Public schools fined for price-fixing

[jbob]

Arse. I can't say for Japan so much, but France is waaaaaaaaaaaaay less hung up on class than Britain. In France you're rich or you aren't, it has nothing to do with class. But in Britain we are obsessed with class. I get called middle class because I speak properly, even though I am not exactly rich.

That's more to do with ignorance than any rigorous class based analysis, though, isn't it? Accent based judgements are just that. Guy Ritchie is part of the aristocracy, for example.

Your conception of France is, frankly, completely wrong. Without going too far into it, what do you imagine, (leaving aside the institutional racism aspect for the moment), the recent civil disturbances were about in the Parisian suburbs and other cities? And I mean in terms of a class based analysis of the problems in French society.

 

[baldrick]

tbh, most parents who send their kids to private schools simply want their kids to speak in a better accent and / or don't want them to mix with 'oiks'. that or they went to private school and just assume it's better.

that's a load of rubbish.

i went to private school along with the sons and daughters of teachers, doctors, all varieties of middle management, checkout assistants and van drivers. not one of them went to private school themselves. yes, it is aspirational and divisive, and i totally agree that in any measure of value added they don't, but it was done with the best of intentions to get their children the kind of education they wanted.

my school may not be typical - i wouldn't know - but i would suggest that you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

 

[jbob]

that's a load of rubbish.

i went to private school along with the sons and daughters of teachers, doctors, all varieties of middle management, checkout assistants and van drivers. not one of them went to private school themselves. yes, it is aspirational and divisive, and i totally agree that in any measure of value added they don't, but it was done with the best of intentions to get their children the kind of education they wanted.

my school may not be typical - i wouldn't know - but i would suggest that you're speaking from a position of ignorance.

Tsk, van drivers and checkout assistants?? Yeah, right, minimun wage really stretches to funding a public school education. Most middle management these days couldn't afford to send their kids to public schools, and certainly not teachers (unless they work at the same school).

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I believe public school pupils represent about 6% of the school population. Overwhelmingly they come, and must come, from the affluent classes.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Tsk, van drivers and checkout assistants?? Yeah, right, minimun wage really stretches to funding a public school education. Most middle management these days couldn't afford to send their kids to public schools, and certainly not teachers (unless they work at the same school).

My child goes to an independent school and I can tell you you are talking balls if you are trying to generalise across every school and every persons different circmstances.
Did you know that these days most special schools for children who arent profoundly handicapped are independent?
In my daughters case the LEA was ordered to send my daughter to her school and to fund it because they werent and could not provide her with an education which met her needs.Other parents havent been so lucky and have to work and work to afford the quite considerable fees. They do so not because they want the children to 'talk posh' but because the state isnt giving their children the same chances children without their problems recieve.
And yes I do know for a FACT that one family have parents who work two jobs each to send their child there and there is no money for anything else but they want their child to do more than be shoved through the education system in special needs classes or struggling in mainstream.

I think if you applied that to alot of people who send their children private that may well be their motivation( discounting special needs for a sec although its revelent)- that the state isnt providing a decent education by catering for every child ( supposedly) in a comprehensive school system.Far from wanting some elite life for their child they regognise that without a financial investment in their childs education their child will leave school without enough qualifications to have choices- even the same choices they enjoyed after a state education
Because like it or not parents feel that the state is letting down generations of childrne unless you can get them into the 'right' state school and if that means working 12 hours a day 7 days a to pay for private rather than send them to the state comp down the road where less than 50% leave with 5 GCSE's then thats what they will do.

 

[baldrick]

Tsk, van drivers and checkout assistants?? Yeah, right, minimun wage really stretches to funding a public school education. Most middle management these days couldn't afford to send their kids to public schools, and certainly not teachers (unless they work at the same school).

if you actually read what i was talking about - private schools, not public schools - then yes, it's entirely possible, as i have demonstrated.

 

[pogofish]

Tsk, van drivers and checkout assistants?? Yeah, right, minimun wage really stretches to funding a public school education. .

