mexico1970
Well-Known Member
Sweet baby Jesus !!
You see this all the time with these "not for profit (no really)" institutions. They basically make huge profits, but they're not allowed to technically make a profit, so they consistently spend the excess on assets rather than actually helping anyone. That's why you have universities in America where lecturers struggle to get a decent-paying full-time job, but their food hall looks like a 5 star hotel buffet, they have a new multi-billion dollar wing on the engineering department, and a stadium that wouldn't look out of place in the Premier League. It's why churches are frequently among the biggest property-owners in the US."So how did these schools come by all this land? Ironically, in many cases, the founders wanted to create educational opportunities for poor children, or bring them into the church."
Original charitable purposes subverted by the rich for the rich.
![]()
How England’s top private schools came to own 38,000 acres of land
Students at top fee-paying institutions benefit from centuries of philanthropy originally intended to help the poorwww.theguardian.com
Yep, it's why the concept of "value added" as a way of judging teachers is problematic. You'd think it'd make things fair, because we're not just judging teachers by the score their kids get, but by the improvement. But every study shows that those from a more affluent, stable background don't just get better results, they actually make more progress.I can't find the graph, but there's research that tests children at reception and reckons:
a child with better ability from a deprived background will be overtaken (in attainment) during primary school by a child with less ability from a less deprived background.
"So how did these schools come by all this land? Ironically, in many cases, the founders wanted to create educational opportunities for poor children, or bring them into the church."
Original charitable purposes subverted by the rich for the rich.
![]()
How England’s top private schools came to own 38,000 acres of land
Students at top fee-paying institutions benefit from centuries of philanthropy originally intended to help the poorwww.theguardian.com
Nah.You can walk from Oxford to Bury St Edmunds and never step off land owned by Cambridge University.
I can't find the graph, but there's research that tests children at reception and reckons:
a child with better ability from a deprived background will be overtaken (in attainment) during primary school by a child with less ability from a less deprived background.
Thank you for such a wonderful post. I especially admire the last line. Lots of private school parents put their kids in these schools precisely to get them away from the kids from the council estate, and that is sick, twisted , and vile.You see this all the time with these "not for profit (no really)" institutions. They basically make huge profits, but they're not allowed to technically make a profit, so they consistently spend the excess on assets rather than actually helping anyone. That's why you have universities in America where lecturers struggle to get a decent-paying full-time job, but their food hall looks like a 5 star hotel buffet, they have a new multi-billion dollar wing on the engineering department, and a stadium that wouldn't look out of place in the Premier League. It's why churches are frequently among the biggest property-owners in the US.
Plenty of private schools are the same. We could fund an extra 100 poorer children for five years, or we could upgrade the rowing lake. Because let's be honest, if they really did operate a system of, for example, 50% of students being from troubled, underprivileged backgrounds who struggled in the state system, a good chunk of their paying customers would leave, because the whole reason they're paying in the first place is to get their kids away from kids like this.
I'm afraid this is an issue that boils my piss, and it's an ancient wrong."So how did these schools come by all this land? Ironically, in many cases, the founders wanted to create educational opportunities for poor children, or bring them into the church."
Original charitable purposes subverted by the rich for the rich.
![]()
How England’s top private schools came to own 38,000 acres of land
Students at top fee-paying institutions benefit from centuries of philanthropy originally intended to help the poorwww.theguardian.com
It’s plainly not the only reason. I’m sure it’s a material motivation for some, but the principal reason will be the advantage it gives their children. Which is why it should be subject to VAT. It’s absurd to suggest otherwise. Absolutely outrageous it’s happening now and not many years ago.Thank you for such a wonderful post. I especially admire the last line. Lots of private school parents put their kids in these schools precisely to get them away from the kids from the council estate, and that is sick, twisted , and vile.
I’d be interested to know what school your daughter goes to as that’s the exception rather than the norm if this the straw that breaks the camels back for you rather than the increase in fees private schools have done themselves over the last decade, I did say some would close due to it though. That’s their choice, there’s ways that they could absorb it and have chosen not to.
Agree on your last point, that’s how I’d have implemented it too. As I said though, there’s not many private schools that haven’t increased their fees by a similar price over that period anyway.