given to the social and community impact if pupils have to leave the independent sector. Not just in terms of disruption to the education of those leaving the sector, but these very children would probably find it very hard socially. Surely it would be quite clear to everyone that they were moving school due entirely to their parents having insufficient financial means to continue their education at their private school. I foresee unwanted problems here unless handled sensitively by the state schools who may not have the expertise.

I also think the sheer numbers would bring about tension within communities in relation to school catchment areas and first choices.
I don't see how can a new government will be able to predict which areas will be swamped, and how it will rectify this with more classrooms and more teachers overnight?

I'm certainly not gloating here, it is too important an issue for that, but I think that ironically, the policy might initially do more harm than good to schools in the state system who would need to accommodate this scenario sprung on them.

Joseann, there is of course, a point about children having to be accommodated in the state sector. This may be more gradual than immediately obvious.
I'm not sure why you think State Schools wouldn't have the expertise to handle sensitive situations? They handle very sensitive situations all the time, including children who come in from the private sector beacuse their parents can no longer afford the fees, or they have been expelled.
Twice, because of sports connections, my children were asked to help befriend and settle in children who had 'left' their private schools. Of course we knew they had been expelled for drug offences.

Callistemon21

Whitewavemark2

Grantanow

It's time for Starmer to remedy Labour's mistake under Attlee and abolish the public/private schools.

Starmer won’t do that, and I don’t think it is necessary.

However, what I would like him to concentrate on is having the best education possible for our children, who should be seen as a country’s asset, where education brings innovative, creative and cultured individuals who would have so much to contribute to society and the economy.

Yes.
Common sense.

And in decent buildings fit for purpose.

Yes, Wwmk2 is talking a lot of common sense.

Instead of arguing about private v. state education and the perceived 'costs' of imposing VAT on private schools, and the possible movement of children from private to state schools, why aren't we calling for greater state investment in state schools to create a more equal playing field for all children?

I know I sound like a stuck record, but more investment in state education (as in more investment in any state enterprise) would not only make it possible to improve the quality of state education and to devote more time and resources to those 'hard to reach' children, and those who really need specialist education, but it would boost the economy as all state procurement is from private enterprises. The extra tax revenues generated by the increased economic activity caused by this state investment would go far to counteract the cost of the initial investment.

Like Wwmk2 I think that a well funded and improved state education service would do away with some of the private sector as parents wouldn't feel obliged to turn to it for a better education than they can find in the state sector.

I think we have to think beyond just children's education and consider their life chances. A decent education can be the foundation of a productive and satisfying life. I f people didn't believe that why should they be prepared to pay for a 'better' education for their children?

I think that whatever type of school children attend, we have to accept that some children are academically gifted and do exceptionally well, other children are bright and do well, others are average ability and do okay, and some unfortunately struggle to learn very much at all, and don’t do well academically. As an ex teacher I know this to be true, which is why most schools, including mine, put the children into sets according to their stage of learning (ability) so that they can receive teaching at the right level to take them forward. It’s not a very acceptable thing to say, possibly particularly on Gransnet, but it is truth. And teachers know it is truth.
However, there are a few schools that refuse to set the children and this disadvantages every child, whether academically gifted, or struggling to learn. It is unfair to the children to do this and benefits absolutely no one.

DaisyAnneReturns

Surely that should read, " It's my opinion it's time for Starmer to remedy Labour's mistake under Attlee and abolish the public/private schools.", Grantanow. You are not, as I'm sure you are aware, in the majority.

According to a recent YouGov poll, carried out this September, 40% opposed a ban on private schools, 27% don't know and 27% support it. It seems that more people want a mixed economy and choice than to live in a state run country. You don't seem to understand the very politics you insist on (a red flag in itself) are the ones likely to put more people off your party than make it appealing.

You don't seem to understand the very politics you insist on (a red flag in itself) are the ones likely to put more people off your party than make it appealing

Yes, and that is what Starmer understands better than Corbyn did.
Some might argue that Starmer is biased because he went to a school which became private whilst he was a pupil there, although in fact he went through as a non-fee paying grammar school pupil.

Whitewavemark2

Frankly I suspect that given the same benefits a state school education would far exceed a private education.

Well, I'm not sure why you would think that.

Bluebelle, why on earth do you think that that the private sector has the best teachers ? That is a mis conception of the highest order and quite insulting.
I have know brilliant teachers who would never consider working in the private sector.

Whilst on the subject, I wonder how much consideration has been given to the social and community impact if pupils have to leave the independent sector. Not just in terms of disruption to the education of those leaving the sector, but these very children would probably find it very hard socially. Surely it would be quite clear to everyone that they were moving school due entirely to their parents having insufficient financial means to continue their education at their private school. I foresee unwanted problems here unless handled sensitively by the state schools who may not have the expertise.

I also think the sheer numbers would bring about tension within communities in relation to school catchment areas and first choices.
I don't see how can a new government will be able to predict which areas will be swamped, and how it will rectify this with more classrooms and more teachers overnight?

I'm certainly not gloating here, it is too important an issue for that, but I think that ironically, the policy might initially do more harm than good to schools in the state system who would need to accommodate this scenario sprung on them.

maddyone

Whitewavemark2

The huge problem that state schools have to deal with is deprivation which begins at birth. It is a massive uphill climb which is why the Sure Start programme was so imaginative and effective - it gives those deprived children a leg up before they start school, so that when they enter main stream, teachers can concentrate for more on “normal” teaching and not so much on remedial stuff.

Deprivation is a factor in some state schools, but let’s not run away with the idea that all schools are struggling with deprivation. Most are not! There are some state schools that are so good that they outstrip many independent schools with their results and they are highly sought after by parents. The majority of state schools do appear to fall into the ‘good enough’ description but are not outstanding. Then there are the ones that take their children from areas of deprivation. I worked in one such school for some 17 years, although during my career, I also worked in other schools that were not in deprived areas.

No of course not, I live in the south east and schools like the ones my grandchildren attended are anything but deprived!

But there is no denying that the only educational establishments who take these deprived children as a matter of course are state schools, and it these that will benefit from things like a strong sure start support and proper funding.

Whitewavemark2

The huge problem that state schools have to deal with is deprivation which begins at birth. It is a massive uphill climb which is why the Sure Start programme was so imaginative and effective - it gives those deprived children a leg up before they start school, so that when they enter main stream, teachers can concentrate for more on “normal” teaching and not so much on remedial stuff.

Deprivation is a factor in some state schools, but let’s not run away with the idea that all schools are struggling with deprivation. Most are not! There are some state schools that are so good that they outstrip many independent schools with their results and they are highly sought after by parents. The majority of state schools do appear to fall into the ‘good enough’ description but are not outstanding. Then there are the ones that take their children from areas of deprivation. I worked in one such school for some 17 years, although during my career, I also worked in other schools that were not in deprived areas.

Katie59

“I believe that the numbers are dropping in state schools so absorption would not be an issue.

Frankly it won’t happen in any case.

And the fact is private education is not saving the state £7500 per child per year.”

That’s just your opinion, you have an idealogical bias, I dont believe it’s an election issue.

If parents want to spend 3 times the cost because they think private is better, that’s their choice.

Um - no read the IFS report, my comments are drawn from there.

I’m not against choice - absolutely not, but i am For the best state education that can be given to the country’s children.

“I believe that the numbers are dropping in state schools so absorption would not be an issue.

Frankly it won’t happen in any case.

And the fact is private education is not saving the state £7500 per child per year.”

That’s just your opinion, you have an idealogical bias, I dont believe it’s an election issue.

If parents want to spend 3 times the cost because they think private is better, that’s their choice.

Surely that should read, " It's my opinion it's time for Starmer to remedy Labour's mistake under Attlee and abolish the public/private schools.", Grantanow. You are not, as I'm sure you are aware, in the majority.

According to a recent YouGov poll, carried out this September, 40% opposed a ban on private schools, 27% don't know and 27% support it. It seems that more people want a mixed economy and choice than to live in a state run country. You don't seem to understand the very politics you insist on (a red flag in itself) are the ones likely to put more people off your party than make it appealing.

Katie59

The IFS calculate that adding VAT onto school fees and removing the tax breaks would be a net gain of £1.6 Billion (even taking into about the cost of having to absorb some children into the state system)

If say half of the private children went to state schools instead the capacity would have to rise by 3.5%, at todays costs thats over £4Bn it’s a no win situation.
The fact is that private parents are saving the state £7500 per child per year.

There are no votes on the issue either because anyone who feels strongly is going to vote Labour anyway

I believe that the numbers are dropping in state schools so absorption would not be an issue.

Frankly it won’t happen in any case.

And the fact is private education is not saving the state £7500 per child per year.

They were effective but the 'hard to reach' families tended to avoid them, there was some work going on near the end at targeting those particular families, I feel that would be a useful piece of work if ever we get a labour government.

The huge problem that state schools have to deal with is deprivation which begins at birth. It is a massive uphill climb which is why the Sure Start programme was so imaginative and effective - it gives those deprived children a leg up before they start school, so that when they enter main stream, teachers can concentrate for more on “normal” teaching and not so much on remedial stuff.

Frankly I suspect that given the same benefits a state school education would far exceed a private education.

Whitewavemark2

Grantanow

It's time for Starmer to remedy Labour's mistake under Attlee and abolish the public/private schools.

Starmer won’t do that, and I don’t think it is necessary.

However, what I would like him to concentrate on is having the best education possible for our children, who should be seen as a country’s asset, where education brings innovative, creative and cultured individuals who would have so much to contribute to society and the economy.

Yes.
Common sense.

And in decent buildings fit for purpose.