h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Following on from the thread about the poor little Public School boy from Winchester College who didn't get to Oxbridge, I believe that places like Winchester are an affront to a civilised society in that they perpetuate privilege.

They all have "Charitable Status", though I'm not absolutely sure what that means. Presumably though they enjoy some sort of tax benefits. The first thing I would do is to scrap that and to tax those who can still afford to pay the kind of fees those places would have to charge. Some form of super VAT on private school fees should do the trick (200% high enough?)

That should effectively put them out of business and level the educational playing field!

Thoughts?

Just a couple of thoughts...

I don't think public schools are an affront, people should be able to pay to have their kids educated in those establishments if they want to - it is their money after all. What I think *is* an affront is the standard of education supplied in some (definitely not all, or even most) state schools, and if all state schools provided a better quality of education then everyone is happy - the rich can boast that they pay 10k a year (or whatever) for little Tarquin to go to Snob's Academy if they want but everyone else can get the education that this country deserves. I suspect that even if every state school was as good as the one I was lucky enough to go to, there would still be a market for public schools.

I like your idea of removing their charitable status tax break though, but not charging quite so much in VAT .

__

Don't forget that those who opt for private education are still apying taxes to fund state schools.

There is a big problem with the way state schools are funded, that is, related to the number of pupils they have. In simple terms this means that a class of 25 children has less funds than a class of 30, despite the fact that the expenses are largely the same for each class.

I was lucky enough to go to an independent, fee-paying school, because frankly the local comprehensive was terrible.

I resent any suggestion that this in anyway sets me apart from my peer group except to say that I did receive an academic education, whereas most of my early childhood friends received 5 years exposure to indifferent teachers in abysmal conditions. The only ones from my peer group who did well, were the ones with sufficient drive and commitment to achieve, in spite of the conditions they faced.

It should come as no surprise that a privately funded educational establish actually achieves its goal of ensuring that its pupils obtain the maximum possible benefit. There is a strong link between the level of fees charged and both the pass rate and the passes per pupil. There is also a strong link between the historical background and the fees but that is an entirely different issue.

However it should also come as no surprise that properly paid and motivated teachers, who are themselves amongst the very best in country, with adequate materials and facilities will produce well educated students.

Why is there always a reaction from someone which basically goes along the lines of "I didn't get that level of education, its so unfair. Let's stop anyone from becoming well educated." Or alternativly "I did get that level of education, its so unfair. Let's stop anyone from becoming well educated."

What is wrong is that the state system has effectively been tossed from pillar to post, underfunded and over stretched, ever since the abolition of the grammar/secondary modern approach.

People are different. Some maybe more academically gifted than others, who are probably equally well gifted but in fields such as sports or crafts. The comprehensive system was not designed with this in mind and generations have paid the price for a misguided attempt to provide equal opportunity for all.

The opportunity provided may be equal, but it no where near as good as it should be.

Attacking independent education, either politically or financially will NOT improve the general level of education. It will only worsen still further.

I would like my children to have good educational opportunities and I would rather they received it through a working state system, however if I can only provide that opportunity to them privately I will certainly consider it.

yes. good answer madent. its a serivice, that you pay for.

charitable status is held by the older public schools because they have irreplaceable and expensive-to-maintain buildings. it surprised me to hear that my school has such a status, but if it didnt, it would go under for sure.

Why does having buildings that are valuable to the nation mean that a school should get charitable status, entitling them to tax breaks? Why couldn't contributions for maintenance of listed buildings, and the charges for work on those buildings be handled separately, or be entitled to specific tax breaks without the whole of school finances getting the breaks?

PS the fact that parents have shelled out a lot of money to send their kids to fee-paying schools may mean that they take a much more active interest in their child's education. There were studies in the press not too long that showed that top-performing kids tended to have interested parents that took a part in their kid's education.

"What is wrong is that the state system has effectively been tossed from pillar to post, underfunded and over stretched, ever since the abolition of the grammar/secondary modern approach."

The grammar/secondary modern sytem *is* and affront. Children are told at the age of 11/12 that they are failures (based on 2/3 hours of their life during the exam) and from there on in, if they can maintain any interest in academic life, are provided with the worst quality education imaginable.

What's wrong with charitable status?

There seems to be some underlying misunderstanding here. Independent fee-paying schools are not profit making enterprises. There are no shareholders and no dividends. They are not the same as not-for-profit organisations which DO pay corporation tax when they make money. Instead AFAIK all of a schools income is used either to maintain the school, pay the staff or to fund the education of exceptionally bright children from less well off back grounds.

Charitable status merely acknowledges this. Yes it also provides an opportunity to obtain some tax benefits, but so what. These don't amount to very much and have a negligible impact on the fees charged.

"Children are told at the age of 11/12 that they are failures (based on 2/3 hours of their life during the exam) and from there on in, if they can maintain any interest in academic life, are provided with the worst quality education imaginable."

Neither of us actually old enough to know enough about the real differences between grammar and secondary modern.

However having discussed this many times before with people who are old enough, I believe you have been misled.

A grammar school education was not solely intended to turn out prospective undergraduates, however it was certainly more academically rigorous than the present comprehensive system.

