Private schools, times a changing?
Discussion
EmBe said:
We know. You've told us. Repeatedly (60 posts on this thread and counting). Perhaps you'd be good enough to quote a few of them because most of us aren't claiming that.
You're tilting at windmills and tying yourself up in linguistical knots doing so.
PS. Parent's evening last night. Daughter is doing exceptionally well given her difficulties. Catering was top notch too. Money well spent.
61 now then.You're tilting at windmills and tying yourself up in linguistical knots doing so.
PS. Parent's evening last night. Daughter is doing exceptionally well given her difficulties. Catering was top notch too. Money well spent.
"We", who is we?
PS glad to hear it and hope your daughter's difficulties are well looked after. If her school can afford catering when some are struggling to afford minimal levels of service I'm not sure you should feel good about encouraging that difference.
ETA, you're definitely doing yourself no favours by gloating about how well funded the school is if you're happy to see others less funded. It's not a complicated opinion but it's one that needs repeated for the hard of hearing hence so many posts. Some's anger and outrage at disagreeing is water off a duck's back and I know they're the same. Difference is I'm not the one defending wealth based privileges and questioning that gets some wealthy people very annoyed.
Edited by cheesejunkie on Friday 22 March 09:39
cheesejunkie said:
you're happy to see others less funded.
There you go again, making baseless comments to suit your argument. Maybe I should have put a smiley at the end, just in case you (deliberately) missed the sentiment.Still waiting for the multitude of quotes from all the people claiming to be altruistic....
cheesejunkie said:
61 now then.
"We", who is we?
PS glad to hear it and hope your daughter's difficulties are well looked after. If her school can afford catering when some are struggling to afford minimal levels of service I'm not sure you should feel good about encouraging that difference.
ETA, you're definitely doing yourself no favours by gloating about how well funded the school is if you're happy to see others less funded. It's not a complicated opinion but it's one that needs repeated for the hard of hearing hence so many posts. Some's anger and outrage at disagreeing is water off a duck's back and I know they're the same. Difference is I'm not the one defending wealth based privileges and questioning that gets some wealthy people very annoyed.
I totally agree. There will always be inequality of opportunity, for social, financial, or genetic reasons...whatever the case may be."We", who is we?
PS glad to hear it and hope your daughter's difficulties are well looked after. If her school can afford catering when some are struggling to afford minimal levels of service I'm not sure you should feel good about encouraging that difference.
ETA, you're definitely doing yourself no favours by gloating about how well funded the school is if you're happy to see others less funded. It's not a complicated opinion but it's one that needs repeated for the hard of hearing hence so many posts. Some's anger and outrage at disagreeing is water off a duck's back and I know they're the same. Difference is I'm not the one defending wealth based privileges and questioning that gets some wealthy people very annoyed.
Edited by cheesejunkie on Friday 22 March 09:39
However, defending a position based on maintaining the status quo and choosing to buy one's way out of accountability for it is wrong.
The nation would be better off as a whole if we pooled our resources to educate everyone.
dimots said:
cheesejunkie said:
61 now then.
"We", who is we?
PS glad to hear it and hope your daughter's difficulties are well looked after. If her school can afford catering when some are struggling to afford minimal levels of service I'm not sure you should feel good about encouraging that difference.
ETA, you're definitely doing yourself no favours by gloating about how well funded the school is if you're happy to see others less funded. It's not a complicated opinion but it's one that needs repeated for the hard of hearing hence so many posts. Some's anger and outrage at disagreeing is water off a duck's back and I know they're the same. Difference is I'm not the one defending wealth based privileges and questioning that gets some wealthy people very annoyed.
I totally agree. There will always be inequality of opportunity, for social, financial, or genetic reasons...whatever the case may be."We", who is we?
PS glad to hear it and hope your daughter's difficulties are well looked after. If her school can afford catering when some are struggling to afford minimal levels of service I'm not sure you should feel good about encouraging that difference.
ETA, you're definitely doing yourself no favours by gloating about how well funded the school is if you're happy to see others less funded. It's not a complicated opinion but it's one that needs repeated for the hard of hearing hence so many posts. Some's anger and outrage at disagreeing is water off a duck's back and I know they're the same. Difference is I'm not the one defending wealth based privileges and questioning that gets some wealthy people very annoyed.
Edited by cheesejunkie on Friday 22 March 09:39
However, defending a position based on maintaining the status quo and choosing to buy one's way out of accountability for it is wrong.
The nation would be better off as a whole if we pooled our resources to educate everyone.
dimots said:
cheesejunkie said:
61 now then.
"We", who is we?
PS glad to hear it and hope your daughter's difficulties are well looked after. If her school can afford catering when some are struggling to afford minimal levels of service I'm not sure you should feel good about encouraging that difference.
ETA, you're definitely doing yourself no favours by gloating about how well funded the school is if you're happy to see others less funded. It's not a complicated opinion but it's one that needs repeated for the hard of hearing hence so many posts. Some's anger and outrage at disagreeing is water off a duck's back and I know they're the same. Difference is I'm not the one defending wealth based privileges and questioning that gets some wealthy people very annoyed.
The nation would be better off as a whole if we pooled our resources to educate everyone."We", who is we?
PS glad to hear it and hope your daughter's difficulties are well looked after. If her school can afford catering when some are struggling to afford minimal levels of service I'm not sure you should feel good about encouraging that difference.
ETA, you're definitely doing yourself no favours by gloating about how well funded the school is if you're happy to see others less funded. It's not a complicated opinion but it's one that needs repeated for the hard of hearing hence so many posts. Some's anger and outrage at disagreeing is water off a duck's back and I know they're the same. Difference is I'm not the one defending wealth based privileges and questioning that gets some wealthy people very annoyed.
Edited by cheesejunkie on Friday 22 March 09:39
Pooling resources means the highest levels of attainment are compromised . Yes, some people might be pulled up but the genuine, global top performance would be pulled down. In a globally competitive world, the UK is not served by a potential slight rise in the average; it is served by some people getting a world class education.
If that world class education is only really available in fee paying schools, that's on politicians and educationalists who have mis managed education policy for decades and on the 93% of the population who don't want to invest in children's education. It is most emphatically not on the 7% of parents who consciously choose to invest in children's education.
Had an end of term email from school earlier that mentioned the VAT issue, and considering the prepayment option to mitigate, but cannot advise until the actual legislation is put together.
I’ve no clue why they’d bother to put that in the email as we can all afford to pay way way more, infact any number, just make it up, I’ll go get some more of the £50 notes off the magic money tree orchard at the bottom of my estate, thats if the serfs aren’t blocking the driveway with their carts and mules. I do wish HMG would print £1000 notes, would make the logistics of having endless cash much more manageable.
I’ve no clue why they’d bother to put that in the email as we can all afford to pay way way more, infact any number, just make it up, I’ll go get some more of the £50 notes off the magic money tree orchard at the bottom of my estate, thats if the serfs aren’t blocking the driveway with their carts and mules. I do wish HMG would print £1000 notes, would make the logistics of having endless cash much more manageable.
You can prepay up to a year in advance at my daughter's school.
If VAT is levied it can only be applied at the point the payment is made under current rules, so it's likely many parents who can, will do that for the 2024-25 year.
However our place has warned that there will almost certainly be “anti-forestalling” rules, which have been used before (such as when the VAT rate rose from 15% to 17.5% in 2010) which applied VAT "at time of supply", so don't rely on this tactic.
If VAT is levied it can only be applied at the point the payment is made under current rules, so it's likely many parents who can, will do that for the 2024-25 year.
However our place has warned that there will almost certainly be “anti-forestalling” rules, which have been used before (such as when the VAT rate rose from 15% to 17.5% in 2010) which applied VAT "at time of supply", so don't rely on this tactic.
ClaphamGT3 said:
What a facile and utterly ill-conceived point of view
Pooling resources means the highest levels of attainment are compromised . Yes, some people might be pulled up but the genuine, global top performance would be pulled down. In a globally competitive world, the UK is not served by a potential slight rise in the average; it is served by some people getting a world class education.
If that world class education is only really available in fee paying schools, that's on politicians and educationalists who have mis managed education policy for decades and on the 93% of the population who don't want to invest in children's education. It is most emphatically not on the 7% of parents who consciously choose to invest in children's education.
There's the GT3 I know and want to disagree with. I don't mean to single you out as I've seen you post the odd sensible thing on other threads. I've been accused of posting too much so I will back off temporarily. Pooling resources means the highest levels of attainment are compromised . Yes, some people might be pulled up but the genuine, global top performance would be pulled down. In a globally competitive world, the UK is not served by a potential slight rise in the average; it is served by some people getting a world class education.
If that world class education is only really available in fee paying schools, that's on politicians and educationalists who have mis managed education policy for decades and on the 93% of the population who don't want to invest in children's education. It is most emphatically not on the 7% of parents who consciously choose to invest in children's education.
It's served by some getting a top class education and many not. Those getting the top class education are not always the ones most suitable to having it. My crass thick privileged comment still applies.
If that world class education is only available in fee paying schools it is a political failing but one supported by the fee payers. I'm sick sore and tired of saying that the UK education system is not the best in the world, other countries do it better, but they don't provide the opportunities for thickos to rise to the top because they had wealthy parents. Yes, that last sentence was a joke but as I know it'll annoy a few I enjoyed making it.
Explain to me this 93% who don't want to invest in children's education? Or are you more accurately referring to the 93% who can't afford to buy the same privileges but would if they could?
NomduJour said:
cheesejunkie said:
Or are you more accurately referring to the 93% who can't afford to buy the same privileges but would if they could?
… and yet you’re against grammar schools.They’re better than private education but not perfect.
NomduJour said:
So we also have to add private tuition to the needs-to-be-banned list. What about catchment areas?
No. We need to add it to the recognising not all can afford it list and they’re not lesser people for being unable to. My niece shared a class with the pm of Finland’s daughter without her parents needing to pay a penny for her education. She’s smarter than her too. Try doing the equivalent in this country. Supporting segregation based on wealth makes you complicit in preserving a bad status quo. Yes catchment areas can be manipulated. Grammar schools are not as egalitarian as some would claim.
International comparisons of PISA maths scores for Finland and UK. Even in what is held up to be the most egalitarian system which has no private education, socioeconomic status is a strong factor in achievement.
It's acknowledged that the Finnish system fails gifted children, and culturally they are happy with that. I think ours does too, though not so much by design. I think that's a terrible waste.
It's acknowledged that the Finnish system fails gifted children, and culturally they are happy with that. I think ours does too, though not so much by design. I think that's a terrible waste.
otolith said:
International comparisons of PISA maths scores for Finland and UK. Even in what is held up to be the most egalitarian system which has no private education, socioeconomic status is a strong factor in achievement.
It's acknowledged that the Finnish system fails gifted children, and culturally they are happy with that. I think ours does too, though not so much by design. I think that's a terrible waste.
Fails gifted children? Enlighten me. Culturally I'm happy with that, enlighten me. I don't think I'm happy with that.It's acknowledged that the Finnish system fails gifted children, and culturally they are happy with that. I think ours does too, though not so much by design. I think that's a terrible waste.
Of course it is biased towards those with money, what system isn't. But it's not ladder pulling to recognise that. It is ladder pulling to think you should be able to buy your children's way to success and especially if you support underfunding the rest.
I wasn't sure whether to agree or disagree with your post and that's evidence enough that I'm not disagreeing with the stats.
Specifically on Finland, it does get held up as an exemplar and not without reason. My nephews and nieces there have an easier life than some in the school system here. Socioeconomic status will always be an advantage. Defending that advantage will always be a choice. But their parents aren't moaning about being unable to pay their way to a better education as much as some on here are.
otolith said:
International comparisons of PISA maths scores for Finland and UK. Even in what is held up to be the most egalitarian system which has no private education, socioeconomic status is a strong factor in achievement.
It's acknowledged that the Finnish system fails gifted children, and culturally they are happy with that. I think ours does too, though not so much by design. I think that's a terrible waste.
Also UK education league table rankings are falling, plummeting even, while Finland's are rising.It's acknowledged that the Finnish system fails gifted children, and culturally they are happy with that. I think ours does too, though not so much by design. I think that's a terrible waste.
They pay more tax, and they have no (for profit) private schools.
It's not rocket science is it?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff