Private Schools. What should be done ?

[Combustible]

There really is no justification for x public school kids getting subsidised H/E either.

How would this work. Could parents just shove their child in a comprehensive for their final year and get the subsidies. Or would one year in private education mean they would have to pay the full amount in the future, whether or not they could afford it at the time.

 

[tbaldwin]

How would this work. Could parents just shove their child in a comprehensive for their final year and get the subsidies. Or would one year in private education mean they would have to pay the full amount in the future, whether or not they could afford it at the time.

Youve got me there. Erm well id say that anyone who has had more than 5 years of private education should have to pay the full amount.
Maybe people could get a small% back if they spent less than that and could prove need.
But maybe anyone who goes to Independent schools for even a year should have to pay the full amount.
Would certainly be a deterrent for some people considering private education for their kids.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Anyway, if you nerfed all the independent schools.. If you don't nerf those places...

Nerf? Is this one of those special U75 words?

 

[UnderOpenSky]

My sister is at private school on a full scholorship and she is making the most of it, tiny class sizes, debate is encouraged and teachers who seem very good at inspiring pupils. I'd love to sit in her General Studies class, her teacher sounds great at challenging the attituted that many of the rich kids percive the world around them. At £9000 a year its not cheap and that is a small one, not one of the flash ones. In fact in terms of pure facilites the inderpendent state school I went to was much better (Thatchers legercy). However looking round the car park when I've dropped her at school, alongside the Range Rovers and Jags are some pretty beat up cars, there are obviouly some parents who feel it is very important and will make sacrifices.

I voted for more funding for state schools. I think centralisation is a terrible idea, we need more small schools which will suit different pupils with different needs, with more options for those who are not traditonally academic.

 

[the B]

Nerf? Is this one of those special U75 words?

Nah, it's a corruption of a special Star Wars word.

Princess Leia: Why, you stuck up, half-witted, scruffy-looking nerf-herder.
Han Solo: Who's scruffy-looking?

tbaldwin, parents of kids who go to independent schools pay their taxes and then pay additional tuition fees without using the taxes that would otherwise go to the state education, thus subsidising.

I don't disagree that the charitable status of independent schools is alarming to say the least... I remember looking at bit when I saw that the school I went to made a £14 million profit one year.

(and then was quite amused years later to hear they lost a load of money on bad investments in the stock market which has led a DTi investigation into price fixing, which covers quite a few independent schools)

But if you binned the charitable status, I feel it would just make the generally pretty decent facilities, education and environment of those independent schools even more exclusive and preserve of the rich.


People will pay through the roof to get the best education possible for their kids.

 

[JHE]

However looking round the car park when I've dropped her at school, alongside the Range Rovers and Jags are some pretty beat up cars, there are obviouly some parents who feel it is very important and will make sacrifices.

Teachers' cars.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

No, other parents, I see them dropping the kids off. My mum talks to the world, so has a good idea about what many people do as of course does my sister.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Youve got me there. Erm well id say that anyone who has had more than 5 years of private education should have to pay the full amount.
Maybe people could get a small% back if they spent less than that and could prove need.
But maybe anyone who goes to Independent schools for even a year should have to pay the full amount.
Would certainly be a deterrent for some people considering private education for their kids.

You completely overlook that private schools are the only one which specialise in some types of teaching for special needs children
My daughter has severe dyslexia and dyspraxia.
She is so low in a 'good' primary that she attempted to harm herself aged 10
1 year on and the state want her to attend a mainatream senior school and struggle on, with 1 hour of specialist teaching per week and no other help.
This is a child who is bullied constantly for being different and who cannot remember how to get from a-B eacily, cant remember which lesson she is supposed to be in ( cant follow a timetable) and who cannot remember what the last thing you said to her was, never mind remember the items she needs for a lesson( all of which she will be punnished for under the discipline code at her proposed new school)

. She also cannot read from a whiteboard ( blackboards went out years ago- she can read those- just) and she does not have good enough spelling, auditory memory nor handwriting speed to be able to take down dictated notes- still common in schools at secondary level.

Yet shes of above average IQ and the only school which can meet her needs in the independent sector becuase state schools cannot and will not specialise to meet the needs of special children

Your arguments for state education are laughable when state education will not meet the needs of special needs children adequately at present and parents have to fight via tribunals to get their children an adequate education. The same is true for children with a borard range of special needs. There are autistic children forced into mainstream seniors across the country becuase of pilicies which promote 'inclusion' but which really mean forcing children into an educational setting they cannot achieve in.

Yet both severely dyslxic and most autistc children can only have their needs met in the private sector at senior level yet can do very well at university becuase neither means they are naturally without intelligence. Just the state sector doesnt allow them to achieve- only to exist and do whatever along side everyone else whatever they achieve- however little is seen as wonderful-She may be denied funding by a tribunal becuase she is 'making progress, from a reading age of 7 at age 10 to a reading age of 8 2 years later, thats 'progress' and sufficient for them to leave her floundering in a state sector which doesnt cater for her becuase there is some progress no matter how poor??? (thats a very bad thing IMO) and if she makes no progress funding for an independent school might be open to her?? pure crazy. A little progress shouldnt be seen as sucess in the state sector, she isnt actually expected to achieve but this is a child who was a year ahead in maths and science in infants school and headed for being 2 years ahead, she was like a little sponge. Under the state system her falling behind to such aan extent shes now 5 years behind her chronological age is a sucess? You can keep it as far as Im concerned where thats seen as achievement, You are either deluded or in denial if you agree.


Ive been told if I send my child to the proosed school I will be lucky if she leaves with a reading age of 11- so basically functionally illiterateThats if shes even alive and not in a mental health ward or young offenders institution by 16 ( and no Im not being melodromatic, thats whats likely to happen if she isnt sufficently stimulated and supported), but if I manage to get her into an independent school via tribunal or if I could afford to pay I should then have her denied a subsidised HE?? dont make me laugh
If my daughter manages to get GCSE's it will be a miracle, if she gets to HE she deserves every bloody help she can
she'll only get that help from an independent boarding school 150 miles from home

makes you think about your non arguments then doesnt it?

so what should be done about independent education? Nothing IMO, fund any child who needs something more than a one size fits all, mass production line education

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Sorry to hear about you daughter, I was very lucky that I had a good English teacher who noticed a massive differenace between my reading age and written age (apparently the two are normally related) and suggested my parents took me for tests. I was lucky that my parents could afford a couple of hours extra tution a week, which in just a few years made a massive difference to how well I was doing. If you can not get your daughter in could this be worth considering?

Funnily enough I find I learn a lot better at Uni, when I can get the notes before hand of the virtual campus and spend my time paying attention, rather then just making notes like I did at school. Find I understand a whole lot more

 

[Giles]

Or subsidised H/E for x public school kids?

Eh? How is Higher Education "subsidised" for former pupils of private schools?

Surely everyone pays the same for University in terms of tuition fees etc, regardless of what school they previously attended?

I don't understand this reference.

Giles..

 

[tbaldwin]

Eh? How is Higher Education "subsidised" for former pupils of private schools?

Surely everyone pays the same for University in terms of tuition fees etc, regardless of what school they previously attended?

I don't understand this reference.

Giles..

All H/E is subsidised. You didnt seriously imagine tuition fees cover the whole cost did you.
Why should the H/E of people rich enough to be able to afford private education be paid for by people who were less fortunate?

 

[tbaldwin]

All H/E is subsidised. You didnt seriously imagine tuition fees cover the whole cost did you.
Why should the H/E of people rich enough to be able to afford private education be paid for by people who were less fortunate?

Lilmisshissy fit
There are state schools that specialise for autism etc.
The state sector for kids with special needs is hit and miss and probably thats the case for private education too.
Still not an arguement for private education.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

All H/E is subsidised. You didnt seriously imagine tuition fees cover the whole cost did you.
Why should the H/E of people rich enough to be able to afford private education be paid for by people who were less fortunate?

Well you have to pay the full fees if you parents earn more, although you could argue that they should contribute more. However if it would be unfair to base this on where you went to school, it would be more sensible to base it on parents income at the point of time they were going to university, if you want to make the rich pay more.

However chances are they will be subsidsing the people who pay less anyhow as if they can afford to pay min £9000 a year per child for all those years they will have paid a lot of tax at 40%

I think it should all be covered by taxation anyhow, with no fees, and less emphises on sending everyone to university and more on skills and vocational courses.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Lilmisshissy fit
There are state schools that specialise for autism etc.
The state sector for kids with special needs is hit and miss and probably thats the case for private education too.
Still not an arguement for private education.

No because if you have the money private education gives you the choice, its the not the lottery of the state sector. That's not to say there are not very good state schools that deal with special needs, but if you have more money, you have more chance of getting your child into a school which can deal with their needs.

 

[Combustible]

Well you have to pay the full fees if you parents earn more,

Even the £3000 a year fees which is the maximum you pay if you are a UK student (no matter your parents earnings) is not the full fees. That is still subsidised by your LEA (I think). The reason international students pay more than the £3000 a year is they have no such subsidies. I think tbaldwin is suggesting privately educated students should basically be paying the same as international students and receive no LEA support. For example Cambridge charge up to 20 grand a year for some courses.

 

[Giles]

All H/E is subsidised. You didnt seriously imagine tuition fees cover the whole cost did you.
Why should the H/E of people rich enough to be able to afford private education be paid for by people who were less fortunate?

I know that H.E. is subsidised - it's payed for by taxpayers ultimately.

If you believe that people earning over a certain amount should not get the cost of H.E. subsidised in the same way that everyone else does, then that kind of makes sense, even though I don't agree with you.

But why should a person's decision to pay for their kid's education be the deciding factor in the cost to them of state-sector H.E? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Consider:

Person A earns, say, £100,000 a year, and sends their kid to a state school.

Person B, earns the same, and pays for their kid to go to a private school.

Why should they be treated any differently in the cost of University?

Anyway, higher earners have paid far more tax into the "pot" than the average, so they of all people shouldn't then be charged even more than the "going rate" for H.E. They've paid for it.

Giles..

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I always prefer the term "gets paid".

 

[UnderOpenSky]

That is quite selective quoting. What I acctually said was

Well you have to pay the full fees if you parents earn more, although you could argue that they should contribute more.

So I know they do not pay the full amount. However I also know plenty of students who had to pay their own fees, so I don't think the current system is fair in anyhow.

 

[tbaldwin]

Anyway, higher earners have paid far more tax into the "pot" than the average, so they of all people shouldn't then be charged even more than the "going rate" for H.E. They've paid for it.

Giles..

Giles, are you in the Young Conservatives?

 

[Giles]

Giles, are you in the Young Conservatives?

No. Why?

Giles..

 

[tbaldwin]

No. Why?

Giles..

Its the argeument basically theyve earnt it and should keep as much of it as possible. I just thought seeing as you came out with a Tory arguement like that you might be a member.

I suppose it is an arguement thats quite popular with lots of people. But its one that i have always been against.
I think that people who can afford to pay more should pay more and believe in higher tax rates for higher earners etc.
I guess though some people will be in favour of so called flat rate taxation and argue that under that, people who earn more will still pay more etc...

 

[UnderOpenSky]

No, it was the point was they have paid more in taxes, so if anything it is them subserdising other people. Now on many points I agree that those who afford it should pay more.

However by the time that someone reaches university they are 18. Of course many will get help from their parents, but from what I have seen, how well of students are does not depend on how much their parents earn, but how willing they are to support them. I've been lucky as I left it a few years so am an inderpendent student, but like I said I know many who have to find the money for the tution fees themselves as well as rent etc....

Education should be free to everybody

 

[tbaldwin]

Education should be free to everybody

Why should H/E be free for people who went to fee paying schools?
Its a ridiculous thing to give subsidised H/E to people who dont need it.
This money could be much better spent elsewhere, Higher Education is a privellege not a right.

 

[trashpony]

Why should H/E be free for people who went to fee paying schools?
Its a ridiculous thing to give subsidised H/E to people who dont need it.
This money could be much better spent elsewhere, Higher Education is a privellege not a right.

It isn't free - it's subsidised. There's a massive difference. And what it would mean is that children who'd gone to private school (something which they may not have had much choice over) probably won't go to university - because they're going to be stuck with £40k debt at the end of it.

Oh actually - you'd probably think that's a good thing. Serves them right eh?

 

[tbaldwin]

It isn't free - it's subsidised. There's a massive difference. And what it would mean is that children who'd gone to private school (something which they may not have had much choice over) probably won't go to university - because they're going to be stuck with £40k debt at the end of it.

Oh actually - you'd probably think that's a good thing. Serves them right eh?

If they had debts of £40,000 on their investment, why should i worry.
Graduates on average are going to earn far more than non graduates.
I certainly would be more worried about young people with no degrees who go thru the state system.
In terms of mortgage debts £40,000 is hardly anything anyway and like i say its an investment.
H/E is a privellege.

 

[trashpony]

I knew it was a pointless mistake to engage with you. And I was right. When will I learn to go with my instincts?

 

[the B]

H/E is a privellege.

That benefits you, whether you take it or not.

Or you're some kind of primmy.

 

[Giles]

Its the argeument basically theyve earnt it and should keep as much of it as possible. I just thought seeing as you came out with a Tory arguement like that you might be a member.

I suppose it is an arguement thats quite popular with lots of people. But its one that i have always been against.
I think that people who can afford to pay more should pay more and believe in higher tax rates for higher earners etc.
I guess though some people will be in favour of so called flat rate taxation and argue that under that, people who earn more will still pay more etc...

Look, everyone pays their taxes, in amounts and at rates that correspond to what their income is.

In return for that, they get certain services from the state: free schooling for their kids up to 18, subsidised H.E., free medical care etc, bins emptied, roads maintained, etc etc.

Everyone is entitled to these things, because everyone who earns above a very low level contributes to their cost.

No-one argues that people earning a good salary shouldn't get free NHS services, or that they should have to pay to send their kids to state schools, or should have to pay more for bin emptying, road use, etc, do they?

So why this suggestion that H.E. should suddenly cost more above a certain parental income level? Or because of where someone went to school before arriving at University?

People's contributions to the social "pot" are determined by the general taxation system. Different people may have different views on what the tax rates ought to be, and that's fair enough.

But I think that this grumbling that people shouldn't get the same services as everyone else when they have paid their share for them is wrong.

Giles..

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Look, everyone pays their taxes, in amounts and at rates that correspond to what their income is.

In return for that, they get certain services from the state: free schooling for their kids up to 18, subsidised H.E., free medical care etc, bins emptied, roads maintained, etc etc.

Well, not quite, Giles. People individually pay taxes and part of what they get back is individual access to services; but the more important role of taxes is to enable society to run smoothly and humanely. It's important to realise that essentially when paying taxes we are paying toewards a common pool of money, not making an individual exchange.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

But I think that this grumbling that people shouldn't get the same services as everyone else when they have paid their share for them is wrong.

Curious how those who insist on inequality suddenly turn into egalitarians when it comes to taxes.