If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Very good point. Why should my parents who spent a fuck of a lot of money on my education and my brother's and who have never taken money from the state schools have to pay for some toerag's in Southampton?
I know it's the same argument as saying that why should people who don't smoke have to pay for treatment of smokers on the NHS but you can't deny that parents like mine help out the school sector a hell of a lot by not choosing to use it but still contributing towards it.
Several problems with that, though.
Religious schools aren't entirely funded by the state- for Catholic schools, some 20% of the budget comes from the diocese.
Religious schools do let people from other religions in, but they give priority to members of the diocese that pays 20% of the budget.
Religious schools also don't bar entrance by budget- poor people and rich people alike are allowed to join.
Apart from that, its a shit point.
They do have bursaries.
But how many, compared to the number of applicants.
You will also find that 100% bursaries are very few and far between.
And even if you do get 100% bursaries, you find that these schools don't offer support for uniforms, and price people out of the school through the use of exclusive uniform suppliers.
They are denying entrance to anyone who can't pay.
In addition they are denying poor people access to the best teaching staff and facilities.
And I'm sure the vast taxable benefits they receive- including rebates on NI contributions- don't help at all.
Not especially, I got excellent A'Levels and into an excellent university from a very poor inner-city comp. I wouldn't swap that for playing with the toffs down the hill.
It is when their actions directly deny other people access to top quality teaching staff and resources.
As for "free society", a choice based entirely on your means to pay is no choice at all. I am not free if I am denied access to human rights like education because I cannot afford to pay for it.
Wow, a whole two kids! Out of the whole of Southampton!
Feel the generosity people.
They are when they are charitable trusts, and enjoy the vast tax benefits and rebates that come from that status.
If they want to keep their private status, they can start getting treated like private companies. Lets start with commercial rates on their land, and no tax rebates on their profits (yes, Dis, they do make a profit, otherwise why on earth would the cash reserves of the top private schools increase year on year?).
If they, on the other hand, want to keep their charitable status, they can start acting like charities.
It's good to see that the stereotypes about the arrogant fucks who run private schools is completely unfair, isn't it?
And on another note- why the fuck should I pay income tax to support the private schools who evade tens of millions of pounds in tax every year? Why should I pay through the nose just so some toff can run around playing rugby and having anal sex with young boys?
What a stupid point.
Using that argument I'm an even bigger benefactor for state education- I don't withdraw ANY education services, yet pay for it through the nose.
And my taxes go to replace the tens of millions of pounds a year the "elite" public schools rob from Customs and Revenue.
It's good to see that the stereotypes about the stupid twats who have no idea about private schools is completely unfair, isn't it?
Again, I can only speak for my former school here but...
Charitable status has always been a bit of a sticking point for independent schools I will grant you that. Do they do enough to deserve their status? I also am not entirely sure but calling everyone toffs and implying we all sodimise young boys is just retarded and just fuels fucking idiotic out-dated stereotypes. I really wouldn't expect it from someone as seemingly intelligent as you Kermit. And for the record, my school didn't play rugby.
According to the bursary report a few years ago, my old school spends a very fair whack of its income (something in the region of 5 million a year) on its various 'sister' schools - state schools in the local area it supports with whatnot. I don't exactly know but that's where a lot of the money goes.
Also a lot of the money goes to the pupils in the way that almost 50% of the school is on some kind of financial aid with fees. Because my old school prides itself on being a base for academia and learning rather than getting in because your Dad has a title, people were there for brains and not money - hence the phenomenal discounts some people were given so they could fulfill their full academic potential who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford it. Music scholarships were also very generously awarded with the parents' ability to pay fully taken into account. Perhaps two people is the extent of the musical talent from Southampton. Have you ever been?
As I stipulated earlier, I can only speak for my old school here and I'm sure it's very different to say, Harrow, Eton, Stowe etc. etc. in the way that it runs things but my school was very transparent in the way that it did things. Whether it deserves charitable status or not is dubious and one thing that I'm not sure on myself but please don't go tarring us all with the same brush. Some are more charitable than others.
The idea of non-smokers paying through the nose for the treatment of smokers on the NHS did give me a good early morning chuckle, though :thumb:
Have I understoof Kermit correctly, that just because not everyone can be given a place at a school with fantastic facilities that no one should?
Private schools do not take the top facilities and teachers away from state schools. The facilities are there because people pay for them, the teachers are there because they want to be, because they get more respect off the students and less hassle and grief from ridiculous government schemes systems and requirements which mean they spend excessive amounts of time doing paperwork rather than teaching.
I know several teachers who will teach in the private system or not at all because of the way they are treated in the state system.
And I must agree with Thunderstruck about the anal rape of young boys point. That is grossly offensive and simply snobbery of the most despicable kind.
Hmm yeah, except it wasn't really a point in itself.
Just picking up on the weak, basically incomparable and very random point made about smokers/non-smokers and the costs of the NHS in a debate on private schooling :chin:
But smokers do tend to bring out that classic argument, which I don't buy.
Sort of true but not quite. Few kids at London Oratory, a Catholic school are from poor backgrounds. Admittedly wealth isn't a direct issue. But London Oratory like the other top religious schools 'interviews' applicants - which generally excludes the less eloquent and less academic candidates.
