Private schools, times a changing?
Discussion
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
So why should private education be VAT exempt?
Charitable status which basically means they might open the doors of the swimming pool or theatre to the local comp during the holidays.
Private education should be provided for the Asian elite who want a traditional British education. And private schools need to pivot in that direction.
To manage the transition VAT should be added to new starters only from 2025, existing students remain VaT exempt.
The benefits of having the children of motivated and affluent parents in state schools are multiple.
Dilution of problem kids, role models for all kids to aspire to, rich kids working alongside those from poorer backgrounds with lower aspirations, a merging of beliefs, an increasing in understanding, (no more Bullingdon club!) but the most important advantage , is that the advantages that private education are narrowed which means that there’s no fast track hot housing to get into Oxford Uni, you’ll be measured against those without that background and the old school tie network becomes redundant.
I’ll make the following point-
Who has made more of their life? The Eton educated rich kid, with connections and opportunities to die for who gets a 2:1 at Oxford, or the sink estate educated child from a disruptive and chaotic background that somehow ended up with a degree from Gloucester uni.
That’s what this is about, equality of opportunity .
The charitable status thing is more about profits not being taxed than the fees being VAT-able. If its removed its pretty easy for any business (school) to ensure it never makes a profit and then withdraw access to facilities and bursaries etc - use the money to keep the fees down for those that pay instead.Charitable status which basically means they might open the doors of the swimming pool or theatre to the local comp during the holidays.
Private education should be provided for the Asian elite who want a traditional British education. And private schools need to pivot in that direction.
To manage the transition VAT should be added to new starters only from 2025, existing students remain VaT exempt.
The benefits of having the children of motivated and affluent parents in state schools are multiple.
Dilution of problem kids, role models for all kids to aspire to, rich kids working alongside those from poorer backgrounds with lower aspirations, a merging of beliefs, an increasing in understanding, (no more Bullingdon club!) but the most important advantage , is that the advantages that private education are narrowed which means that there’s no fast track hot housing to get into Oxford Uni, you’ll be measured against those without that background and the old school tie network becomes redundant.
I’ll make the following point-
Who has made more of their life? The Eton educated rich kid, with connections and opportunities to die for who gets a 2:1 at Oxford, or the sink estate educated child from a disruptive and chaotic background that somehow ended up with a degree from Gloucester uni.
That’s what this is about, equality of opportunity .
As far as VAT is concerned, to turn the question around, why should education be taxed? Food isn't, books aren't , neither are a whole range of other things.
Something of a Rubicon being crossed, no?
Everything has been discussed above, from the effect on the state system in terms of immediate numbers & the imminent non viability of smaller schools & the knock-on effects thereof
It will not improve outcomes
It will disrupt the education of plenty of kids.
It will have far wider disruptive effects than Labour think (eg housing markets in catchment areas for better state schools)
It will not raise any money (likely it will cost money)
You can phase it in if you want but there will be immediate pressure in the state system because people will simply not even start in private education in September 24,
As a result some private schools will have a much reduced intake September 2024 and the same again September 2025. At which point their overall numbers probably make them non-viable & then all the kids in that school are looking for new schools and the staff are all out of work.
Brilliant.
Its typical ill thought through socialist rubbish: must hold people back so that everything is "fair". Its levelling down, its dumbing down, its destroying centres of excellence just because not everyone can have access to them.
The old school tie network for Oxbridge entry is another tired old socialist trope. It hasn't existed for years, decades even.
All because "Not fair".
Newsflash: life's not fair. Those with money will always find a way to give their kids an advantage if they want to, whether its via private schools, private tutoring or buying up properties in the right catchment areas.
What's criminal is disrupting any child's education (in either sector) because of dogma with no obvious benefits.
Edited by Wombat3 on Sunday 26th May 15:54
ClaphamGT3 said:
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
So why should private education be VAT exempt?
Charitable status which basically means they might open the doors of the swimming pool or theatre to the local comp during the holidays.
Private education should be provided for the Asian elite who want a traditional British education. And private schools need to pivot in that direction.
To manage the transition VAT should be added to new starters only from 2025, existing students remain VaT exempt.
The benefits of having the children of motivated and affluent parents in state schools are multiple.
Dilution of problem kids, role models for all kids to aspire to, rich kids working alongside those from poorer backgrounds with lower aspirations, a merging of beliefs, an increasing in understanding, (no more Bullingdon club!) but the most important advantage , is that the advantages that private education are narrowed which means that there’s no fast track hot housing to get into Oxford Uni, you’ll be measured against those without that background and the old school tie network becomes redundant.
I’ll make the following point-
Who has made more of their life? The Eton educated rich kid, with connections and opportunities to die for who gets a 2:1 at Oxford, or the sink estate educated child from a disruptive and chaotic background that somehow ended up with a degree from Gloucester uni.
That’s what this is about, equality of opportunity .
All education is VAT exempt. Adding it to independent school fees would be an additional surcharge tax.Charitable status which basically means they might open the doors of the swimming pool or theatre to the local comp during the holidays.
Private education should be provided for the Asian elite who want a traditional British education. And private schools need to pivot in that direction.
To manage the transition VAT should be added to new starters only from 2025, existing students remain VaT exempt.
The benefits of having the children of motivated and affluent parents in state schools are multiple.
Dilution of problem kids, role models for all kids to aspire to, rich kids working alongside those from poorer backgrounds with lower aspirations, a merging of beliefs, an increasing in understanding, (no more Bullingdon club!) but the most important advantage , is that the advantages that private education are narrowed which means that there’s no fast track hot housing to get into Oxford Uni, you’ll be measured against those without that background and the old school tie network becomes redundant.
I’ll make the following point-
Who has made more of their life? The Eton educated rich kid, with connections and opportunities to die for who gets a 2:1 at Oxford, or the sink estate educated child from a disruptive and chaotic background that somehow ended up with a degree from Gloucester uni.
That’s what this is about, equality of opportunity .
Your benefits show a significant naivety as to what placing children who would otherwise attend independent schools into the state sector would achieve. You get more division, not less and more displacement of disadvantaged/less able kids into 'sink' schools.
As to your final point, that is just a lazy and uninformed stereotype
Plus the ignorance about the subject matter is, as usual, remarkable.
Oxbridge actively discriminate against private school applicants. Kids who want to stand a good chance of getting an oxbridge place often leave private after GCSE and go to the local college for that reason.
It’s not ignorance. My wife works in the state sector so I’d wager she and I am better informed than you are.
There’s no evidence to suggest what has been suggested about ‘increasing division’ within a state school. That’s just posh twaddle designed to keep the status quo.
The Oxbridge things has only happened in recent times when it was pointed out to them that they take very few state school pupils.
And. Yet the answer is to send those private kids to states sixth forms, which immediately contradicts those opinions around increasing divisions within a state school. You’re just gaming the system because you can.
I think it is fair to say that you chase a private education because you believe it gives you an advantage. Which will probably sustain you through you entire adult life. lucky you!
The rest have to find other ways to progress and for most part it simply won’t be possible, your magic circle law firm doesn’t take on students from Gloucester uni.
So for those less fortunate your mixed in with the rank and file and maybe you’ll get lucky, but for most it’ll be similar to what their parents achieved.
Do you actually want that in society?
There’s no evidence to suggest what has been suggested about ‘increasing division’ within a state school. That’s just posh twaddle designed to keep the status quo.
The Oxbridge things has only happened in recent times when it was pointed out to them that they take very few state school pupils.
And. Yet the answer is to send those private kids to states sixth forms, which immediately contradicts those opinions around increasing divisions within a state school. You’re just gaming the system because you can.
I think it is fair to say that you chase a private education because you believe it gives you an advantage. Which will probably sustain you through you entire adult life. lucky you!
The rest have to find other ways to progress and for most part it simply won’t be possible, your magic circle law firm doesn’t take on students from Gloucester uni.
So for those less fortunate your mixed in with the rank and file and maybe you’ll get lucky, but for most it’ll be similar to what their parents achieved.
Do you actually want that in society?
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
It’s not ignorance. My wife works in the state sector so I’d wager she and I am better informed than you are.
There’s no evidence to suggest what has been suggested about ‘increasing division’ within a state school. That’s just posh twaddle designed to keep the status quo.
The Oxbridge things has only happened in recent times when it was pointed out to them that they take very few state school pupils.
And. Yet the answer is to send those private kids to states sixth forms, which immediately contradicts those opinions around increasing divisions within a state school. You’re just gaming the system because you can.
I think it is fair to say that you chase a private education because you believe it gives you an advantage. Which will probably sustain you through you entire adult life. lucky you!
The rest have to find other ways to progress and for most part it simply won’t be possible, your magic circle law firm doesn’t take on students from Gloucester uni.
So for those less fortunate your mixed in with the rank and file and maybe you’ll get lucky, but for most it’ll be similar to what their parents achieved.
Do you actually want that in society?
I don't think anyone has mentioned "increased division" in state schools as a consequence. What you will get is greater division between state and private because you will make private schools even more elitest.There’s no evidence to suggest what has been suggested about ‘increasing division’ within a state school. That’s just posh twaddle designed to keep the status quo.
The Oxbridge things has only happened in recent times when it was pointed out to them that they take very few state school pupils.
And. Yet the answer is to send those private kids to states sixth forms, which immediately contradicts those opinions around increasing divisions within a state school. You’re just gaming the system because you can.
I think it is fair to say that you chase a private education because you believe it gives you an advantage. Which will probably sustain you through you entire adult life. lucky you!
The rest have to find other ways to progress and for most part it simply won’t be possible, your magic circle law firm doesn’t take on students from Gloucester uni.
So for those less fortunate your mixed in with the rank and file and maybe you’ll get lucky, but for most it’ll be similar to what their parents achieved.
Do you actually want that in society?
What there will be (in state schools) is immediate increased pressure on resources through increased numbers. They may get financial resources on a per pupil basis but that does not increase the number of teachers or classrooms or the capacity of them in the short to medium term.
Ox-Bridge entry was always very dependent on additional entry exams taken around Christmas. When I was at school those applying for it stayed on for an additional term to do it. An exam is, by its nature a level playing field. In fact what has happened in more recent times is positive discrimination in favour of state schools (achieved via greater emphasis on interview).
People pay for private education because of what it is in the round, everything from the quality of teaching, class sizes & breadth of curriculum to the sports and other facilities and the overall ethos and environment. It is not just about academic results.
It costs a lot of money, you don't do it "just because" unless you are lighting your winter fires with used £50 notes.
Edited by Wombat3 on Sunday 26th May 16:19
Wombat3 said:
I don;t think anyone has mentioned "increased division" in state schools as a consequence. What there will be is immediate increased pressure on resources through increased numbers. They may get financial resources on a per pupil basis but that does not increase the number of teachers or classrooms or the capacity of them in the short to medium term.
Ox-Bridge entry was always very dependent on additional entry exams taken around Christmas. When I was at school those applying for it stayed on for an additional term to do it. An exam is, by its nature a level playing field. In fact what has happened in more recent times is positive discrimination in favour of state schools.
People pay for private education because of what it is in the round, everything from the quality of teaching, class sizes & breadth of curriculum to the sports and other facilities and the overall ethos and environment. It is not just about academic results.
It costs a lot of money, you don't do it "just because" unless you are lighting your winter fires with used £50 notes.
The closure of private schools will provide state schools with more teachers. Filling a shortage. Yes some won’t transfer across, but some will. You could argue that an economic benefit of VAT is that there is an oversupply of teachers for private schools, lowering salaries, and therefore fees. It’s as plausible as the hog wash about schools not coping with the influx of highly motivated kids. Ox-Bridge entry was always very dependent on additional entry exams taken around Christmas. When I was at school those applying for it stayed on for an additional term to do it. An exam is, by its nature a level playing field. In fact what has happened in more recent times is positive discrimination in favour of state schools.
People pay for private education because of what it is in the round, everything from the quality of teaching, class sizes & breadth of curriculum to the sports and other facilities and the overall ethos and environment. It is not just about academic results.
It costs a lot of money, you don't do it "just because" unless you are lighting your winter fires with used £50 notes.
Your point about ‘in the round’ is another way of saying ‘it gives an advantage’ which is what I said. And of course it does else you wouldn’t do it.
The comedy thing is that there are kids that go to private school who are as thick as mince, and yet there are those that go who are bright and have solid parental role models that would perform anyway which ever type of school they went to. But there’s a fear that these council house urchins might distract and stymie Rupert’s potential.
So let’s face it, it’s snobbery based on class based on an upbringing you’ve had that’s only encountered the proles as a hired hand.
And don’t get me started on the number of private educations funded by grand parents. (Even the inheritance laws are set up to support that!)
Edited by Dynion Araf Uchaf on Sunday 26th May 16:25
The distraction thing is a total reality. I know as I’m a state school kid who suffered from it. Zero chance I’m taking that gamble now I can afford not to.
Obviously I’d love for it not to be the case but save for a grammar (I don’t want to move), I don’t see this as a realistic reality from a state school.
Obviously I’d love for it not to be the case but save for a grammar (I don’t want to move), I don’t see this as a realistic reality from a state school.
Edited by okgo on Sunday 26th May 16:32
okgo said:
The distraction thing is a total reality. I know as I’m a state school kid who suffered from it. Zero chance I’m taking that gamble now I can afford not to.
Obviously I’d love for it not to be the case but save for a grammar (I don’t want to move), I don’t see this as a realistic reality from a state school.
Likewise, this is a major factor in why our children are in private school, every parent wants their child to be there and succeed, from personal experience state schools are unable/not allowed to deal with the families which are a drain on society, fix that & how much teaching time do you save?Obviously I’d love for it not to be the case but save for a grammar (I don’t want to move), I don’t see this as a realistic reality from a state school.
Edited by okgo on Sunday 26th May 16:32
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
Wombat3 said:
I don;t think anyone has mentioned "increased division" in state schools as a consequence. What there will be is immediate increased pressure on resources through increased numbers. They may get financial resources on a per pupil basis but that does not increase the number of teachers or classrooms or the capacity of them in the short to medium term.
Ox-Bridge entry was always very dependent on additional entry exams taken around Christmas. When I was at school those applying for it stayed on for an additional term to do it. An exam is, by its nature a level playing field. In fact what has happened in more recent times is positive discrimination in favour of state schools.
People pay for private education because of what it is in the round, everything from the quality of teaching, class sizes & breadth of curriculum to the sports and other facilities and the overall ethos and environment. It is not just about academic results.
It costs a lot of money, you don't do it "just because" unless you are lighting your winter fires with used £50 notes.
The closure of private schools will provide state schools with more teachers. Filling a shortage. Yes some won’t transfer across, but some will. You could argue that an economic benefit of VAT is that there is an oversupply of teachers for private schools, lowering salaries, and therefore fees. It’s as plausible as the hog wash about schools not coping with the influx of highly motivated kids. Ox-Bridge entry was always very dependent on additional entry exams taken around Christmas. When I was at school those applying for it stayed on for an additional term to do it. An exam is, by its nature a level playing field. In fact what has happened in more recent times is positive discrimination in favour of state schools.
People pay for private education because of what it is in the round, everything from the quality of teaching, class sizes & breadth of curriculum to the sports and other facilities and the overall ethos and environment. It is not just about academic results.
It costs a lot of money, you don't do it "just because" unless you are lighting your winter fires with used £50 notes.
Your point about ‘in the round’ is another way of saying ‘it gives an advantage’ which is what I said. And of course it does else you wouldn’t do it.
The comedy thing is that there are kids that go to private school who are as thick as mince, and yet there are those that go who are bright and have solid parental role models that would perform anyway which ever type of school they went to. But there’s a fear that these council house urchins might distract and stymie Rupert’s potential.
So let’s face it, it’s snobbery based on class based on an upbringing you’ve had that’s only encountered the proles as a hired hand.
And don’t get me started on the number of private educations funded by grand parents. (Even the inheritance laws are set up to support that!)
There are also plenty of kids who go through private schools who will amount to very little, it is not a guarantee of anything. I've seen that at first hand.
Meanwhile, if you are a parent and you reckon your kids are bright enough and you can keep them on track, you don't need to pay for it just to get the academic results (or you can do so with much less money via a bit of additional tutoring or maybe you just buy a house in the right catchment area.
As above, people are paying for a lot more than just academic results
Your last two sentences reveal exactly where you are coming from on this, Its just dogma.
The caring, sharing left always reveals its true green-eyed monster face in the end.
It would also remain to be seen just how many teachers would transfer to the state sector. They work in the private sector for a reason. It would be incredibly arrogant to assume that they will just transfer and many will not.
Wombat3 said:
It would also remain to be seen just how many teachers would transfer to the state sector. They work in the private sector for a reason. It would be incredibly arrogant to assume that they will just transfer and many will not.
Mrs Balfour was a teacher at independent schools. She would have worked at Tesco before taking a state school role.Louis Balfour said:
Wombat3 said:
It would also remain to be seen just how many teachers would transfer to the state sector. They work in the private sector for a reason. It would be incredibly arrogant to assume that they will just transfer and many will not.
Mrs Balfour was a teacher at independent schools. She would have worked at Tesco before taking a state school role.this whole policy is built on lots of assumptions and most of them seem to be demonstrably wrong.
I think the dream of all the public schools failing at the state schools able to replace their useless staff with vaguely competent ones is somewhat unlikely.
As unlikely as the dream that a handful more of competent parents will somehow save a state school from the crushing burden of not being permitted to fire crap teachers and bin terrible children of terrible parents.
The state school system needs more money and more power to protect the majority of their pupils from the minority of terrible teachers and pupils. And the private system needs less cost, certainly not additional, so it can churn out as many taxpayers as possible, even when half the alumni are dim as a Toc H lamp. The true social benefit of public schooling.
As unlikely as the dream that a handful more of competent parents will somehow save a state school from the crushing burden of not being permitted to fire crap teachers and bin terrible children of terrible parents.
The state school system needs more money and more power to protect the majority of their pupils from the minority of terrible teachers and pupils. And the private system needs less cost, certainly not additional, so it can churn out as many taxpayers as possible, even when half the alumni are dim as a Toc H lamp. The true social benefit of public schooling.
M1AGM said:
Oxbridge actively discriminate against private school applicants. Kids who want to stand a good chance of getting an oxbridge place often leave private after GCSE and go to the local college for that reason.
Yet it's not worked out like that for two girls we know who started uni this year - one from a private school for girls got into an Oxford college notorious for being difficult (for any applicant) to get into. She had no special cirumstances to "help" her.A state school girl, brilliant in every respect, lots of special circumstances etc, didn't even get an interview.
Sheepshanks said:
M1AGM said:
Oxbridge actively discriminate against private school applicants. Kids who want to stand a good chance of getting an oxbridge place often leave private after GCSE and go to the local college for that reason.
Yet it's not worked out like that for two girls we know who started uni this year - one from a private school for girls got into an Oxford college notorious for being difficult (for any applicant) to get into. She had no special cirumstances to "help" her.A state school girl, brilliant in every respect, lots of special circumstances etc, didn't even get an interview.
Wombat3 said:
You may know something about the state system, but have you ever set foot in a private school? The way you talk about them suggests not.
There are also plenty of kids who go through private schools who will amount to very little, it is not a guarantee of anything. I've seen that at first hand.
Meanwhile, if you are a parent and you reckon your kids are bright enough and you can keep them on track, you don't need to pay for it just to get the academic results (or you can do so with much less money via a bit of additional tutoring or maybe you just buy a house in the right catchment area.
As above, people are paying for a lot more than just academic results
Your last two sentences reveal exactly where you are coming from on this, Its just dogma.
The caring, sharing left always reveals its true green-eyed monster face in the end.
It would also remain to be seen just how many teachers would transfer to the state sector. They work in the private sector for a reason. It would be incredibly arrogant to assume that they will just transfer and many will not.
I did say that some would transfer not all.There are also plenty of kids who go through private schools who will amount to very little, it is not a guarantee of anything. I've seen that at first hand.
Meanwhile, if you are a parent and you reckon your kids are bright enough and you can keep them on track, you don't need to pay for it just to get the academic results (or you can do so with much less money via a bit of additional tutoring or maybe you just buy a house in the right catchment area.
As above, people are paying for a lot more than just academic results
Your last two sentences reveal exactly where you are coming from on this, Its just dogma.
The caring, sharing left always reveals its true green-eyed monster face in the end.
It would also remain to be seen just how many teachers would transfer to the state sector. They work in the private sector for a reason. It would be incredibly arrogant to assume that they will just transfer and many will not.
I have been to both Abingdon Boys and Pangbourne.
They looked quite impressive
Private school is more than the results, it’s the confidence, it’ll give a child. Essentially the message is ‘it is out there for you go and get it’ as opposed to a state school message of ‘ conform and don’t rock the boat ‘
You pro private education wallahs really do live in cloud cuckoo land with your privately uneducated utterly naisve tropes about feral kids impacting Tabitha’s chances.
It’s just lazy and ignorant, but mostly selfish.
And here’s why.
For those funding a private education out of post tax income you have my sympathy’s. Not cheap and you’ve got to be very determined to make that happen..
But they are the rarest form of parent
Most are having their kids funded by grand parents or trust funds or assets or second homes, or being the MD of Daddy’s business.
If VAT isn’t added then that wealth you are sitting on stays in your family. You won’t need to dip deeper into the trust fund, But if it’s taxed everyone gets a slice as you have to spend it to pay for the privilege of a private education.
Your force to give back to society. That’s a good thing.
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
I did say that some would transfer not all.
I have been to both Abingdon Boys and Pangbourne.
They looked quite impressive
Private school is more than the results, it’s the confidence, it’ll give a child. Essentially the message is ‘it is out there for you go and get it’ as opposed to a state school message of ‘ conform and don’t rock the boat ‘
You pro private education wallahs really do live in cloud cuckoo land with your privately uneducated utterly naisve tropes about feral kids impacting Tabitha’s chances.
It’s just lazy and ignorant, but mostly selfish.
And here’s why.
For those funding a private education out of post tax income you have my sympathy’s. Not cheap and you’ve got to be very determined to make that happen..
But they are the rarest form of parent
Most are having their kids funded by grand parents or trust funds or assets or second homes, or being the MD of Daddy’s business.
If VAT isn’t added then that wealth you are sitting on stays in your family. You won’t need to dip deeper into the trust fund, But if it’s taxed everyone gets a slice as you have to spend it to pay for the privilege of a private education.
Your force to give back to society. That’s a good thing.
Remarkably simplistic and assumptive about the state of peoples' finances.I have been to both Abingdon Boys and Pangbourne.
They looked quite impressive
Private school is more than the results, it’s the confidence, it’ll give a child. Essentially the message is ‘it is out there for you go and get it’ as opposed to a state school message of ‘ conform and don’t rock the boat ‘
You pro private education wallahs really do live in cloud cuckoo land with your privately uneducated utterly naisve tropes about feral kids impacting Tabitha’s chances.
It’s just lazy and ignorant, but mostly selfish.
And here’s why.
For those funding a private education out of post tax income you have my sympathy’s. Not cheap and you’ve got to be very determined to make that happen..
But they are the rarest form of parent
Most are having their kids funded by grand parents or trust funds or assets or second homes, or being the MD of Daddy’s business.
If VAT isn’t added then that wealth you are sitting on stays in your family. You won’t need to dip deeper into the trust fund, But if it’s taxed everyone gets a slice as you have to spend it to pay for the privilege of a private education.
Your force to give back to society. That’s a good thing.
You are correct about why people use private schools , its about the whole education. its not just about academic results and its not a guarantee of anything in that regard. If kids don't want to work and parents don't care enough then they will coast and come a cropper accordingly.
I also happen to think the trope about keeping kids away from the "feral offspring of lesser mortals" is also not a thing - at least not to the vast majority of parents I ever met in the private school system.
Its just divisive nonsense that suits a narrative to try & justify this.
The reality is that people who are paying for private education are just getting on with their lives doing what they consider to be the best they can for their families. They do not give a second thought to anyone or anything else. Pretty much like everyone else.
Its a bit like the supposed north-south divide - people in the south do not spend their days dreaming up ways to keep the "Norvern monkeys" down, they are just getting on with their lives,
If grandparents are paying for it then so be it, its a better use of funds than it sitting in some ever-accumulating investment account to end up being subject to 40% IHT !
Once again you make it all about some kind of class war and its just not.
As has been said repeatedly, the very wealthy can and will pay, its the ones in the middle (and there are plenty of them) who will not be able to. Add to that the removal of bursaries and scholarships from those that could not afford it in the first place and the effects are obvious, it will just make the whole system more divided and the private system more elitest. It will do nothing for overall standards of education or tax revenues either and very likely will introduce additional pressures into the state system.
Anyway, its all been said before.
Those that think that its a good idea to level down by dragging others back will never get it.
Ok out of the people I know with kids at private school
2 are funding it from post tax income, and are not themselves privately educated. I have some respect for that as that shows commitment although in both cases their kids would have been fine elsewhere
4 are funded from Grandparents and were themselves privately educated at the same school. One of whose parent is a copper from the valleys. And married into some wealth, and it’s from her side that’s paying for it.
1 runs his own business was himself privately educated at a minor school but is the MD of a business his Dad set up, and he also has a trust fund.
So on that straw poll I’d say close to 75% of kids at private school are funded at least in part , outside of the parents income.
2 are funding it from post tax income, and are not themselves privately educated. I have some respect for that as that shows commitment although in both cases their kids would have been fine elsewhere
4 are funded from Grandparents and were themselves privately educated at the same school. One of whose parent is a copper from the valleys. And married into some wealth, and it’s from her side that’s paying for it.
1 runs his own business was himself privately educated at a minor school but is the MD of a business his Dad set up, and he also has a trust fund.
So on that straw poll I’d say close to 75% of kids at private school are funded at least in part , outside of the parents income.
Dynion Araf Uchaf said:
Ok out of the people I know with kids at private school
2 are funding it from post tax income, and are not themselves privately educated. I have some respect for that as that shows commitment although in both cases their kids would have been fine elsewhere
4 are funded from Grandparents and were themselves privately educated at the same school. One of whose parent is a copper from the valleys. And married into some wealth, and it’s from her side that’s paying for it.
1 runs his own business was himself privately educated at a minor school but is the MD of a business his Dad set up, and he also has a trust fund.
So on that straw poll I’d say close to 75% of kids at private school are funded at least in part , outside of the parents income.
So what? 2 are funding it from post tax income, and are not themselves privately educated. I have some respect for that as that shows commitment although in both cases their kids would have been fine elsewhere
4 are funded from Grandparents and were themselves privately educated at the same school. One of whose parent is a copper from the valleys. And married into some wealth, and it’s from her side that’s paying for it.
1 runs his own business was himself privately educated at a minor school but is the MD of a business his Dad set up, and he also has a trust fund.
So on that straw poll I’d say close to 75% of kids at private school are funded at least in part , outside of the parents income.
Its still the case that resources are not infinite for most people and who's business is it how they (grandparents etc) choose to spend their money anyway?
The one thing they all have in common is that they see the value in it.
You have zero idea what anyone’s kids would be like anywhere until it’s a reality. It is one of my biggest reasons for sending my own kid as my own school experience was shaped by distraction so drastically.
And 75% of your little world isn’t a representative or statistically useful group. As I’m sure you know.
And 75% of your little world isn’t a representative or statistically useful group. As I’m sure you know.
Edited by okgo on Sunday 26th May 17:55
Wombat3 said:
So what?
Its still the case that resources are not infinite for most people and who's business is it how they (grandparents etc) choose to spend their money anyway?
The one thing they all have in common is that they see the value in it.
So what?Its still the case that resources are not infinite for most people and who's business is it how they (grandparents etc) choose to spend their money anyway?
The one thing they all have in common is that they see the value in it.
You can’t possibly be serious with that comment!
So what? If your daddy is paying for it, or a trust fund is paying for it, you can f
king afford the VAT.If not, as stated you have my sympathies. Perhaps that’s the answer, VAT on those kids funded outside of net income. Seems fair.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff