Private school fees (merged)

Mado

katherinedrex wrote: »

Discodee wrote: »

What on earth are you doing on a money saving forum with all your dosh??
And for goodness sakes girl, when you've read this, go and eat some cream cakes!!!


I have to say Discodee this is a bit of a childish remark and the aim of everyone getting together on these forums is to help one another achieve what we all want, to be debt free and continue to prosper financially. There is not a members rule that says you are out of the club once you get solvent and prosper.

*I think it was a joke based on posh spice's user name...*

devils_advocate

cells wrote: »

a charity gets tax back. so if you give them £8 the gov will give them £2.

in the case of a private school, if you give them £8k for the year the gov gives them £2k.


i wouldnt class them as a charity becuase the workers are well paid and the overall school aims for a profit afaik.

This is completely untrue, as has been pointed out by others. A private school cannot reclaim income tax paid by a parent on the fees, or any other income it has. Being weel paid is a relative judgement, and I'm sure some would argue that the chief executive of Oxfam is well paid in relation to the national average wage, but equally others may argue that he or she is badly paid in relation to what they could earn elsewhere. The private schools I know of pay their teachers on the national salary scales applicable to teachers in state schools, so there's no benefit there for the staff.

And as for the school aiming for a profit, what for? As a school which is a charity doesn't have shareholders, there's no-one for the school to pay dividends to. What's the point on it accumulating profits, if it can't do anything with these?

You raise an interesting point about the state sector, Lunar Eclipse. What would happen if you stopped paying those 'voluntary donations' which you are asked to make? If they are really compulsory, I suspect that the person who is making the tax reclaim could end up personally liable for repayment of the tax if HMRC investigated. I do hope that they've taken advice on their situation.

So my question remains - whay are private schools not charities, and how does the taxpayer subsidise them?

little_lily

As I said, total rubbish cos most of em in DDs school (and this is in the top schools in the country!!!) are well below average

As a privately educated toff myself, I may well have been too busy bullying/cramming/playing bridge/eating wood pigeon (please select private school stereotype of your choice) to take full advantage of my educational opportunities and apologies if I am being a bit slow here - but how can 'one of the top schools in the country' achieve that status if most of its pupils are 'well below average'??!! :rotfl:

Please let's be rational! It is human nature to want the best for our children. - whatever we perceive that best to be. Each system has its drawbacks - the state system is by nature more inclusive, both academically and socially, but the private system almost universally offers better academic results (see league tables), smaller class sizes (see OFSTED reports), improved discipline (because it can, without recourse, exclude disruptive pupils) and greater extra-curricular opportunities (this week, my children will both play in sports matches on Wednesday afternoon, both play chess (nerdy, I know) and both swim - ALL during school hours. After school, son will do drums and golf and daughter will do drama, trampolining, Russian and piano)

Both of my children are educated privately, one at a prep school and one at a senior, single sex boarding school. No, I never considered the state sector. That may well make me a snob, a social climber, a pushy parent, a morally bankrupt human being or all of the above but for me, the advantages offered by the private sector outweigh the advantages of the state sector.

And, one final point - I am a stay at home mum (sadly, don't fit the previous poster's stereotype of a workaholic, too-busy-earning-the-school-fees-to-see-the-children parent!) as are the majority of my friends at the school gates.

I make this post not (as I am sure I will be accused) to be self-congratulatory but to give a different perspective on a system that, whether we like it or not, exists. I don't enjoy paying twice for my children's education but whilst I can afford to do it, I shall because I believe it offers different opportunities for my children.

Doom_and_Gloom

The problem in some state schools that mean low grade averages is how they refuse to push on in the syllabise for each grade in certain subjects until the majority of the class has understood where they should just give extra homework to those that need it. I and some of my friends who worked at a faster pace than the majority of the class and could quickly grasp the concept of most of the lessons and would be very bored in these conditions. A lot of the time the teacher would pass us a book and let us read ahead so we could go through the syllabise at our own pace. This meant that is maths especially one of my friends and I would be finished with the syllabise half way to three quarters through the year. The rest of the class would never finish it!

When I went into the private sector for my GCSE year I had classes that got through the syllabise at a good pace that was neither too fast or too slow. Yes the size of the classes help in these instances I understand. However a gifted child that didn’t manage to get into grammar school it seems to me that private is the only answer. Why make it so a person can not reach their full potential by getting rid of the grammar school?. Surely this is why the amount of parents sending their children to private schools have risen so dramatically since this change in some places. A state school may let some children achieve their best I am not disputing this. However other children may benefit from the private sectors atmosphere of teaching more.

Tim_L

Choosing schools for your children is a highly emotive issue, and a lot of this I think is down to the dire quality of most state schools now.

It is simply impossible for most people to consider private schools as an option. This has two effects. Firstly there is massive competition for any half way decent school in the state sector, where any possible advantage over other parents is sought and gained, and secondly there is a feeling that better off "toff" parents are buying their way out of the whole sordid process and gaining an advantage, which creates resentment and jealousy.

I don't think there is any process outside possibly divorce that seems so deliberately designed to create resentment and setting people against each other.

I myself had a private primary education, and a state secondary education (Grammar School - this was a broad intake and very mixed intake from all classes, the traditional Grammar school ethos, about half the pupils went into apprenticeships rather than taking the academic route). This left me with the very clear view that the social mixing of the state system was extremely beneficial, and my principles are very much that the state system should be supported.

And yet I send my children to private school. The reason is that we looked at the options for state schooling, and they are horrific. I have two extremely bright children (in fact one has a scholarship to his current school), but even in primary school there was simply no attempt to allow them to excel. In fact since most of the efforts were to bring other children up to minimum standards they were essentially left to their own devices. Other children who weren't as able had more encouragement and praise, and the result was confusion, coasting and damaged self esteem.

Things are much better in the private school. It isn't just the class sizes though that helps, the teachers are less constrained by targets and far more inclined to praise ability in addition to effort and improvement.

If you look ahead into state secondary schools, you see vast organisations attempting to deal with a very broad intake and with little willingness to confront problems of discipline. If you ever raise a problem with a state school - bullying or whatever - you will find their first instinct is to close ranks. Probably they are afraid of legal action. And in schools where the majority of children are below the notional line for achievement, it's a simple fact that anyone excelling academically risks quite a lot of bullying.

If state schools could be improved then there would be no need for private schools. But this looks impossibly difficult now, for lots of reasons. Firstly the competition for places is so intense that schools are becoming rapidly polarised into "good" and "sink". It's very difficult to improve a sink school because it's impossibly difficult to persuade middle-class parents to send children there. Most "poor" schools could be improved quite rapidly with an influx of brightish children from supportive environments, but to do this would require everyone to jump at once, and they won't. This means that the bright children from the sink school catchment areas with parents who can't do anything to get their children into the "good" schools get isolated, which is a complete waste.

I want to be quite clear that I'm not suggesting that middle class children are "better" or "brighter" - that would be ridiculous - just that this demographic is traditionally more likely to be supportive of schools in general, is more vocal and will demand higher standards. You need a critical mass of demanding customers to improve standards for everyone.

But where this leaves private schools is that if you can even vaguely afford them, you can sidestep the whole mess. And certainly parents can't be blamed for doing this.

I think you have to ask people objecting to private education whether they would turn down a scholarship for their child to go to a public school? Or whether if they happened by luck to find themselves with a house in the catchment area for a "good" state or grammar school whether they would sell up and put themselves into the mixer for the state allocation system?

The problem isn't private schools, or rich parents buying advantages. The problem is that the state system is crap. Point your anger at that, because it is a problem that can be fixed if anyone has the will to take on the problems, and demand things are changed. And do it even if your children are young or still to be born, because believe me childhood goes past very quickly, and when they are 8 or 9 and you look at what is on offer you will lose any principles you have very fast.

Mado

little_lily wrote: »

Both of my children are educated privately, one at a prep school and one at a senior, single sex boarding school. No, I never considered the state sector. That may well make me a snob, a social climber, a pushy parent, a morally bankrupt human being or all of the above but for me, the advantages offered by the private sector outweigh the advantages of the state sector.

And, one final point - I am a stay at home mum (sadly, don't fit the previous poster's stereotype of a workaholic, too-busy-earning-the-school-fees-to-see-the-children parent!) as are the majority of my friends at the school gates.

I make this post not (as I am sure I will be accused) to be self-congratulatory but to give a different perspective on a system that, whether we like it or not, exists. I don't enjoy paying twice for my children's education but whilst I can afford to do it, I shall because I believe it offers different opportunities for my children.

little_lily wrote: »

I live in a village about 10 miles north of Newark, we have excellent primary and secondary schools .

Yes I guess the 2 statement next to one another make you a snob.:p
I think most would be delighted for you.
Nothing like being a lady who lunches!:D
But even you can probably admit that it is altogether a different scenario to be sending your children to private and boarding school when you can afford it compared to stretching yourself to make ends meet whilst on benefits

aliasojo

Tim_L wrote: »

The problem isn't private schools, or rich parents buying advantages. The problem is that the state system is crap.

Well said.

Personally I think it will always be crap to a certain degree purely because it has to cater for such a wide range of ability and standard therefore it cant possibly be all things to all people. I think this is where it fails children. A private school by definition will cut the range drastically and so will only have to cater for similar abilities and standards.

I have had children at both ends of the scale...disabled/learning difficulties and bright. It took years of fighting the LEA to get the best for the disabled one and the bright one very quickly lost his motivation and eagerness to learn as the attention was more focused on those who were less academically inclined and he drifted from then on in.

I would without doubt have privately educated my lot if it had been at all possible.

Mado

Tim_L wrote: »

The problem isn't private schools, or rich parents buying advantages. The problem is that the state system is crap.

Well, I disagree.
Point me to a time in history where more children were educated, and all was well...
The problem is that a lot of parents have given up educating their children and rely on the State (which they are always quick to criticize for everything) to do the job for them.

aliasojo

Mado wrote: »

Well, I disagree.
Point me to a time in history where more children were educated, and all was well...
The problem is that a lot of parents have given up educating their children and rely on the State (which they are always quick to criticize for everything) to do the job for them.

I'm not sure I agree that 'all was well'.

Do agree with your second point though, which is why state schools are having to try to be all things....and they just cant.

Tim_L

State schools can certainly do a better job. Apart from the issues around parental "choice" and what that leads to as I discussed before, there are internal and external problems that need to be solved.

Externally the problems come from the Government using education as a political football, and the fact that it is an ideological battleground for various groups on the right and the left. This creates a climate of constant change and a feeling that practices are being externally imposed by faceless people for dubious reasons which is demoralising in any organisation. Good teachers and staff will eventually be worn down by this and stop caring.

And internally there are problems too. As I said, the culture in many schools is one of not confronting problems for fear of legal action or missing some target. One of the biggest fears parents of able children have is that their children will be bullied or introduced to some sort of gang culture in a school, but these problems simply aren't addressed. In fact many things happening just outside the school gates are ignored. There has certainly always been bullying, and in many ways there is more of a focus now on educating this out of children than there was 20 or 30 years ago. But there is also far less a school can and will do about nascent problems because their powers to discipline children are limited.

The old Grammar school system did work very well. It was broad based in terms of intake and provided a good form of streaming. There was a focus on vocational (apprenticeship based) as well as academic achievement within the schools, and it really was very broad based, at least it was where I was. Of course the problem was that it explicitly created a two tier system with admittance based on performance in a couple of exams, but was that really worse than an implicit two tier system determined by class and mobility, which is really what the state system has become now? There is no perfect system really, but the current system hasn't many obvious advantages.