Comments on: Are private schools charities?

By: chili

chili — Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:56:54 +0000

Given the reluctance of voters to adequately fund education (or at least pay taxes to do so) it does not seem likely that closing public schools would improve the quality of the state sector, quite the reverse. yes! 英国留学

By: harry

harry — Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:22:01 +0000

I’m still reading Alison. Phill’s problem is that he thinks there are only two possibilities: education is a zero-sum good (obviously false) or improving anyone’s education improves things for everyone. The latter is his fallback from the obviously false alternative, but it is equally obviously false, and the way that public schools act to capture various goodies for their clients shows this. Public schoolboys often are made uneasy by these debates because they call into question the degree to which they are responsible for their own success in life and, especially, the economy. But they shouldn’t, really, feel any more uncomfortable than those of us who went to very ordinary schools but had (as I did) attentive and educated parents. Anyway, the complexity of education as a good and its connections to other goods goes a bit beyond what I’m up for today. Another post later?

By: Alison

Alison — Wed, 23 Jun 2004 09:19:46 +0000

I’m sure nobody is reading this thread any more but Phill charactersises the objection to the british private education system as – if one person gets a good education then it must harm the education received by another person There are clearly other ways in which an education system can harm a community. This is an interesting area for debate, but public school boys (as you say) are keen for this debate not to happen. I wonder why?

By: Phill

Phill — Wed, 23 Jun 2004 03:24:34 +0000

Alison says – But it is also possible for an education system to harm those excluded from it, and such a system should not be supported at the expense of the people it harms. The zero sum game theory of education, if one person gets a good education then it must harm the education received by another person. Given the reluctance of voters to adequately fund education (or at least pay taxes to do so) it does not seem likely that closing public schools would improve the quality of the state sector, quite the reverse. The churches get charitable subsidies, and whatever else you say about them, they cannot all be right. Ergo at least some of them must be receiving state subsidies for propagating untruth. If you are going to do something about the situation you would get far further by forcing Oxbridge to join the modern world and put admissions in the hands of the university departments, not the colleges. The Oxford Engineering dept has been turned into a joke by colleges such as Oriel and LMH who fill it with entirely incapable students selected for their rowing and rugby ability. The faux scandal a few years back of the gifted state school student rejected for medicine at Magdalene missed the point entirely, a public school careers officer would know not to try for that college, much easier to get in at Keble or through the back door at greyfriars etc.

By: Alison

Alison — Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:23:20 +0000

Phill said – The benefits that education provides to society are not limited to the people who receive the education A good education system can indeed benefit those who do not receive the education. But it is also possible for an education system to harm those excluded from it, and such a system should not be supported at the expense of the people it harms. We therefore need to ask the question whether the so-called public school system represents the first or second of these types of education. And I think consideration of whether we will annoy public school boys by asking this question should not inhibit us.

By: asg

asg — Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:49:32 +0000

You’re kidding right? The U.S. has tons of private schools dedicated solely to special-needs kids.

By: harry

harry — Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:14:27 +0000

liz, I’ve been trawling through sites to see what I can find to back up the statement, but have to stop to get some other things done. But from what I can find (at NCES mainly) you’re right, its an exaggeration, but not a massive one—certainly private school tuition costs seem to be substantially lower than per-pupil spending in public schools, especially in elementary. But thanks for the push to defedn the statement—I shall try to get a clearer picture when I’ve more time. The main point here is: that’s completely different from the state of things in the UK, where state schools massively underspend private schools with, as far as we can see, just as good outcomes, and that despite having a much-harder-to-educate clientele. Basically, the vast majority of UK private schools fall into something like your fifth category, so the sector is quite unlike that in the US. Incidentally, the reason private schools account for such a high proportion of schools in the US but so muhc smaller a proportion of kids is (obviously) because they are so muhc smaller—one of the the things that appeals to people about them, and, possibly, one of the (many) reasons they are less costly (though their relative inexpensiveness has lots of other explanations too, not least that almost no-one with a kid with high special needs sends that kid to a private school, and no private school is obliged to accept such a kid).

By: q

Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:49:11 +0000

This type of Fabian twaddle is counter productive, all it succeeds in doing is alienating the kids who go to public schools. It is pretty obvious at this point that Labour does not have the stomach for a serious class war and never will. So why start an ideological firefight that you are not prepared to finish? The “shut up and be grateful you dirty oiks!” argument.

By: Liz

Liz — Tue, 22 Jun 2004 08:16:31 +0000

In the United States (at least in some circles) “my kid goes to private school” has become a chant of status. However, not all private schools mean “highly selective institution of highly rigorous and demanding curriculum”. The “private school” universe should be properly segmented into (1) Parochial schools of the Roman Catholic Church (2) Religious-affiliation schools requiring (or putting a strong emphasis on) attendance at a given church or membership in a given sect (think of the academies of the Seventh Day Adventists). A useful dividing principle here is: what is taught in biology: evolution, intelligent design, or creation? (3) What might be called “conscripted” religious schools—the Sacred Hearts, the Notre Dames of suburbia, which have a religious core but have humanist values and accept students of all (or no) religion. (4) Proprietary schools, stand-alone or chain, whose tuition includes a profit for the proprietors (examples include the Carden Schools: http://www.cardenschool.org/cef.htm, Challenger Schools: http://www.challengerschool.com/; Chancellor Beacon: http://www.chancellorbeacon.com/aboutUs/default.asp: (5) Truly independent schools, usually with membership in the National Association of Independent Schools: Independent schools are non-public, not-for-profit, pre-collegiate institutions governed by boards of trustees. There are about 2,000 of these. The Council for American Private Education (CAPE) is a coalition of national organizations and state affiliates serving private elementary and secondary schools. There are 27,000 private schools in America; in fact, one in four of the nation’s schools is a private school. More than six million students attend them. CAPE member organizations represent about 80 percent of private school enrollment nationwide. The National Independent Private Schools Association is an association of propriety elementary through high school institutions ineligible to join the National Association of Independent Schools.

By: Liz

Liz — Tue, 22 Jun 2004 07:54:17 +0000

You said “[For US readers, note that the structure of the private sector in the UK is quite different from in the US; so, for example, in the UK private schools spend about twice as much per pupil as state schools; in the US they spend about half as much per pupil as public schools. Ironically, private schools with low fees (and hence accessible to lower-and middle-income parents) are more likely than the high-fee schools to be for-profit, and hence not enjoy the subsidy charitable status provides.]” Private schools spending 1/2 per pupil in US? Extraordinary assertion—please defend.

By: Phill

Phill — Tue, 22 Jun 2004 04:01:52 +0000

Hmm, and what would be the charitable works of the Church of England, besides creation of large quantities of prayer. Or the RSPCA besides a somewhat selective concern for the cuter and furier animals? What does the Kentish Opera society do besides creating noises that gives it members amusements? If you want to take a serious look at charitable status it is hard to see why education should be excluded. The benefits that education provides to society are not limited to the people who receive the education. There are a small number of charities that exist only to perform the type of work that most people agree is charitable, famine relief, development, deprived kids etc. But these are only a small proportion of registered charities. This type of Fabian twaddle is counter productive, all it succeeds in doing is alienating the kids who go to public schools. It is pretty obvious at this point that Labour does not have the stomach for a serious class war and never will. So why start an ideological firefight that you are not prepared to finish?

By: asg

asg — Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:51:19 +0000

All of the private schools my parents considered sending me to, including the one I actually did attend, had community-service requirements for graduation. (I spent mine working in a hospital in East L.A.) In addition, further community service was highly encouraged; at my school it was commonplace for students to go down to Tijuana twice a month to tutor kids in Mexican schools (and to improve their own Spanish).

By: asg

asg — Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:50:45 +0000

By: harry

harry — Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:42:19 +0000

Q, although the ISC accounts for only about half of all private schools, my estimate is that it accounts for 80% or so of all private school pupils (because it covers larger schools, smaller schools typically being less inlcined to fork out for membership). And a large number of the remainder are for-profit schools (so no benefit). BUt, I agree, the estimate seems small—I’ll try and figure out whether he’s working with an outdated figure. But, I should say, that when I tried to work it out some years ago it struck me then as very small, which is one reason why it counts as a subsidy for those who would use the schools anyway.

By: lady macbeth

lady macbeth — Mon, 21 Jun 2004 20:03:25 +0000

Having recieved a private school education I feel that I am in a position to pointout that scholarships are indeed awarded on merit but that other financial support is avaliable to those who need it. Most schools offer, as well as scholarships, bursaries or subsidised places. A large number of private schools are more interested in academic merit than profit, and, in the cases of some of my fellow schoolmates, will pay up to 3/4 of fees to enable intellectually capable, but financially limited, students to attend.