A secondary modern education was not a scrap heap. There were opportunities for those with the ability, drive and commitment to excel academically and to continue their education to university.

The essential difference between the two was that while a grammar school was by its very nature more academically rigorous, the secondary modern was much more practical. Opportunities to study non-academic subjects were provided, so students obtained vocational qualifications in useful fields like metal working, mechanics and typing, instead of potentially wasting their energies and becoming resentful about trying to learn the names of the kings and queens of England or Latin.

Actually, failing your 11 plus was not the end. You could take your 13 plus. That's what my mother did- failed the 11 plus, then passed her 13 plus and transfered to the local grammar.

Actually Madent, I went through the grammar school system that still persists in Bucks so I know exactly what I am talking about from first hand experience.

The secondary moderns offer very poor education from demoralised teachers with the least funding and worst materials. Children as young as 12 are indeed cast as failures and it taints their whole lives. I would also like to point out that having your future career (not bright eh? You'll have to do metalwork) decided for you at the age of 11 is grossly unfair. Not all kids mature at the same rate for a start, and if you haven't been that interested in school up to 11 who is to say that you will never develop an interest? Well if you live in Bucks you may never get the chance because as an academic failure it is unlikely that anyone will ever try and engage you ever again.

And that stuff about them getting a more practical education is frankly sh*t.

Oh and there was no second chance 13+ in Bucks.

All I can say Kelli is that you have witnessed a travesty of an educational system that owes more of its condition to the p*ss poor performance of successive governments than it does to its original intent.

You must be aware that all schools in Bucks will teach English, Mathematics and probably a modern language (French?). The difference between the two types of schools lies elsewhere in their curriculum.

You can't have a school that provides lessons in all subjects to all pupils at all levels with equal oppotunity. That is the premise of the comprehensive system and it DOESN'T work.

The grammar/secondary modern system is SUPPOSED to provide similar access to the core subjects (maths, english, french, perhaps physics). Within each school there will be a certain amount of streaming by ability to ensure that broadly speaking groups obtain a level of academic instruction in those core subjects that matches up to their abilities.

A proper grammar school will supplement these core subjects with a wide variety of academic subjects (history, geograph, economics, chemistry, latin, german, etc). A proper secondary modern will supplement these core subjects with a wider variety of vocational subjects (metal work, typing, cooking, etc). However both will still provide some limited access to subjects for which they don't have the expertise or facilities.

If the Bucks LEA doesn't know how to distribute its funding properly and provide ALL schools with the resources they require on a fair basis then there will inevitably be a sense of elitism about the system. This was not and should not be aim of a grammar/secondary modern educational system. The aim is to provide appropriate access to education that broadly meets the abilities of the pupils.

If there were no 13+ exam, then that again demonstrates that Bucks haven't the faintest idea of how the system should work. There should be plenty of opportunities for pupils to gain access to an education that suits them!

Wow, you people are getting awfully worked up about something as trivial as which school/college/university to go to.

It's just to stack up points to use later on in life. And then you die anyway.

I went to a fee-paying independent school, and I hated it, but there is no doubt that the education they offered was not only excellent but very academic so not much practical use.

However, why should I be criticised (or my parents) when I mention this? My father was in the army and made a difficult decision after I took the 11 plus to go on his posting to Germany, leaving my mother, me and my brother, in the UK for one year so that could at least get my first year in grammar school.

Then we went to Wales, and he knew (Unusually for that time... around 1976) that we'd be there for only 18-24 months, then back to Germany. so, rather than disrupt my education they sent me to boarding school. And since there are very very few (I actually don't know of any) my family, in essence, split up when I was 12. My brother wasn't so lucky, in that the shcool he went to was fee-paying but not good at motivating the kids.

this doesn't make me or my parents elitist or anything, it was a massively difficult decision (especially for my mother, my father was off playing soldiers for 6 months a year) and they did what they thought was the best for all of us. But they never had proper holidays, didn't get to change their car as often as they probably wanted, and missed out on a lot of us growing up.

And, btw, I know a fair few people who went to secondary modern and did very well, even though they weren't allowed to take O-levels and had to take CSEs instead.

One of the main problems is that yes, the same curriculum is supposed to be taught in every school, but in the schools for the 'failures' the kids are assumed (wrongly) to be not too bright. They are never stretched, so never get to discover their potential. I don't know the proportions but I'd guess that far fewer pupils are put forward for the higher level GCSE papers (I think you can sit one that has a top possible mark of C or one that has a top possible mark of A*) in the secondary moderns.

Why is it fair that a child, at age 12, should have it decided for them that they are 'practical' rather than 'academic' when they may just be a late bloomer. The schools in Bucks have been doing things this was for a very long time - I don't think I can blame Thatcher for this one (well, I can but not entirely ).

Another problem with this system is that the best teachers are not attracted to the SMod schools full of demoralised kids who think of themselves as failures when the alternative is a school full shiny eager smart kids.

I just went to look at the BBC news report of the schools in the area where I grew up. This year, failing the 12+ would give you the choice of going to either the school ranked 2704 of 3571, or the one ranked 2872 of 3571.