No, it's not. Perhaps it's different up north but the decent religious schools here are always oversubscribed - and since priority is given to Catholics in the case of a Catholic school for example if you're not Catholic you're not going to get in unless you're incredibly lucky. Similar thing with the top Jewish school some friends attend, always oversubscribed so if you're not Jewish you won't get in - admittedly few non-Jews are going to want to go to a Jewish school as few non-Muslims would go to a Muslim school but the point still stands. And in the case of the Jewish school even though it's not Orthodox it automatically gives priority to people recognised as Jewish by the Chief Rabbi - which pisses off Jews who belong to Liberal and Reform Synagogues. (For instance, the Chief Rabbi only recognises somebody as Jewish if their mother is Jewish so if a kid has a Jewish father but their mother isn't Jewish they wouldn't get in. Even if the mother converted to Judaism, if she did so with a Liberal or Reform synagogue the Chief Rabbi would not recognise her or her children as Jewish).
Do you think private schools have some magical unlimited supply of money? :rolleyes: Private schools educate people independently of the state - since they don't receive state funding they unsurprisingly charge. At the same time they do have some bursaries.
And those facilities wouldn't be decent if they didn't charge...:rolleyes: Private schools don't have any obligation to anybody except their students and the parents that fund them. Nobody has a right to a free education from a private school. People have a right to a free education from the state, the focus should be on improving state education. And plenty of teachers in state schools would rightly take offence to your claim that private schools have the 'best teaching staff.' That's a ridiculous generalisation.
Good for you. But private schools are not to blame for the inadequacies of our struggling schools.
Oxford deny people access to 'top quality teaching staff and resources' if they're not clever enough. You said earlier you opposed admission on academic merit? Should Durham abolish admission requirements? Our unis have some bursaries but many able international students who can't afford international fees are denied access to 'top quality teaching staff and resources' because they can't afford the costs...Should that stop? Thing is which you seem unable to understand - private schools fund themselves through the fees paid by parents, they're not in a position to offer a 'free' education to everybody - and that's not their role. Isn't the state supposed to do that? Your problem seems to be that private schools are simply better - rather than punishing them for being better I think state schools should be improved...
Nobody is denied an education, state schools provide an education for everybody. If people want to educate themselves independently of the state well as it stands the state isn't going to encourage them so isn't going to subsidise it. And if parents choose to send their kid to a private school and reject an education provided by the state they pay...
You're talking of minimal amounts. And private schools by taking people out of state education decrease the burden on the state and give state schools more resources for those that attend. Nice to see vulgar stereotypes aren't beyond you. (It's already been mentioned but perhaps you should try and learn the difference between public schools and other privatte schools).
Thank you. Anything to say for yourself Kermit?
London Oratory is in the City of Westminster- hardly known for its sink estates- and besides which, it is effectively a grammar school.
I am equally against state grammar schools, so your point is hardly valid.
Oh, and apropos of nothing, I went to a catholic school. Don't try and tell me what my school's selection policy was...
As a charitable trust they have obligations to the state that give them the perks and benefits of that status.
If they want to be a private corporation they can pay the taxes that come with that.
The people who pay the most (generally) get the most able staff.
Do you dispute that?
And if you do dispute that, why do private schools perform better?
I am not against division according to academic merit, and I wouldn't even be against state grammar schools if it wasn't proven time and time and time again that in grammar school cities the comprehensive school is way below the national average in terms of funding and quality of teaching staff.
What I am against is division according to means to pay. I am against giving people unfair advantages simply because they can pay for them. Even more importantly, I am against denying the best services to people simply because they cannot pay for them.
I believe that meritocracy is what democracy is based on, not the freedom for rich people to choose to shit on the rest of society. Schooling based on the ability to pay is not democratic and is not meritocratic.
I am not advocating "punishing" the private schools, but I believe that the reason the state system is failing in many areas is because of the existence of the private system. If all the people with money and power send their kids into the private system then the state system will inevitably suffer because, well, why would they give a fuck? Necessity is the mother of invention, after all.
Kentish and Thunderstruck- if you're going to call every person at a state comp a "ruffian", implying that we're all violent thugs who'll stab you without a second's thought, then I'm going to say that all public school boys are rugby-playing toffs who love nothing better than sexually abusing the first formers the second they become a prefect. And in addition to that, whilst I expect the alumni of Eton have only ever seen a poor person when they were pushing them into the gutter during Henley weekend, I have unfortunately had to suffer all the fucking pretentious toffs for three years at Durham.
I state that private schooling is divisive, immoral, and has no place in a supposedly democratic society.
Democracy is about giving everyone a fair and equal crack of the whip, and allowing the cream to rise to the top.
Democracy is not about shafting the poor and allowing the rich to rise to the top just because daddy has a huge wallet.
Anywhere that selects on finance- which private schools do- is not meritocratic, and is therefore not democratic.
Simple really.
In a free and democratic society one has the right to spend any disposable income on whatever one pleases. That surely includes education.
If society - through democratic means - decides that private education is unacceptable, then it is up to the democratically elected government to eliminate demand by improving state education.
I don't see why people have such an issue with this. Perhaps they're scared because they know the proles are better than them.
Ideals go out of the window when reality bites.
I want my children to have every immoral and disgusting advantage going- like any parent would- but I still find those advantages immoral and disgusting.
I honestly don't understand how people can justify private schooling as a good thing for society. It's great for the lucky few who are rich enough receive it, but that's not the same thing.
Not every state school is crap, but if your local school is crap you will be looking for the best place you can get for your child. If you choose to scrimp and save to send your child to the local private school (or if you empty your wallet of the excess clutter of £50 notes to pay the fees) then I have no objection. In the same way I won't criticise an old woman who spends her savings getting her hip replaced at the local private hospital.
Is there not a benefit for society as a whole by increases the average level of education? The arguement that private schools should be banned because they are better than some state schools could easily be extended to grammer schools and high performing comprehensives.