Private school fees (merged)

bestpud

devils_advocate wrote: »

So now we see where you’re really coming from, Bestpud. You say that it’s far fairer that education should be linked with ability to pay. So anyone who can pay for it has no choice but to pay for it! There I am, paying tax at the same rates as you, whilst you expect me to pay for the education of my own kids, and contribute through my tax bill for the education of yours as well!

I actually disagree with the idea altogether but my point about fairness is that a voucher system will only enable some families to choose private education, and it will be the very same families who choose this anyway.

So of course these parents are going to try to get their kids in to the better state schools. They’re going to pay for the educational consultants to give them reasons to put on application forms, when they live in the wrong catchment area. And they’re going to get the kids privately tutored to get them through any grammar school exams. So this one size fits all system which you advocate is actually going to disadvantage the working class children, whose parents don’t know how to manipulate the system. These poorer kids are being excluded from the better schools, because the middle class parents can’t afford to pay the full fees for private schooling.

I do not advocate a one size fits all education system. Please read my post. I have clearly stated I have no issue with private education. I do however, disagree with the state funding it.

For the very same reason, I would disagree with the NHS giving a voucher towards private healthcare for those who prefer it.

What our taxes are spent on and therefore how much we are 'entitled to' take back is a moot point isn't it? You will see the same said on the benefits board where people feel the should be entitled to non-existant benefits because they have paid into the system for years.

A voucher system levels the playing field for all. As has already been pointed out, we already have vouchers for nursery education. I can’t recall having seen any press comment that this is limited in its benefits to those higher up the socio economic ladder! In fact, it enables a better choice for all parents. Because the majority or all the cost of nursery education is covered by the voucher, if they are unhappy with the nursery itself, they can move their child. As nurseries have to compete for parents, they’re encouraged to do well for the kids and satisfy the parents, as if too many parents leave, there’s no money to stay in business, or they’re closed by the LEA because of small pupil numbers.

Is that perhaps because nursey fees are cheaper and the voucher actually covers the cost of some daycare? Thus this is an advantage for poorer families as they can choose daycare which suits their budget.

I can't imagine education vouchers would anywhere near cover the cost of a private education so they would be essentually useless to low income families. The best benefit imo would be felt by those just below the level at which they could afford private fees. But there would also be the level above that, who choose private education and can afford to pay, but don't want to pay.

Let's not forget of course that pre school childcare helps the govt by getting mothers back into work and paying taxes. It isn't done out of the goodness of their hearts!


Finally, bestpud, I don’t think that it’s cheeky for the state to fund where I send my children to be educated. I’m not looking for any special privileges for my kids, that the kids next door can’t get. That would be discrimination, and abhorrent. What is bad is where my kids are treated differently by the state. The feelings of elitism (and the rest!) against private schools are actually cultivated by the government’s refusal to have a level playing field.

It would be a special privilege because you would be getting extra money in your pocket. You don't need it for fees as you already pay and get by, so the govt would be giving you extra money because you choose to send your children to a private school. If you want to remove discrimination, then the vouchers would need to be related to ability to pay, so your 'next door neighbour' could also send their child to a private school if they so wished, even if they were on a low income. That would be perfectly fair education system.

I am not saying that is what I want, or that it would be feasible - but it would be the only way to have a fair system. I repeat - I do not have a problem with private education and do not think every family should be given enough money to send their child to a private school. I just think it is wrong for the state to subsidise the choice made by those with the ability to pay.

I also can't see how elitism would be reduced by giving money to those who can afford it already! Surley it is more elitist to subsidise a better education for those who can afford it anyway?

p.s. If you think that my arguments in favour of vouchers are too far to the right to be palatable, can I suggest you read the attached on “Bloggers4Labour”
http://www.bloggers4labour.org/2007/05/education-vouchers.jsp

I'm not so gullible as to think new labour represent the people at the bottom.


Essentially though (imo at least - you may think otherwise), our disagreement lies in the way we view the allocation of state welfare and whether people should be able to reclaim taxes if we don't use certain services. And I fear we aren't going to solve that one in a hurry!

anonymousie

THis has got a bit O/T and I adress my reply to the OP!

Your son is only 4. He has been asessed as able but not gifted- the prep are happy to have him (cynic me..) because he will do average to well at school and not present any difficulties to teach- yes some preps take SN kids but they generally charge more to give more individual attention, what they don't want is a "suprise" SN child that isn't budgetted for. Small classes or not, they are running a tight ship financially.

By all means ask about means tested bursaries etc, but few are available at age 4- schools have them to attract bright kids who would not otherwise attend- so more when kids have a more accurately asessable academic stage IYSWIM.

At 4 TBH I wouldn't think of private school if you will be pushed to afford it- it is the very cheap end of the spectrum. Minimal uniform/kit/trips/music lessons etc to fork out for on top. Fees rise through prep school and a big rise into senior school.

Where i live we have 11+ and astrategy adopted by some parents is prep from nursery to 11 then 11+ and if they don't get a grammar place then then plan to slot them into a state secondary. In theory this is great- the preps are good "exam factories" and their exam bias fits well with 11+. As my kids are 14/12/8 and move in "circles" dominated by prep kids (through their music) i can see this works well for a few kids. BUT even in the group my kids "move " in (generally academically v able kids as it is demanding++) there are some that have failed the 11+ and parents have payed beyond 11, getting themselves into debt to do so. There is 1 lad who has sucessfully transfered to state school, but found it hard (and still does, the hobby they share isn't "cool").

We took the opposite educational strategy- state to 11, 11+ and then pay if needs be. So far it has payed off- the elder 2 are very happy and thriving at the grammars, they also have social skills that their prep peers don't seem to have, and a less "elitist" attitude to life- though I hope that is just a "biased view" built on a very small sample of kids!

So look at your state choices and start him there, save like the blazes (you could pretend you have fees to pay and put away that amount each month- will show you how it "feels" finacially and also build up a pot for the future). IMHO changing state- prep at primary age would be easy- few, even the good ones, are full (though they will be more "picky" at age 10 or so where he may imact on their statistics..)

bestpud

anonymousie wrote: »

THis has got a bit O/T and I adress my reply to the OP!

We took the opposite educational strategy- state to 11, 11+ and then pay if needs be. So far it has payed off- the elder 2 are very happy and thriving at the grammars, they also have social skills that their prep peers don't seem to have, and a less "elitist" attitude to life- though I hope that is just a "biased view" built on a very small sample of kids!

So look at your state choices and start him there, save like the blazes (you could pretend you have fees to pay and put away that amount each month- will show you how it "feels" finacially and also build up a pot for the future). IMHO changing state- prep at primary age would be easy- few, even the good ones, are full (though they will be more "picky" at age 10 or so where he may imact on their statistics..)

Good point. I know a few who have done this and it has worked well for them too.

In this area at least, there are some very good primaries which have small class sizes too. If he is already bright, he should still meet the academic requirements for a private school later on and meanwhile you can save up.

Voyager2002

Why do so many posters here seem to believe that fee-paying schools are better than publicly-funded ones? It ain't necessarily so: a friend of mine used to teach at a fee-paying school, and found life impossible because he was not allowed to apply effective discipline. All the pupils, even the disruptive ones, were regarded as valuable customers, and of course the customer is always right. Letting parents know about their offsprings' misbehaviour meant that there was a risk of said parents getting offended, and taking their money elsewhere. And so the school lost a highly-qualified Maths teacher.

And I can't help comparing that with my own school days: I went to an inner-city comprehensive where I was taught Maths (by a Cambridge MA) in a class of just three. No wonder that I went on to my first-choice university (and eventually to an MSc and PhD).

Basically, going to private school is membership of an exclusive club for the well off. If you can't afford the fees, you don't really belong in it.

bestpud

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Why do so many posters here seem to believe that fee-paying schools are better than publicly-funded ones? It ain't necessarily so: a friend of mine used to teach at a fee-paying school, and found life impossible because he was not allowed to apply effective discipline. All the pupils, even the disruptive ones, were regarded as valuable customers, and of course the customer is always right. Letting parents know about their offsprings' misbehaviour meant that there was a risk of said parents getting offended, and taking their money elsewhere. And so the school lost a highly-qualified Maths teacher.

And I can't help comparing that with my own school days: I went to an inner-city comprehensive where I was taught Maths (by a Cambridge MA) in a class of just three. No wonder that I went on to my first-choice university (and eventually to an MSc and PhD).

Basically, going to private school is membership of an exclusive club for the well off. If you can't afford the fees, you don't really belong in it.

I think your point has been made on this thread a couple of times, and to the best of my memory, nobody has disagreed.

It's mostly about buying into that club imo! That is certainly the reason two families I know have scraped the fees together because either of them could have accessed very good secondary schools and more than likely achieved the same academic results!

devils_advocate

Why do so many people have chips on their shoulders about private schooling? Our whole education system is has lots of divisions and fault lines, but lots of people seem to think that the only division that exists is between state and private. What about church schools? How difficult is it to get your kid into them if they’re not baptised CofE or Catholic?

What’s the difference between selling your jewellery to get the kids into private school, and selling your soul to get them into the local Catholic school?

I’m surprised, Voyager, about your Maths teaching friend’s ex employers. Depending on how long ago it was, I suspect that the school is either out of business or heading that way. I would have thought that the opposite applies, and that the school would not wish to upset the majority of parents who would not want their kids education disrupted. My own view is that if another kid was persistently disrupting lessons, and nothing was being done about it, I would be speaking to teachers and ultimately to the Head. If their education was being seriously disrupted I would not hesitate in looking around for a different school, and one of the advantages of more sports in the private sector, I would also be speaking to other dads on the touchline at matches.


And your anecdote about being taught maths in a class of three, Voyager, does concern me. I’m assuming that the teacher was a good teacher, so is it an effective use of their abilities to teach only three students in a class? I would have to question what the school was doing to ensure that more pupils learned maths from such a well qualified and good teacher

I do agree with you Voyager that because a school charges fees, that doesn’t mean that its better than one that doesn’t. However, I do have to take issue with your statement that “going to private school is membership of an exclusive club for the well off”. Posters on here have already mentioned the sacrifices they make to be able afford to send their kids to private schools; I believe that they are far more representative of the private school parent than the ‘ladies who lunch’ or dads who are ‘someone in the City’. I’ve certainly met more who holiday in UK than holiday in the Maldives.

Bestpud, I’m sorry I can’t give the time tonight to respond to your last post to mine. But if I can say quickly, please don’t confuse the nursery voucher system with childcare! And similarly, an education voucher is just that. It can’t be converted into cash, or groceries at the local Tesco. A voucher system would not make me better off, as I would try to cut down to 40 hours per week, and thus have more time to respond to posts such a yours!

HappySad

I can see the voucher system for schools being like the nureseries as a better system as the good schools would get the funding + pupils and thew basd schools would eventually close. Also those parents who are very proactive in choosing a school would get 1st choice & those who want to leave their applcation to the last minute will get a choice of the schools that are left. This is what happens with the nursery & I got voucher funding for my priv
ate nursery & I just had to pay the difference in cost.

bestpud

devils_advocate wrote: »

Bestpud, I’m sorry I can’t give the time tonight to respond to your last post to mine. But if I can say quickly, please don’t confuse the nursery voucher system with childcare! And similarly, an education voucher is just that. It can’t be converted into cash, or groceries at the local Tesco. A voucher system would not make me better off, as I would try to cut down to 40 hours per week, and thus have more time to respond to posts such a yours!

Lol, no need to reply at all.

We have a difference of opinion - simple as! Defending your corner is optional.

You could of course choose state education and cut your hours now.

halia

I'd love to see a voucher system - I'd like to see anything which made our taxation system more transparent and offering more choice to consumers.
How about this:
50% of our tax bill goes into 'unmarked funds' for government to use on variuos projects as they see fit. (with the existing system of checks and balances) and to pay for a basic level of operating costs for all public sector services.
(although ideally i'd like to see a 4 yr budet of what this was being spent on)
the other 50% is returned to each person in the form of vouchers for services.

That 50% gives you basic entitlement to services, so you get your normal hospital waiting times, your local school catchement etc etc.

You can choose (to an extent) which vouchers you want, so an elderley person in ill health might request additional health vouchers which can be exchanged for services at ANY hospital that chooses to take them - just like the nursery ones do.
A family might choose more childcare or schooling vouchers, again these can be used to widen your choice of school.

Or you can opt out of the vouchers entirely and just pay your tax as previuosly for which you get a 5% discount (because you've made life a little easier for the government)

State education would still be funded but people would have more choice about which school they wanted.
Same amount of taxes would be paid.

problems?
less money might go to state institutions if everyone choose to use their vouchers for private healthcare or education.
well maybe, but then all institutions would have a motivation for doing what they could to attract people. And I would bet that many private hospitals and schools would still require additional cash funding.

Is this the state subsidising the private sector via the vouchers? no more than the private sector subsidises the state by the fact that 50% of your tax bill would still go towards state institutions even if you and every member of your family for 4 generations had been privatly educated.

HappySad

Vouchers exist for nurseries & in my area the state nurseries are completely full. You doi not have to pay extra for state nursery. With the private nursery you have to pay extra on top or the voucher.