Passing would have got you into the school ranked 285 (for girls) or 166 (for boys). As you can see, that exam can make a huge difference to your life. If you are unfortunate enough fail your 12+ and to have parents that don't earn megabucks then you are pretty much screwed at this point.

You know there are state funded boarding schools where you only have to pay for the board and not the tuition?...I've got a link somewhere

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1946627.stm

OK, I've been educated by the state and at a fee paying school. The charitable status that fee paying schools have is not only because of old buildings of historical interest, but also because they offer scholarships and part-scholarship placements.

In my experience, the educational opportunities offered in the private sector are worth paying for. State schools sadly cannot acheive the same results as they are underfunded and the calibre of student is not cherry picked in the same way. Children in private education tend to be more motivated, perhaps by their parents who want to see a return for their money? Also, class sizes are smaller in the private sector and teachers have time to really help their pupils learn and understand (and there are enough text books to go around!).

Sadly, in many state funded schools, particularly in the inner cities, there is a culture of indifference to education from the pupils and their families, the teachers are disillusioned and leaving their profession in droves.

How about this for an idea? All fee paying schools are oversubscribed with parents desperate to give the best start for their children. Maybe if tax incentives were used to start more fee-paying schools, making more places available, they could in turn offer more scholarships... maybe 50% fee paying, 50% scholarship? Gifted, but less cash rich children would have more opportunities in the private sector and the purely state funded schools now having to service far fewer pupils, could use their budgets to improve standards, reduce class sizes and enable their pupils to have a better chance of academic success.

Just a thought

The sad fact is that both LEAs and schools vary tremendously.

In the area where I grew up, there were some excellent seconday modern schools in which the brighter pupils at the top did better than they might have done at the lower end of a grammar school. I went to a grammar school which when I was in the second year was lumped together with the local secondary modern to be a new 'comprehensive'. This, as happened to many other schools, was disastrous, by the time we all 'mixed' in the fourth year, we ranged from high flying O-level candidates to those barely literate. The school had a long haul to create a new identity, staff to adapt to the type of puils they had to teach and change the subjects offered.

Large purpose built comprehensives where it is possible to offer a wide range of subjects (both academic and more practical) and set/stream pupils in different subjects according to their abilities would probably be a reasonable compromise.
But it just hasn't happened like that, we've ended up with schools inadequately resourced, with classes containing too wide an ability range for all pupils to be taught according to their needs and pressure to do well in league tables which do not provide the whole picture of how a school is performing.

I fully intended to send my children to state schools, but ended up sending them to independent secondary schools because sadly I came to the conclusion that the local state schools were unable to serve them well enough. I believed in giving my children the best education I could & I deplore the fact that not all children receive this. Yes, I was fortunate enough to be able to afford to do so AND they passed the entrance exam & interview.

Doing away with private schools would not make state schools any better, this has to be tackled from a different direction.

It's not just in Bucks that the grammar/secondary modern system operated as Kelli described. The *intention* was as Madent described - actually the original plan was for a tertiary system - grammar schools for the academicaly inclined, technical schools for the, well, technically inclined, and secondary moderns for everybody else. All this was to be decided by examination at 11, with a chance to move between schools later.

This simply did not happen in most places. Firstly the 11 plus examination was a rather blunt instrument. Many authorities did not provide technical schools. For all that secondary moderns were not supposed to be seen as inferior to grammars (a point that Chris Woodhead was, in my view, somewhat disingenuously trying to argue on TV last night - I'm sure he knows his history of ed. at least as well as me, who is he trying to kid?) they WERE seen as inferior, by parents, by teachers, and by children.

Most teachers wanted to teach in grammars, where they would have kids whose parents were more likely to be supportive, where they would have kids who, at that stage at least, showed more academic promise. Grammar schools therefore had the pick of the best teachers and the 'best' (in their terms) children. It's not surprising, therefore, that many secondary moderns became 'sink' schools - they never achieved the parity of esteem that had been explicitly intended for them.

The comprehensive system was intended to address these perceived, and im many cases very real, inequalities of opportunity. However the fact that private schools continued to operate in parallel, and more damagingly, semi-independent grammar schools - direct grant schools which were fee-paying but took a proportion of local authority funded children and received a grant from the authority (these no longer exist in that form) meant that comprehensive schools suffered in comparison in the same way that secondary moderns had in comparison to grammars.

I have always felt that a properly funded and administered comprehensive school system operating without competition from the private sector would have been a success. The parents, the children and the teachers who are lost to the state system because they are in private education are often precisely the people whose inclusion within the state system would help it to improve. I don't pretend to have any answers - we are where we are, but I do believe that the existence of private education is a major factor in driving down standards in the state system.

For the record I attended a direct grant grammar school founded in the 16th century. My family could not have afforded to pay for me, but I got a free place by virtue of my performance in the entrance exam. I received a first class academic education which I never really took advantage of, I attended a red-brick university and got a degree which I don't use. I am not sure I merited the privilege that I was afforded. I'm very happy in my job, but I didn't need my O Levels, A Levels or degree to get it.