The poster is quite right tho.

Some very ordinary families endure considerable hardship to send one or more of their kids to private school. Indeed, this is a traditional Scottish stereotype in many ways - My Grandfather (a joiner) virtually worked himself to death to see that one of his sons got a private education & into Uni (the other became a gardner/construction worker). More recently, my ex-partner came from an schemie/estate family where her parents (manual & council workers) did everything they could to put her brother through private school (same one as my uncle's) whilst she had to go to the local (shithole) comp & left at 16 to low-paid work. Once her brother was through education & earning tho, he did do his utmost to help his sister successfully advance her own education via adult courses & eventually uni (she was the cleverer one & he knew it!).

My own background is that my father came from the Greenock shipyards & got his education via the forces. I would not have got an education at all if the state had their way. Instead I was remaindered to a special school as dyslexic/unteachable at an early age & it was only because my uncle picked-up much of my education himself & successfully challenged the diagnosis, that the council magiked-up a 90-odd% scholarship to a truly unconventional (ie hippy-run) private school, rather than deal with the bigots on their own staff.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Are we really supposed to believe that anything other than a very small proportion of fee-paying pupils are from ordinary backgrounds? If that were so don't you think that loads of people would be doing it?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

This isn't the case in various other countries where the state system is so good that most parents try their best to get their kids into the best state schools in preference to any kind of private schools. Private schools tend to exist for special subjects, pupils who aren't doing very well in the available state schools or for children whose parents are working overseas etc. IIRC this applies to Japan and France for example (which boith have vey good quality state school systems, even if their universities are less good) but there are others as well.

they might try to send them to the best state schools if they can in france, even to the extent of buying properties for pretend address (you have to live relatively local to the school these days), but they are still plenty of kids being sent to catholic schools (and a few moslem ones these days as well) and kids being sent to private schools because they're not doing well enough in ordinary state schools.

 

[baldrick]

i wouldn't know, donna. i'm not holding up the school i went to as being typical in any way.

i was just trying to show that not all pupils from fee-paying schools come from rich families. of course, by being able to afford the fees, they must have a certain level of disposable income, i'm not disputing that, but it perhaps comes at the expense of cars, holidays, expensive school trips etc.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Because like it or not parents feel that the state is letting down generations of childrne unless you can get them into the 'right' state school and if that means working 12 hours a day 7 days a to pay for private rather than send them to the state comp down the road where less than 50% leave with 5 GCSE's then thats what they will do.

Well, not so much "will do" as "do not do, except for a very small proportion of them".

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

In this area( south wales) the majority of children I know who go to fee paying schools do have very ordinary backgrounds and parents having to go to extraordinary lengths to pay for it. Many schools offer monthly payment plans to spread the costs which reflects just how many people arent rolling in it.That shows that people do send their kids and the schools do recognise its often not being paid out of their loose change, large trust funds or anything like it.

But then we arent talking the Etons and Harrows of this world no. Most of the day schools here cost between £6-8K per year which would be achievable for some families, even middle management if they were willing to make huge sacrifices to afford it.I do know somoene who had her child in private school because it didnt cost alot more than his nursery fees had cost (she was paying £550 per month in a payment plan)and both she and her husband were in middle management roles.

Its whats important to you, how available that is etc. Believe me round here there would be few independent schools if they were relying on the moneyed elite to pay for it.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Well, not so much "will do" as "do not do, except for a very small proportion of them".

Of course its WILL do. Because thats what people DO do in order to get their children a decent education if its not available via the state.If people choose not to then thats their choice but for many it is that important that their children are educated to a reasonable standard.Especially when the state has been allowed to for years and they are watching the state not doing it.
You are using your stereotypes to try and argue as if its some sort of undeniable truth and you are wrong.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

i was just trying to show that not all pupils from fee-paying schools come from rich families.

I don't think anybody claims that they "all" do - it's a straw man. What people do claim, quite reasonably, is that a very large majority of them come from families among the upper income levels of society. And as fees have in fact been going up, it's not feasible that this changing in any substantial way.

but it perhaps comes at the expense of cars, holidays, expensive school trips etc.

