Private schools

[bolty58]

2 hours ago, only1swanny said:

 

I'm sure that someone else far more knowledgeable than me can explain the technical name for when a government tries to make everyone equal by toppling the successful. It is very hypocritical for a Party who's leader went to a boarding school and prep school, and their shadow education secretary has no formal qualifications or GCSE's. Hypocritical or the inmates running the asylum?

 

 

Not a technical term but Tall Poppy Syndrome gets close. Hamper achievers in the name of political expediency.

[Ani]

Seems the policy is actually to close tax loop-holes rather than shut schools 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1181495/labour-party-conference-diane-abbott-jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson-eton-private-schools-late/amp

So if someone chooses to send their kids private, I think that is fine. Why should it be funded by tax loop-holes ? 

[mickbrown]

Private schools exist for the sole reason of getting those with a bit of money a leg up on the rest of the population. And so the circle is perpetuated, ad infinitum. 

Now just imagine for a moment if the powers that be's kids HAD to go to state schools?

Funding would be would available in an instant. 

 

[bolty58]

1 hour ago, Ani said:

Seems the policy is actually to close tax loop-holes rather than shut schools 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1181495/labour-party-conference-diane-abbott-jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson-eton-private-schools-late/amp

So if someone chooses to send their kids private, I think that is fine. Why should it be funded by tax loop-holes ? 

Don't know. Don't know why habitual glassbacks are funded by the taxpayer either.

It's a crazy world.

Edited September 24, 2019 by bolty58

[bwfcfan5]

1 hour ago, Ani said:

Seems the policy is actually to close tax loop-holes rather than shut schools 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1181495/labour-party-conference-diane-abbott-jeremy-corbyn-boris-johnson-eton-private-schools-late/amp

So if someone chooses to send their kids private, I think that is fine. Why should it be funded by tax loop-holes ? 

And I think that policy is fair. But the people behind it definitely want to ultimately ban private schools. The ridiculous thing is I heard McDonnell on the radio talking about it and it was clear even though he has to defend it as potential Labour policy - he thought it was bonkers. 

We do need to address inequalities in this country but closing private schools will not do that at all. Its poorly thought through nonsense. How about huge investment into struggling schools and struggling areas of society? We're not going to see huge change unless we tackled the poorest areas of our society and its not just money either - a huge amount of work needs to be done. 

[MalcolmW]

9 hours ago, only1swanny said:

 

I'm sure that someone else far more knowledgeable than me can explain the technical name for when a government tries to make everyone equal by toppling the successful. It is very hypocritical for a Party who's leader went to a boarding school and prep school, and their shadow education secretary has no formal qualifications or GCSE's. Hypocritical or the inmates running the asylum?

While the information about Corbyn's schooling is true it is distorted from the whole truth.

More interesting is why his mother (who brother Piers described as a militant non-believer) sent her 4 sons to a Catholic independent school several miles from their home, rather than the local village school. The answer is because their mother (a maths teacher herself) knew it was the best school available. When the family moved to Shropshire the younger boys transferred to Castle Hill, also independent. They then went to Adams GS as day pupils - it takes about a dozen boarders per year, which is not that surprising given it is in a rural area. It is exactly the same in that regard as Lancaster Royal GS - a school with a small boarding element for a similar reason.

Rayner's background has been mocked many times, but she is underestimated at her opponents' peril. Blair appointed Alan Johnson as Education Secretary knowing he lacked formal qualifications, but even now he would be a better PM than the current Johnson. Rayner, like Johnson (A) gained her education climbing the trade union ladder.

[bwfcfan5]

27 minutes ago, MalcolmW said:

While the information about Corbyn's schooling is true it is distorted from the whole truth.

