Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
There are a number of aspects to this.
1) Charitable status essentially means the state is part-funding the relevant schools on the nominal basis they are a public (in the real sense) good. The qpq has mainly been that they take in a few 'free' pupils or do some other 'good works'. But my impression is that it would be better to scrap the charitable status or require a rather - 'state' decided - level of 'public good'.
2) Many of the schools give their products an advantage simply on the basis of then being recognised as 'having gone to a good school' (sic) or being 'one of us' when trying to get a job in sectors where their predecessors are deciding who to employ in nice jobs. In effect, they get an advantage from the label stuck to them, plus, perhaps having been taught 'rhetoric' and how to look natty and confident even when clueless.
3) Having the public schools to go to means the wealthy can cheerfully vote to cut provision for state/local schools because it means they can pay less tax and dodge the consequences.
So my inclination is to require them to take at least half their intake from children nominated by the local authority and must them treat them exactly as the 'paying' students. And to remove charitable status in the current mode and have the local authority pay on a basis equivalent to other types of school. (cf state for local authority were relevant.)
The bottom line isn't just advantages in terms of education. It is advantages in being labelled in a way that allows an elete to self-replicate and keep a hold in sectors of the economy which their actual ability doesn't really justify.
Anyone looking at BloJo or Jakob reely-smug will probably recognise the above 'labelling' effect taking priority over actual ability. And we get stuck with the results.
1) Charitable status essentially means the state is part-funding the relevant schools on the nominal basis they are a public (in the real sense) good. The qpq has mainly been that they take in a few 'free' pupils or do some other 'good works'. But my impression is that it would be better to scrap the charitable status or require a rather - 'state' decided - level of 'public good'.
2) Many of the schools give their products an advantage simply on the basis of then being recognised as 'having gone to a good school' (sic) or being 'one of us' when trying to get a job in sectors where their predecessors are deciding who to employ in nice jobs. In effect, they get an advantage from the label stuck to them, plus, perhaps having been taught 'rhetoric' and how to look natty and confident even when clueless.
3) Having the public schools to go to means the wealthy can cheerfully vote to cut provision for state/local schools because it means they can pay less tax and dodge the consequences.
So my inclination is to require them to take at least half their intake from children nominated by the local authority and must them treat them exactly as the 'paying' students. And to remove charitable status in the current mode and have the local authority pay on a basis equivalent to other types of school. (cf state for local authority were relevant.)
The bottom line isn't just advantages in terms of education. It is advantages in being labelled in a way that allows an elete to self-replicate and keep a hold in sectors of the economy which their actual ability doesn't really justify.
Anyone looking at BloJo or Jakob reely-smug will probably recognise the above 'labelling' effect taking priority over actual ability. And we get stuck with the results.