I can remember George Walden going on about parents having knackered old cars and so on. I very much doubt that this is typical.

Some people do of course have scholarships and some schools (e.g. Christ's Hospital) have a high proportion of scholarships. I have a friend, a butcher's son, who went to Cheltenham College on a scholarship, then went on to Oxford. I very much doubt though that he would consider himself as typical, or suggest that because he did it that either means any family could manage it or that public schools are not dominated by the very well-off

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Of course its WILL do. Because thats what people DO do in order to get their children a decent education if its not available via the state.

Well, apparently no more than 6% of them. You really don't improve a bad argument by repeating it.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

In this area( south wales) the majority of children I know who go to fee paying schools do have very ordinary backgrounds

Notice the problem here: "the majority of children I know". Of course it doesn't remotely follow that a majority of children at these schools are like that. But it's yet another LMHF contribution along the lines of "this is my personal experience so this must be the whole truth".

 

[pogofish]

Are we really supposed to believe that anything other than a very small proportion of fee-paying pupils are from ordinary backgrounds? If that were so don't you think that loads of people would be doing it?

Traditionally, probably yes but I'm not convinced this is entirely the case today. Except at the very top of the pile of course.

The demographics of the new intakes of the main private schools in my old area were interesting - compared to state schools, the private ones had a totally disproportinate intake of children from the recent-immigrant communities. People with some of the lowest-income jobs of all but who were most detetermined to give their kids what they thought to be the best start in life.

I don't think a lot has changed since then.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Not at all donna-Im not citing it as the whole truth, yet in my job I come across an awful lot of kids who go to private schools and who from ordinary backgrounds- Im merely commenting on what appears to be the trend in MY AREA ( and I did give the area) especially given the facilities the schools give to make it possible for the children of the less well off to attend.If there wasnt a need or a demand they wouldnt for instance be offering monthly payment schemes etc

You on the other hand are giving your political stereotype as truth
You havent explained how much the 94% of 'well off people' are earning or where they lie on the income scale yet.
It could well be anywhere and we could be talking about the same people- you havent defined it and yet you speak it as if it is the truth.
I would wager that your survey doesnt even touch upon how many hours nor how many jobs a 'household' would be doing to get the income levels which may or may not be quoted in this report you appear to be citing either. There could be 2 or more adults contributing to the income of any given child and still that child may be in private school but not appear as an 'ordinary' child given how many step families, extended families etc could be funding a childs education

Its all alot more complex than you are attempting to paint it

 

[Donna Ferentes]

of the main private schools in my old area were interesting.

Is there any documentation of said demographics?

compared to state schools, the private ones had a totally disproportinate intake of children from the recent-immigrant communities. People with some of the lowest-income jobs of all but who were most detetermined to give their kids what they thought was the best start in life.

Does it follow that because they were from those communities, they themselves were from low-income housholds? It's not at all unusual, for instance, for public school kids to be from South Asian backgrounds, or for them to be second-generation. But they're from familes that have done well.

 

[pogofish]

Well, apparently no more than 6% of them. You really don't improve a bad argument by repeating it.

The selectivity of private schools will always keep the numbers fairly low.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Are they? could you show us your proof of that please?
They may have a mum working in a call centre or managing a shop who spends all her wages on her childs school place.
Thats my point YOU DONT KNOW what sort of lengths ordinary people go to nor what sacrifices they make to afford private education.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

You on the other hand are giving your political stereotype as truth
You havent explained how much the 94% of 'well off people' are earning or where they lie on the income scale yet.

Because I am using a touch of common sense, which suggests that if something is desirable, and expensive, and yet only a very small proportion of people get it, then it is perhaps probable that most of those are people who can afford it.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

But youve spoken it as truth and attempted to discredit several of us who have argued against you... now you say its probable.. but you havent yet accepted it could also be equally probable that grandparents could be helping out having saved for years or that parents are doing several jobs???

And your 6%... you STILL havent told us what sort of income nor how its earned is used to define that 6%

 

[Donna Ferentes]

The selectivity of private schools will always keep the numbers fairly low.

Well, not really, no: they don't go out of their way to turn people away. They select because they haven't got infinite room, especially if they want to offer small class sizes and heavy access to facilities.

But if more people wanted it at the prices which are on offer, there would be more such schools. And if a large proportion of our 6% were from low-income backgrounds then it would mean a large number of high-income families were unable to get their kids into fee-paying schools. Which isn't true, is it?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And your 6%... you STILL havent told us what sort of income nor how its earned is used to define that 6%

Oh, for pity's sake follow the argument and the bit about using your common sense.

 

[pogofish]

Is there any documentation of said demographics?

Does it follow that because they were from those communities, they themselves were from low-income housholds? It's not at all unusual, for instance, for public school kids to be from South Asian backgrounds, or for them to be second-generation. But they're from familes that have done well.

We used to get figures circulated regularly so someone was keeping track, across both sectors.

Some were from well-off backgrounds certainly (but they may not have been when the child was first enrolled in PS) but plenty were the kids of kitchen, fish & food-packing workers (Primary employers of new immigrants at the time & probably still significant). We used to see them leave the state sector from my group of schools (which covered several thousand kids) for private education all the time. We also often saw them return too & not always in the best of circumstances.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Oh, for pity's sake follow the argument and the bit about using your common sense.

No, you know thats not how it works here Donna.
If you claim something as truth and someone asks you to clarify your argument you do so.You cite more info or you admit you dont know and that person may have a poingt
You dont say Oh you arent using your common sense just because youve cited something to support your argument which is so open to interpretation as to be useless.

You have to admit donna you DONT KNOW what lengths ordinary people may well be going to to pay a childs school fees and your 6% doesnt help you, common sense or not without more info

 

[Donna Ferentes]

No, you know thats not how it works here Donna.
If you claim something as truth and someone asks you to clarify your argument you do so.You cite more info

Really? Well where's your "info" then? So far all it amounts to is "I know a lot of people (DF - how many, we do not know and cannot verify) from ordinary backgrounds who went to public schools". Which isn't even an argument, because it tells us nothing at all, statistically. There are no numbers involved and it approaches the question from the wrong direction. It's like somebody saying "a lot of English people are from Cornwall because I know a lot of Cornish people" when they themselves live in Cornwall.

your 6% doesnt help you, common sense or not without more info

Yes it does, for reasons I have set out but which you cannot be bothered to understand. It does because it is a very small proportion of the population who are, by your own account, securing a very large advantage. By what possible laws of economics would this not go to people who are best placed to afford it? Have wealthy people suddenly stopped buying expensive things suddenly?

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

dear god... you really ARE being extraordinarily thick today
Your 6%coukld be 6% of people entitled to free school emals, your 6% could be people with an income of less than 50K per annum
Without it it iS useless because you havent defined these 'ordinary' people so we have no way of seeing whether what you Are claiming has any validity in terms of how many of that 94% are 'ordinary' or are moneyed etc becaue there are NO TERMS set to quantify it.
Sio while were on the subject of common sense, follow the argument which say show us what your 6% earn and where the threshold is and hell we may even agree.. but without knowing what income level was used to quantify it theres no way to judge whether its valid or not for what you are using it to argue

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It's really hard to follow what you're saying (sentences and paragraphs are useful aids in this regard) but you don't seem to be making any effort to follow the point about the 6%.

It's not "qualified" because it's a proportion of the population (of school age) as a whole.

It has no income statistics attached to it because nobody (yourself included) has produced any.

It is a proportion, however, relating to something that is purchased and which is expensive and which is desirable and important. Hence common sense and economics happily combine to suggest that a good, which is expensive and desirable, and which only a small proportion of people purchase despite it being iportant, will perforce end up in the hands of those most able to pay. It is not a situation to which income is irrelevant: it is not one in which the distribution of this good can be assumed to be random.