More interesting is why his mother (who brother Piers described as a militant non-believer) sent her 4 sons to a Catholic independent school several miles from their home, rather than the local village school. The answer is because their mother (a maths teacher herself) knew it was the best school available. When the family moved to Shropshire the younger boys transferred to Castle Hill, also independent. They then went to Adams GS as day pupils - it takes about a dozen boarders per year, which is not that surprising given it is in a rural area. It is exactly the same in that regard as Lancaster Royal GS - a school with a small boarding element for a similar reason.

Rayner's background has been mocked many times, but she is underestimated at her opponents' peril. Blair appointed Alan Johnson as Education Secretary knowing he lacked formal qualifications, but even now he would be a better PM than the current Johnson. Rayner, like Johnson (A) gained her education climbing the trade union ladder.

Alan Johnson would be a better PM than the majority of the MPs in the HoC....

[Tonge moor green jacket]

3 hours ago, mickbrown said:

Private schools exist for the sole reason of getting those with a bit of money a leg up on the rest of the population. 

 

Why offer funding packages for a number of poorer kids then?

If people want and can afford to pay extra to achieve better for their children, then fine. 

If it achieves a level of excellence which is then made available (albeit on a small scale) to bright kids from poorer backgrounds then great.

 

[mickbrown]

4 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Why offer funding packages for a number of poorer kids then?

If people want and can afford to pay extra to achieve better for their children, then fine. 

If it achieves a level of excellence which is then made available (albeit on a small scale) to bright kids from poorer backgrounds then great.

 

All well and good and no doubt helps them keep the charitable status they currently have. 

For the vast majority of students you are buying a leg up. Parents wouldn’t pay if it wasn’t. 

A cracking education should be available to everybody, not just those who can afford it. 

[bwfcfan5]

9 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Why offer funding packages for a number of poorer kids then?

If people want and can afford to pay extra to achieve better for their children, then fine. 

If it achieves a level of excellence which is then made available (albeit on a small scale) to bright kids from poorer backgrounds then great.

 

Surely the emphasis should be on doing something to support the weaker schools and underlying societal problems? No need to close private schools - though not sure why they should be registered as charities, but regardless lots of talk about prioritising a select few. We should be working day and night to reduce educational inequality. By pouring resource in. 

[Ani]

19 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Why offer funding packages for a number of poorer kids then?

If people want and can afford to pay extra to achieve better for their children, then fine. 

If it achieves a level of excellence which is then made available (albeit on a small scale) to bright kids from poorer backgrounds then great.

 

The fact is that by allowing these school preferential treatment in terms of tax they are in essence being funded. 

Tax them as the businesses they are (rather than charities) and then I would be happy. 

[only1swanny]

16 minutes ago, Ani said:

The fact is that by allowing these school preferential treatment in terms of tax they are in essence being funded. 

Tax them as the businesses they are (rather than charities) and then I would be happy. 

They are run as a charity,

No shareholders, the money is reinvested...

So why not? 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

19 minutes ago, Ani said:

The fact is that by allowing these school preferential treatment in terms of tax they are in essence being funded. 

Tax them as the businesses they are (rather than charities) and then I would be happy. 

 

1 minute ago, only1swanny said:

They are run as a charity,

No shareholders, the money is reinvested...

So why not? 

Good arguments both ways.

Not really arsed to be honest; private schools are an option for people to spend their money as they see fit. If it gives kids a leg up, then so be it. 

Wanting a well funded, high quality state system is a separate issue. We all want that, shoving many thousands of new kids into the system won't make that any easier.

[Ani]

27 minutes ago, only1swanny said:

They are run as a charity,

No shareholders, the money is reinvested...

So why not? 

Because as charities they get numerous tax breaks. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

22 minutes ago, Ani said:

Because as charities they get numerous tax breaks. 

Is that wrong if it goes back into the education of the children?

It maybe that this money helps to fund places for children from poorer backgrounds, which may be lost.

Who knows.

[Ani]

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Is that wrong if it goes back into the education of the children?

It maybe that this money helps to fund places for children from poorer backgrounds, which may be lost.

Who knows.

I dare say that is the justification. Get rid of the tax break and let people choose if they want to go there. 

[bwfcfan5]

2 hours ago, only1swanny said:

They are run as a charity,

No shareholders, the money is reinvested...

So why not? 

That's a backwards argument. They have to be run like that or they wouldn't have charitable status. The issue is that they in the main do not do much for wider public benefit (which is what they are meant to do beyond their own pupils) and challenged the charities commission when they tried to put a framework together. 

They aren't and don't behave like charities - I see little reason for them to be given the charitable status. 

[MalcolmW]

1 hour ago, bwfcfan5 said:

That's a backwards argument. They have to be run like that or they wouldn't have charitable status. The issue is that they in the main do not do much for wider public benefit (which is what they are meant to do beyond their own pupils) and challenged the charities commission when they tried to put a framework together. 

They aren't and don't behave like charities - I see little reason for them to be given the charitable status. 

It simply isn't true that they don't do much for the wider public.

Eton had an all weather athletics track built over its previous (private) cinder track, and made it open to the public outside school usage. It is the home of one of the British Athletics League teams and is regularly used for open meetings.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 hour ago, Ani said:

I dare say that is the justification. Get rid of the tax break and let people choose if they want to go there. 

Try it. Costs would probably go up a bit. They'll still pay.

Not arsed personally, but no one should moan if funded places disappear, or anything they do for the wider community disappears.

Overall, it just seems an easy attack on someone with a bit of money. Chip on the shoulder politics.

If they're serious, go after the corporations that avoid paying billions.

[mickbrown]

25 minutes ago, MalcolmW said:

It simply isn't true that they don't do much for the wider public.

Eton had an all weather athletics track built over its previous (private) cinder track, and made it open to the public outside school usage. It is the home of one of the British Athletics League teams and is regularly used for open meetings.

And was mostly paid for with a national lottery grant. So only right it should be used by the wider community.

[MickyD]

25 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

And was mostly paid for with a national lottery grant. So only right it should be used by the wider community.

 The shared use would have been part  of the deal. Much like Bolton Indian cricket club getting their grant on the back of them having women's cricket, women's football, rounders,  hockey and allowing local use of their nets facilities.

Nowadays the women's cricket, rounders football hockey have all gone and try to book their nets,  "sorry, irds being used that night. "

Edited September 24, 2019 by MickyD

[Tonge moor green jacket]

21 minutes ago, MickyD said:

 The shared use would have been part  of the deal. Much like Bolton Indian cricket club getting their grant on the back of them having women's cricket, women's football, rounders,  hockey and allowing local use of their nets facilities.

Nowadays the women's cricket, rounders football hockey have all gone and try to book their nets,  "sorry, irds being used that night. "

Don't get me going on that Micky.

Darcy lever applied for cash to get upgrades. A club in a part of the country renown for its inclusivity, with players from all nations having represented various clubs.

But no, allow a new place a matter of yards away, whose very name doesn't exactly suggest inclusivity, a load of dosh.

Then from personal experience, we used to go and play badminton there of an evening. Never anyone else there.

Suddenly, sorry courts no longer available. Cunts.

[MalcolmW]

55 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

And was mostly paid for with a national lottery grant. So only right it should be used by the wider community.

No. The track was built several years before the lottery grant, which was for a Sports Centre alongside the track, giving it indoor facilities (90m straight and jumping pits) to complement the track, and the college paid £1M towards the costs of the additional facilities.

[mickbrown]

3 minutes ago, MalcolmW said:

No. The track was built several years before the lottery grant, which was for a Sports Centre alongside the track, giving it indoor facilities (90m straight and jumping pits) to complement the track, and the college paid £1M towards the costs of the additional facilities.

Fair enough

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MalcolmW said:

It simply isn't true that they don't do much for the wider public.

Eton had an all weather athletics track built over its previous (private) cinder track, and made it open to the public outside school usage. It is the home of one of the British Athletics League teams and is regularly used for open meetings.

Doesn’t suit the narrative, Malcolm