Teachers strike

[Mungler]

So all teachers in private schools have no morals?

[henry d]

FINAL SALARY PENSIONS - I can only add the situation for firefighters as I have no idea about other public sector workers, but it will be close to this.

Fantastic, since 1978 the money that should have gone into some form of investment to provide for the pensions of those retiring in the future. The government did not do this and left it for the successive governments and so on until it came to a crisis point and now we have the situation where firefighters may be required to work until they are at least 55 possibly 60 if the government get their way and if they cannot meet the standards set by the government which is based on a 21 years old male, then they get sacked. They will have to wait until retirement age to pick up a pension that will not be worth much at all. Other super factors are the increase from 11% to around 15-18% of their wages being used for their retirement and getting less and working much longer 35-40 years instead of 30.

Hardly fair is it?

[westmids1987]

Having been in both private an public sector education i can say the standard of the teachers were comparable,but it's the size of the class that made the difference.

I understand the country is in financial difficulty but do not agree with massive changes to terms and conditions of employment. Give the changes to new starters,they will know what their signing up for. To change part way through your career i feel is unfair. Private work does pay more in certain sectors and that difference will become greater once the country has recovered. Do people think the government will then change public sector pay to match?i think not.

[westmids1987]

Ps to add to the fire service proposed changes,how is it fair that if a firefighter is injured on duty in the course of their job, that they will no longer be pensioned off (which i think is the least we can do) but will now be jobless?

[Gimlet]

Having been in both private an public sector education i can say the standard of the teachers were comparable,but it's the size of the class that made the difference.

I understand the country is in financial difficulty but do not agree with massive changes to terms and conditions of employment. Give the changes to new starters,they will know what their signing up for. To change part way through your career i feel is unfair. Private work does pay more in certain sectors and that difference will become greater once the country has recovered. Do people think the government will then change public sector pay to match?i think not.

 

I'm no expert but the last time I saw a comparison, the cost of an academic education per pupil in the state and the private sector was roughly the same, if you strip out extra-curricula activities and facilities of private schools and the cost of accommodation. The private school my father taught in averaged about 15 pupils per teacher and class sizes at most were about 20 children. So why are state classrooms over-crowded and under resourced? Where is the money going?

Rather than trying to penalise the private sector for offering some "unfair" advantage, the state should be looking emulate whatever it is that they are doing right.

[aris]

Rather than trying to penalise the private sector for offering some "unfair" advantage, the state should be looking emulate whatever it is that they are doing right.

 

Well for one, they have no obligation to take special needs pupils. Not the whole answer, but the state has certain statutory obligations which private schools do not. Many private schools run as "charities" too for tax purposes - but I think they stretch the definition of the word.

[Gimlet]

 

Well for one, they have no obligation to take special needs pupils. Not the whole answer, but the state has certain statutory obligations which private schools do not. Many private schools run as "charities" too for tax purposes - but I think they stretch the definition of the word.

 

Charitable status provides no academic advantage over the state sector. It means that private schools must plough their income after costs back into the school. There are no shareholders and no dividends paid or private incomes generated beyond the school payroll. They exist therefore in pretty much the same economic circumstances as state schools. The chief difference is that the financial and curricula affairs of most private schools are overseen by a board of governors, who are unpaid and some of whom are former pupils. And vitally, they are independent of the LEA which does not operate without charge and is seething with political vested interest. This is roughly the model that Micheal Gove was trying to emulate with free schools with the overwhelming support of head teachers who have been crying out for this kind of autonomy for decades. And it was working, until he was sacked by Cameron to please some focus group or spin doctor.

Furthermore private schools are supposed to "earn" their charitable status by sharing some of their facilities with the local community. Long before New Labour took control of the Charities Commission with its own placemen and forced this obligation on private schools, most of them were doing it anyway. The school my Father taught at often hosted sports matches between state schools when their own facilities were unavailable and they offered free use at set times of their swimming pool and 9 hole golf course to local residents. Certainly when I was a child (I went to a state school) they also provided subsidised private music lessons to local children who were poorly served by music departments in their state schools. And they employ a considerable number of non-teaching staff, far more than state schools, and all of these are local people.

Father's school often took pupils who had failed the entrance exam at other schools and they had highly respected track record of helping pupils with difficulties like autism and dyslexia. Fee-paying parents after all have children with special needs just like the rest of society.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Gimlet

[keg]

 

Well for one, they have no obligation to take special needs pupils. Not the whole answer, but the state has certain statutory obligations which private schools do not. Many private schools run as "charities" too for tax purposes - but I think they stretch the definition of the word.

Not so, they will offer bursaries or scholarships to a number of pupils. The assisted places scheme that old communism got rid of helped many children achieve their dreams....

[Gimlet]

Not so, they will offer bursaries or scholarships to a number of pupils. The assisted places scheme that old communism got rid of helped many children achieve their dreams....

 

I forgot about that. My Father was a working class lad who won a scholarship to private school and from ther he went on to Cambridge and spent 52 as a teacher himself.

That has been stamped out because the left wing equality fascists hate the idea of competition. Unfortunately it is the lifeblood of learning as it is so many other things.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Gimlet

[aris]

I have private primary and secondary schools nearby and i've never heard of them sharing their facilities. With few exceptions, even inter-school sporting events like rugby are between other private schools - so no sharing of facilities there either. If they did I'd surely know because my kids would be sharing them. In fact the only local schools to me that I know who share facilities are the local state schools. The swimming facility in one, and a music facility in another. I think things may have changed since your day Gimlet.

 

Yes, they offer some assisted school places - but they are far and few between. These bursaries are offered to the bright pupils who do well on the entrance exams and on a graduated fee basis based on household income. I suppose it is the least they could do to keep their charitable status. You can be sure they'd be paying much higher business rates on those huge properties if they weren't. After all - charities are meant to benefit "the public", not the few. No matter which way you cut it though, the taxpayer indirectly subsidises private schools who work through charity status.

[adzyvilla]

I have private primary and secondary schools nearby and i've never heard of them sharing their facilities. With few exceptions, even inter-school sporting events like rugby are between other private schools - so no sharing of facilities there either. If they did I'd surely know because my kids would be sharing them. In fact the only local schools to me that I know who share facilities are the local state schools. The swimming facility in one, and a music facility in another. I think things may have changed since your day Gimlet.

 

Yes, they offer some assisted school places - but they are far and few between. These bursaries are offered to the bright pupils who do well on the entrance exams and on a graduated fee basis based on household income. I suppose it is the least they could do to keep their charitable status. You can be sure they'd be paying much higher business rates on those huge properties if they weren't. After all - charities are meant to benefit "the public", not the few. No matter which way you cut it though, the taxpayer indirectly subsidises private schools who work through charity status.

 

I grew up in Guildford and there are quite a few private schools in that area (Charterhouse, King Edward VIII etc.). I went to my local comprehensive and we regularly played competitive sports against them (I played football, rugby and cricket), and we usually got stuffed I might add. This was 15-20 years ago now, but i'm fairly sure it still goes on. As a point of interest, my school boasted a dry ski slope and a table tennis centre, and many local schools (fee paying and state) used to use our facilites. I don't remember us ever using any of their facilities though.

[Sian]

There are also lots of private schools where older students mentor children from the community who attend state schools in literacy and numeracy often on Saturdays. My school is a private pre-prep and we recently supported a local state primary school through fundraising events. The sad fact is that if private schools did not exist just imagine how many more children would need to be accommodated by over stretched under-budgeted state schools.

 

I was privately educated and I chose to privately educate the one child I have and it has not been a walk in the park. I have given her what I consider to be her inheritance early. I wish I could have relied on a state school to do the right thing by her but where we live that wasn't a chance I was willing to take.

[Old farrier]

Hi

Just wondering if anyone took out a pension plan with

Equitable life

Just a thought

All the best

Of

[keg]

I have private primary and secondary schools nearby and i've never heard of them sharing their facilities. With few exceptions, even inter-school sporting events like rugby are between other private schools - so no sharing of facilities there either. If they did I'd surely know because my kids would be sharing them. In fact the only local schools to me that I know who share facilities are the local state schools. The swimming facility in one, and a music facility in another. I think things may have changed since your day Gimlet.

 

Yes, they offer some assisted school places - but they are far and few between. These bursaries are offered to the bright pupils who do well on the entrance exams and on a graduated fee basis based on household income. I suppose it is the least they could do to keep their charitable status. You can be sure they'd be paying much higher business rates on those huge properties if they weren't. After all - charities are meant to benefit "the public", not the few. No matter which way you cut it though, the taxpayer indirectly subsidises private schools who work through charity status.

Again, not so, the charities act defines 13 separate descriptions of purpose of which the advancement of education is one.

 

Private education also subsidises state education as has already been pointed out by taking 6.5% of children under 16 out of the state system.

 

I was lucky enough to be privately educated but stupidly, did not take advantage and use it as i should have done. My mother was a state primary deputy head and my father worked for Marley,latterly Payless DIY/Focus so we were hardly rich( if only )

 

Like SIan, we will be doing the same for my daughter. She is in the village primary at the moment, doing well and enjoying it.

 

As has already been said, parental support at home goes a long way to helping school.

 

My old alma mater shares a lot of facilities with both th city and other schools.

Edited July 22, 2014 by keg

[Flashman]

No, they have morals and want to teach those who need it most

Chippy, as usual.

[Gimlet]

. No matter which way you cut it though, the taxpayer indirectly subsidises private schools who work through charity status.

 

How so?

If anything its the other way round. Fee-paying parents subsidise everyone else. They pay taxes to educate other people's children then pay twice to educate their own. Charitable status is in no way underwritten by the tax payer.

And what if charitable status were to be outlawed as an act of spite - there could be no other reason - then only the super-rich would be able to privately educate their children. Parents like Sian and Keg would be excluded and have to fall back on the state which would probably collapse under the strain. Hardly an egalitarian move.

Children from ordinary backgrounds are not disadvantaged because private education is too good but because state education is too often substandard. Champions of state controlled universal education confuse fairness with uniformity. Fairness does not mean artificially engineering blanket uniformity it means getting out what you put in. The problem with almost every area of centralised state provision is that when politicians don't get a result which matches the money they have poured in, they pour in more, and when that doesn't work either they use legislation to sabotage the private sector to cast their own flawed efforts in a better light, usually invoking some moral imperative to justify the action. What they never do is admit their own failings and reform the system so that it works and gives the beleaguered tax payer something approaching value for money. Punishing success only promotes mediocrity. The state education and state health systems are prime examples of this deeply unfair process in operation.

[aris]

This is getting OT - but private education is a choice. Do you get a better education? I think it has more to do with the parents than the school. Most private secondary schools are selective. Oddly enough selective state schools do very well in the league tables too! I'm also sure every childless tax payer would love to get a refund for the tax they pay destined for schooling, As would every person who chooses to pay for private health insurance. But it doesn't work like that. Private schools essentially get better results through selection of pupils - call it educational eugenics.

 

I would argue that charitable status is underwritten by the tax payer as they pay less tax than they ordinarily would. They do it within the law, but I would question their "public benefit" which justifies their charitable status despite the fig leaf gestures.

 

FWIW - I went to private schools (more international schools due to circumstance) and state schools and my son is in a selective grammar.

[henry d]

 

Children from ordinary backgrounds are not disadvantaged because private education is too good but because state education is too often substandard.

 

No, not having that. No way could the private school teacher make anything more, using the same system that they have, with kids from council sink hole estates. Never in a million years, but give a typical secondary school the children that would normally go to private education then I hazard a guess that there would be little difference to their outcome to their normal education route.

[Mungler]

I don't follow the argument - every school should fall to the lowest common denominator / sink estate to make it so no one is disadvantaged?

 

What about grammar schools? The clever kids performing to their potential and it's free - where's the harm in that?

Edited July 22, 2014 by Mungler

[birdsallpl]

As I have mentioned previously, if I take a big lump sum after 40 years, I will be £50,000 worse off. I don't call that slight.

A genuine question - how does 80th's compare to the private sector?

markm. 80ths of what? Do you mean of a hundred, 80% of final salary

[markm]

To get half my final salary as a pension, I need to work 40 years.

 

Each full year I work I get 1/80 towards it.

[birdsallpl]

To get half my final salary as a pension, I need to work 40 years.

Each full year I work I get 1/80 towards it.

Thanks markm

At face value no that is not very good, but we still need to consider a few other things for me to be convinced it's not good.

When did it reduce to 80ths or is that one of the things you went on strike for?

Is it different for teachers that joined the profession 20 years ago?

If different for the teachers that joined 20 years ago, what were they on?

[NickS]

I have taught in both private and state schools, including the "Dump On The Lump" I believe Gimlet refers to. I now teach in the state sector but my son is a weekly boarder at a private school (he didn't get a place at any of the local secondary schools - not even mine!) so I do not have any particular axe to grind. My experience of the quality of teaching is that there is good and bad in both. Some teachers in private schools wouldn't survive in some state schools. Some state school teachers do not have the academic abilities expected in some private schools. There are major differences in the level of per capita funding available to independent schools and this does influence what is taught and how.

 

Believe it or not, most teachers I have worked with are dedicated and professional. We do care about the kids and really want them to do as well as they can. The degree of ignorance displayed by some here just makes me shake my head in wonder. The quality of what is written is an indicator that some have either been let down by their education or that they adopted their present attitude to learning at a young age and have consequently progressed little since they started school.

[keg]

I know we went a bit OT with the debate about public vs state schools but agree with the above post. We had some absolute useless masters!

 

The rot started when Tony Crosland allegedly stated that he "was going to close down every ****ing Grammar School if it's the last thing i do"

 

Various governments have played with the system ever since. New Labour made everything a university .....

[henry d]

I don't follow the argument - every school should fall to the lowest common denominator / sink estate to make it so no one is disadvantaged?

 

What about grammar schools? The clever kids performing to their potential and it's free - where's the harm in that?

 

My apologies, I feel that those who need better education should get it. With regard to areas of urban deprivation it is well known that by intervening in a young person/child`s life at an early stage will reap many times the amount put into their education, but the fact of the matter is a council will disregard a failing school (generalisation alert) and put money into their flagships, such as Grammar schools or Community Campuses.

IMO the education system needs to move on from the idea of depositing of information and needs to apply a system similar to what Sir ken Robinson talks about below, there is a longer, better and less graphic but more entertaining version.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

Edited July 23, 2014 by henry d