 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009Public school
The Compact Oxford gives one definition of public school as "a private fee-paying secondary school." Why does British English call a private fee-paying school public? James > The Compact Oxford gives one definition of public school as "a private > fee-paying secondary school." > > Why does British English call a private fee-paying school public? Because originally (say up to about 1850) it was a form of education open to the public - as distinct from the employment of a private tutor, which was the only alternative, available only to the rich. -- James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> Whose moving finger wrote, and cheerfully Clicked "Send" to wing the words below to me, Is powerless to cancel half a line: 'Tis stored on Google sempiternally. >The Compact Oxford gives one definition of public school as "a private >fee-paying secondary school." > >Why does British English call a private fee-paying school public? It might seem like a mystery if you understand the word public in the sense "paid for out of public funds" or "provided on behalf of the community by the government or State", which would apply to "public schools" in the USA. But the term is older than that, and these British schools predate by centuries the time when the provision of free education was the responsibility of the state. The first public schools were public in the sense that they were open to public applicants, as opposed to education from a private tutor or at schools in private households, which were more usual back in 1364, when the term "public school" is first recorded. The OED definitions starts "Originally, in Britain and Ireland: any of a class of grammar schools founded or endowed for public use and subject to public management or control (freq. contrasted with private school)". These old public schools developed into what the OED defines as "a fee-paying secondary school which developed from former endowed grammar schools, or was modelled on similar lines, and which takes pupils from beyond the local constituency and usually offers boarding facilities."  SignatureJames > The Compact Oxford gives one definition of public school as "a private > fee-paying secondary school." > > Why does British English call a private fee-paying school public? The Compact Oxford is incomplete in its answer. Not all private, fee-paying schools are "Public Schools". IIRC, only those which are members of some Headmasters' club qualify. And to have this meaning, it must be rendered "Public School". We don't really know what "public school" means. The UK term for the US "public school" is "state school" or "local authority school". Public Schoools are "public" because they were open to all (subject perhaps, to the ability to pay) at a time when many schools were only open to a subset of the community, e.g. schools run by monestaries or which were for the children and grandchildren of a specific aristocrat. Don't forget that we tend to regard history in centuries. My dad went to a Public School which can trace its origin back to the 9th Century. SignatureDavid On 21 May 2009, the Omrud wrote >> The Compact Oxford gives one definition of public school as "a >> private fee-paying secondary school." [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > to a Public School which can trace its origin back to the 9th > Century. There's one which claims it's of Saxon or Danish origins? I'm guessing it's not in England, or not continous, or a disputed title: isn't it Winchester -- early 14th century -- that usually claims the title as OPSIE? SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 21 May 2009, the Omrud wrote > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > title: isn't it Winchester -- early 14th century -- that usually > claims the title as OPSIE? Sorry, I mistook my centuries - it's the 10th, not the 9th. According to its web site, it dates back to 914. Warwick School - WikiP says it probably started in Warwick Castle a century before Edward the Confessor. I would have gone there myself, having gained a free place from the county based on 11-plus results. I believe I came top of the boys in Warwickshire. But a fortunate (for me) parental forced job change caused a family move to the next county (all of 30 miles) and I had to go to the local grammar. I am eternally thankful. SignatureDavid >> On 21 May 2009, the Omrud wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > caused a family move to the next county (all of 30 miles) and I had to > go to the local grammar. I am eternally thankful. A similar experience to mine: coming top in Middlesex, I won a free place at the august seminary that Katy E attended but my father's job meant we left London after my first year there. The free place was not transferable and my parents agonised about taking me away and thought about leaving me to live with my aunt but the very sensible headmistress told them that this was a bad idea. I was thrust into the rough and tumble of the girls' grammar and I had to toughen up pretty quickly - I can't imagine the nice girls at NLCS roughing anyone up behind the bike sheds - but I'm sure it did me the world of good. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> I would have gone there myself, having gained a free place from the >> county based on 11-plus results. I believe I came top of the boys in [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > can't imagine the nice girls at NLCS roughing anyone up behind the bike > sheds - but I'm sure it did me the world of good. Hmmm. Have we discovered another AUE unifier? Ability, at the age of 11, to do random IQ tests? SignatureDavid >>> I would have gone there myself, having gained a free place from the >>> county based on 11-plus results. I believe I came top of the boys in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Hmmm. Have we discovered another AUE unifier? Ability, at the age of >11, to do random IQ tests? No. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>>> I would have gone there myself, having gained a free place from the >>>> county based on 11-plus results. I believe I came top of the boys in [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > No. Right, sorry. SignatureDavid >>>>> I would have gone there myself, having gained a free place from the >>>>> county based on 11-plus results. I believe I came top of the boys in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Right, sorry. S'OK, I caught up a bit later. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >A similar experience to mine: coming top in Middlesex, I won a free >place at the august seminary that Katy E attended but my father's job ... >tumble of the girls' grammar and I had to toughen up pretty quickly - I >can't imagine the nice girls at NLCS roughing anyone up behind the bike >sheds - Goodness. You clearly didn't stay very long! Katy On 21 May 2009, the Omrud wrote >> On 21 May 2009, the Omrud wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > - WikiP says it probably started in Warwick Castle a century > before Edward the Confessor. Fair 'nuff; clearly very old -- but I'm afraid the historical researcher in me doubts the claims of continuity, especially given how they word the claim on the website. The website notes 914 as the ASC reference to the *town* of Warwick, and that "this has long been taken as the date of the foundation of Warwick School". They don't appear to say precisely who has long taken it as such, though, or how widely the claim is accepted -- and I certainly wouldn't put any faith at all in what someone has managed to put in Wikipee about the probabilities of its origins. (Then again, it's my job to be sceptical about these things...) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >I'm guessing it's not in England, or not continous, or a disputed >title: isn't it Winchester -- early 14th century -- that usually >claims the title as OPSIE? Browsing the Winchester College website I found a list of "Notions" (words specific to the College): http://www.winchestercollege.org/Home.aspx?m=0&cat=47 Following the list is: Not all words and phrases have remained within the bounds of the School however, and an interesting example is the word goive. "goive" has a link to: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=goive A word to express general disinterest in one's situation or surroundings. Originally from Winchester College, goive has now spread to some major universities round the country. The word can be added to with both suffixes and prefixes: Mmyagoive and Goivestani SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >On 21 May 2009, the Omrud wrote > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >title: isn't it Winchester -- early 14th century -- that usually >claims the title as OPSIE? Putting on my Brian of Britain hat, I'll go for King's School Canterbury, 6th century. [Gotta check before posting -- and this to provoke Harvey: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King%27s_School,_Canterbury>] SignaturePaul >James Harris wrote: >> The Compact Oxford gives one definition of public school as "a private [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Don't forget that we tend to regard history in centuries. My dad went >to a Public School which can trace its origin back to the 9th Century. I'm sure I don't need to remind regular auers of the words of the Bishop of Oxford in 1937, but for the casual visitor it might be helpful to recall that he wrote this, after noting that the "public schools", which the Clarendon Commission of 1861 counted as being nine in number, served the richest class in the community, with a curriculum that was in the main framed on the assumption that most of the pupils were preparing to enter one or other of the ancient universities: "With such schools offering them an open door, the aristocratic and landed classes might well be content, even though the education and general care of the pupils displayed many features deplored by the most enlightened of contemporary judges. It is said that Dr Busby, the great head master of Westminster, was the first to popularize the public school, as against the domestic tutor, with the titled families of the country. It is true that the eighteenth century witnessed a certain reversion to the older system. But by the beginning of the Victorian era it was obvious that the great public schools had come to stay, for those who could afford their fees and the heavy additional charges for travelling, extra tuition, and so forth." At the bottom end of the scale were the "voluntary" schools (the Bishop's quotes) derived from Sunday schools and the schools organised by the National Society of the Church of England and by the British and Foreign School Society. He states that the teaching was often of a very low level, and that the average life of a pupil was not more than two or three years, from eight or nine to eleven. As late as 1836 there were only 150 infant schools in the country. From the middle of the nineteenth century a large number of new schools were established for the education of the sons of the middle classes, based on the "public school" model, and they came to be called public schools alongside the great originals. The school that educated me, and made me the man I am today, was founded in just such a way in 1858, for the sons of the lowest middle classes, typically poor curates and trade'smen: hence my mastery of the greengrocer's apostrophe and the scholar's hip. The fees were GBP 15 per term, IIRC. SignaturePaul > The Compact Oxford is incomplete in its answer. Not all private, > fee-paying schools are "Public Schools". IIRC, only those which are > members of some Headmasters' club qualify. As noted, at the time of the Clarendon Commission (1860s) there were only nine such schools in England, boarding schools open to anyone (who could pay the fees: there were then no free schools in England except for church-run choir schools etc.) Many more were founded in the late 19th century to meet the demand (for public school education for the sons of the rising middle classes.) The "Headmasters' Conference" had by the early 20th century about 25 members. I think this is (or was) a self- electing body, i.e. offered membership only to those schools approved by a majority of current members. Late 20th century reforms (notably partial state funding, on condition that these boys schools admit girls, also the abolition of traditional academic "grammar schools") has made the situation much more complex, but I think there are still (just as in 1930) four tiers of such schools. 1. Elite schools, Eton, Winchester, Harrow, and few or no others. 2. Headmasters' Conference, 25+ schools, e.g. Uppingham, Marlborough, Stowe, Haileybury, Fettes, Rugby. 3. "Minor public schools," at least 50 in number, aspiring (perhaps) to join the Headmasters' Conference but not yet recognized as members, e.g. Cranbrook, Epsom, Bedales, and some that began as grammar schools, sometimes centuries before. Many of these were not wholly residential, i.e. had day-boy students who lived near enough. 4. A very few experimental private schools, e.g. Gordonstoun, Dartington. Their boys came from the public school stratum of society (top 15 per cent) but each had unique teaching methods. Sports fixtures were the most obvious badge of school status. Schools in groups 1 and 2 tended to play (cricket, football, etc.) only against each other, never with schools outside their social circle. The summer cricket match between Eton and Harrow is (was) a major event in London high society. I do not know about schools today, but public schools generally taught excellently from the 1840s (inspired by reforms at Rugby) to the 1860s, because of small classes, personal supervision, etc. This meant that university preparation could almost be taken for granted, because bright boys got the personal coaching that would win them scholarships. But up to the 1950s only a minority (at my public school) planned to go to university -- not needed in those days to become (for example) a doctor or a solicitor (lawyer). A notable feature of my school was the "army class," a couple of dozen semi-illiterate 17-year-olds being crammed to pass the examinations to get into the Sandhurst Royal Military Academy. Each year had about 100 boys classified by academic ability into about five streams. It was also taken for granted that all scholarship boys would be in the top class which specialized in Latin and Greek (in 1955 exactly as in 1855); second-class brains were allowed to specialize in History and English or French and German; only the duller remainder were (in 1955) permitted to specialize in science. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >> The Compact Oxford is incomplete in its answer. Not all private, >> fee-paying schools are "Public Schools". IIRC, only those which are [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >or no others. >2. Headmasters' Conference, 25+ schools, Where 25+ now means 250+. According to the HMC website: http://www.hmc.org.uk/ There are 67 international (overseas) members. The HMC treats the Republic of Ireland as part of its home territory. There is a single HMC school in the RoI: Clongowes Wood College SJ, a Jesuit institution: http://www.clongowes.com/ That's a surprise to me. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> The Compact Oxford is incomplete in its answer. Not all private, >> fee-paying schools are "Public Schools". IIRC, only those which are [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >electing body, i.e. offered membership only to those >schools approved by a majority of current members. [snip] The term "public school" is not restricted to the Clarendon schools, or to the members of the HMC, and never has been. The thing which distinguishes a public school is that it offers free places which may be applied for by all comers. In recent times, I think, these places are always awarded on the basis of academic competition, but other methods are possible. If a school has no such places it is not a public school. However, if it *does* have such places, it is one, even if, as is always the case, those who win them find themselves joined by a much larger number of pupils recruited purely on the basis of ability and willingness to pay large fees. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" >>> The Compact Oxford is incomplete in its answer. Not all private, >>> fee-paying schools are "Public Schools". IIRC, only those which are [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The thing which distinguishes a public school is that it offers free > places which may be applied for by all comers. Wouldn't comprehensive schools satisfy that definition (at least since the 1980s when I understand parents have been able to choose which comprehensive school to send their children to)? Personally I think that is the more interesting question, ie not so much why the well known public schools are called that, but why state run comprehensive schools are not. Apteryx > The Compact Oxford gives one definition of public school as "a private > fee-paying secondary school." > > Why does British English call a private fee-paying school public? > > James The English colonists in America very quickly established what we call public schools. The town of Dedham Ma. established the first tax funded school in 1643, It seems it took longer in the U.K. for such things to come into existence? >The English colonists in America very quickly established what we call >public schools. >The town of Dedham Ma. established the first tax funded school in 1643, >It seems it took longer in the U.K. for such things to come into existence? Much longer. http://www.schome.ac.uk/wiki/Dame_schools Dame Schools Education was not compulsory for children aged 5 to 10 in England until 1880. Prior to that date the education was a preserve of the elite and was only received by children whose parents could afford to pay. Children from working class backgrounds could not expect to receive any form of formal schooling. It was common for children to attend Sunday School, with an estimated 1.5 million 5-15 year olds attending in the mid nineteenth century. However Sunday Schools only provided religious instruction, and not a balanced education. The poorest of British children may have been lucky enough to attend one of Lord Shaftsburys Ragged Schools of which there were 200 across Britain, providing a basic education for children from working class homes. Children residing in the Workhouse would also have received a form of education, but their experience of schooling was likely to have been extremely basic (Higginbottom 2003). ...Dame Schools were a phenomenon of the Victorian era, and there is a great contrast in the levels of education pupils of these unique schools received. They were titled Dame Schools as these enterprises were often run by elderly women from their homes. They catered for the youngest of children, often from the poorest of families, aged between 2 and 5; children too young to work. Some of the young pupil were taught the 3 Rs, Reading, wRiting, and aRthermatic [sic]. However some of these schools also taught the pupils skills that would help them to find work when they were old enough, for example knitting or sewing. As was the norm in Victorian times, any instruction would have been didactic and the pupils would have learnt parrot fashion repeating words, spellings and sums until they had memorised them. These establishments were mainly provided as a form of child care for parents who had no choice but to go out to work. It was common for fees to be as much as 4 pence a week. The women who ran these schools were rarely trained, and many undertook other forms of work such as washing or sewing whilst supervising the children, adding strength to the argument that Dame Schools were simply another form of child care. I attended a boy's grammar school (high school) that had its origins in a dame school founded in 1704 by Elizabeth Fuller. ISTR that "Amethyst Deceiver" - Linz (Lindsay Endell) attended the girls grammar school that had its origins in the same dame school: http://www.watfordboys.org/ http://www.watfordgrammarschoolforgirls.org.uk/ SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > http://www.schome.ac.uk/wiki/Dame_schools > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > and not a balanced education. . . . > ...Dame Schools were a phenomenon of the Victorian era This narrative seems unreliable in several respects. 1. Education was not before 1880 "a preserve of the elite." Early in English history (say before printing 1500) education was a monopoly of the church, which was by no means coextensive with "the elite" (because before Henry VIII the church successfully exerted a high degree of independence in politics.) Most cathedrals maintained choir schools for "singing boys," several of which developed later into secular schools for teen-agers (e.g. Winchester, Westminster.) 2. The purpose of Sunday Schools as founded 1780 was to teach wriiting and reading (the Bible) to children employed in farms and factories, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Raikes 3. Aside from church schools various public schools were endowed throughout English history, notably Eton College (by King Henry VI 1440). The Victorian reform movement began with Thomas Arnold's taking charge in 1828 of Rugby School (endowed 1567 by the royal grocer.) 4. Dame schools are mentioned as early as Shakespeare (whose Seven Ages speech mentions the schoolboy going unwillingly to school -- obviously not "a preserve of the elite.") The career of scientist Michael Faraday (1791-1867) is suggestive. It appears he hardly went to any school but educated himself as a teen-ager during years of apprenticeship to a bookbinder, went to public lectures by a star scientist in London, introduced himself, and was hired at 21 as a laboratory assistant. 5. The obvious omission above is girls, because the Sunday Schools were the only ones that (in some places) taught girls as well as boys. Most of the history of English education concerns only schools for boys, and most of the history of schooling for girls amounts to an attempt to replicate for girls whatever was currently available to boys. But PD wrote: > I attended a boy's grammar school (high school) that had its origins in > a dame school founded in 1704 by Elizabeth Fuller. ISTR that "Amethyst > Deceiver" - Linz (Lindsay Endell) attended the girls grammar school that > had its origins in the same dame school: > http://www.watfordboys.org/ > http://www.watfordgrammarschoolforgirls.org.uk/ SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >> http://www.schome.ac.uk/wiki/Dame_schools >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >This narrative seems unreliable in several respects. I tried to track down information about the status of the organisation owing that website. At the second attempt I've have discovered that "schome" is a research project directed by Dr Peter Twining, Senior Lecturer and head of the Open University's Department of Education. I made the casual assumption that because the website was in the UK Higher Education domain hierarchy, "ac.uk", it might contain moderately reliable information. This was despite the fact that I should have known better having worked in UK HE in one capacity or another for 40 years and having had a father who was also in UK HE. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message >news:fruc15tcp8au5i7dnl3r7p6704klm5p92c@4ax.com... citing: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >began with Thomas Arnold's taking charge in 1828 of Rugby >School (endowed 1567 by the royal grocer.) We have to be careful in assigning labels such as 'public school' here. They may well have been founded by merchants, typically, and to be among the 'public schools' today, but at the time they were more likely grammar schools. I'm thinking of men like John Roysse who was an early benefactor of Abingdon School, Sir Thomas White of the Merchant Taylors' School, and that fellow Colet or Collet (wasn't he a Dean?) who gave some early beneficence (I forget exactly what) to St Paul's School in London. All those three are today 'public schools' of high academic rank, but when they began they were just foundations for educating a few young scholars. Even my village has a school house, now occupied in part by the mother and toddler group, originally endowed by a local merchant who made good in London three hundred years ago, and his established charity still supports village scholars today. One of the unwitting obstacles to public education was Dr Johnson. He defined a grammar school as a school for teaching the learned languages. His opinion became a totem of the highest regard (though Becky Sharp had other views on his dictionary). In the year 1805, Lord Eldon gave judgment in the matter of Leeds Grammar School. Basing himself on Johnson's definition, he prohibited the governors of the school from using their endowments to promote the teaching of arithmetic, writing, and modern languages, instead of, or in addition to, Latin and Greek. Grammar schools were thereby condemned to teach only the classics to butchers' apprentices. Lord Eldon had passed in Hebrew at Oxford by his correct translation of Golgotha as 'the place of the skull', and in history by stating that King Alfred had founded University College. He was clearly a man who knew where his towel was to be found. >4. Dame schools are mentioned as early as Shakespeare >(whose Seven Ages speech mentions the schoolboy [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >London, introduced himself, and was hired at 21 as a laboratory >assistant. Only after being sent on a laboratory health and safety course, I hope. After all, if only one life can be saved, it's worth it. >5. The obvious omission above is girls, because the Sunday >Schools were the only ones that (in some places) taught [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> http://www.watfordboys.org/ >> http://www.watfordgrammarschoolforgirls.org.uk/ SignaturePaul > We have to be careful in assigning labels such as 'public school' here. > They may well have been founded by merchants, typically, and to be among [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > those three are today 'public schools' of high academic rank, but when > they began they were just foundations for educating a few young scholars. Yes, in quite a few cases the original intention of the founder was allowed to drift at some point in the 19th or 18th centuries. It's a while since Harrow has educated many of the poor of that parish. To be fair, in some cases this was addressed by the governors. In the case of Harrow, this led to the foundation of the John Lyon School - much more akin to what the founder John Lyon had in mind, and an excellent day grammar school in its own right. The same happened at Oundle with the Laxton School. I am sure there are other examples. Regards Jonathan >> We have to be careful in assigning labels such as 'public school' here. >> They may well have been founded by merchants, typically, and to be among [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > own right. The same happened at Oundle with the Laxton School. I am sure > there are other examples. I note that Dr Gaius Baltar of Battlestar Galactica was educted by Harrow, and that his parents owned a B&B in London. I rather suspect that they would not have had the moolah to pay to send him to that august establishment, so perhaps he's one of the poor of the parish. While I'm ruminating on such things, Jimmy McNulty of Wire went to Eton. SignatureDavid > I note that Dr Gaius Baltar of Battlestar Galactica was educted by > Harrow, and that his parents owned a B&B in London. I rather suspect > that they would not have had the moolah to pay to send him to that > august establishment, so perhaps he's one of the poor of the parish. On the other hand he was only educted there, which may have been cheaper than getting educated. Signature"Get hip to the consultation of the boolawee." - P.J. Proby MC filted: >> I note that Dr Gaius Baltar of Battlestar Galactica was educted by >> Harrow, and that his parents owned a B&B in London. I rather suspect [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >On the other hand he was only educted there, which may have been cheaper >than getting educated. Harrow, I take it, is known for drawing out young men?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? Perhaps we've strayed a little from the original question, about the Pondian difference in the labels "public" and "private" school. What must surprise US observers of such things is the lack of any sharp distinction in England between, in the AmE sense, "public" and "private". Yes, at the extremes are what we call "independent" schools and "State" schools, but in between are various kinds of semi-independent schools. In this county of Wiltshire most primary schools (5-11) seem to be "voluntary aided" Church schools: all their running costs, including salaries, are met from public funds, and capital costs (for new buildings) are 90% publicly funded, the diocese contributing only the residual 10%. Almost all these schools are Anglican, though a few are Roman Catholic; in cities there are some Jewish and a very few Muslim schools run on the same lines. At secondary level the Churches are less often involved, but quite recently the Government has set up secular schemes giving even greater powers to their largely independent governing bodies. The notion of a "School Board" responsible in some detail for all the schools in a city is strange to us, because so much is devolved in every school, even a "State school", to its own Board of Governors. Perhaps the OQ ought also to know that in BrE usage the term "public school" is officially dead and is now most often used contemptuously, by those who disapprove of independent education in principle. Yet it is still true that the facilities available in what were once the "Public Schools" are usually such as State schools can only dream of, and the academic teaching is often exhilaratingly intense. Alan Jones > Perhaps we've strayed a little from the original question, about the > Pondian difference in the labels "public" and "private" school. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > is devolved in every school, even a "State school", to its own Board of > Governors. The US system may in practice be even worse than many Rightpondians imagine. For a few years (until the end of 2003) we lived in what was officially called an "incorporated village" on Long island, NY. Part of this community was in one school district, the other part in a different school district. Of those two school districts, one included part of yet another such "incorporated village" and the whole of a third. That school district had three elementary schools, one "middle school" and one high school. The Superintendent and Deputy Superintendents for this, that and the other probably collected at least $500,000 in salaries between them. Many of the people who showed up at school board meetings urged the board to keep spending more money -- even though it meant that their property taxes would increase thereby -- because otherwise their property values would decline. And with so much of school financing coming from property taxes, areas with low property values have a tough time providing an adequate learning environment and teaching materials, and attracting qualified teachers. Perce > Perhaps we've strayed a little from the original question, about the > Pondian difference in the labels "public" and "private" school. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > buildings) are 90% publicly funded, the diocese contributing only the > residual 10%. I count these as state schools - IME the influence of the church on the vast majority of them is infinitesimal. > Almost all these schools are Anglican, though a few are > Roman Catholic; in cities there are some Jewish and a very few Muslim [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is devolved in every school, even a "State school", to its own Board of > Governors. It's worth reminding folks that the amount an English school governing body has to spend is in no way under their own control or influence, except for the tiny amounts which can be earned by letting the building to sports clubs, music societies, etc, out of school hours (from which the caretaker's overtime has to be paid). Each child comes with an annual amount of money which varies by age, and also dramatically by the central government funding given to the local education authority. My local authority is very badly funded; the 440-pupil Junior school (ages 7 - 10) at which I am a governor receives about £2200 per child per year. The median for similar schools around the country is about £2900 and the maximum is around £4000. We are smack clean at the bottom of the funding chargs and we have been since we were allowed to see the comparisons - we are the worst funded Junior School in England. We work hard to balance the books and we achieve first-class results and inspection reports; we can only dream of what we could do if we had average funding - an extra £250,000 or so per year. We cannot imagine what those other schools are doing with it all. SignatureDavid > My local authority is very badly funded; the 440-pupil Junior school > (ages 7 - 10) at which I am a governor receives about £2200 per child [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > average funding - an extra £250,000 or so per year. We cannot imagine > what those other schools are doing with it all. That's terrible. In the US the average spending for students is just over $9,000 a year, which would be £5,600. I don't throw that there in a "rah rah" way; I think schools here are underfunded, too. I can't imagine what you're doing _without_ that money. SignatureSML >> My local authority is very badly funded; the 440-pupil Junior >> school (ages 7 - 10) at which I am a governor receives about £2200 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > in a "rah rah" way; I think schools here are underfunded, too. I > can't imagine what you're doing _without_ that money. Back in the 1950s Professor C. Northcote Parkinson suggested in _The Law and the Profits_ that, if income tax were reduced substantially, social services would improve out of all recognition because, being short of money, the goverment would have to spend it wisely instead of spending it because it's there. Spending more does not guarantee better outcomes. UK teachers' salaries probably are lower than those of US teachers. UK schools would not have to pay outrageous amounts to cover the staff health insurance premiums. Perce > Back in the 1950s Professor C. Northcote Parkinson suggested in _The > Law and the Profits_ that, if income tax were reduced substantially, > social services would improve out of all recognition because, being > short of money, the goverment would have to spend it wisely instead of > spending it because it's there. Spending more does not guarantee > better outcomes. Well I think we're going to find out over the next few (FSVO "few") years just how well social services respond to not having much money available to spend on them. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >> My local authority is very badly funded; the 440-pupil Junior school >> (ages 7 - 10) at which I am a governor receives about £2200 per child [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >"rah rah" way; I think schools here are underfunded, too. I can't >imagine what you're doing _without_ that money. Before I would accept a comparison, I'd want to know how the figures were put together. For example, do the figures include health care benefits in both cases? Staff retirement? Do the figures include anything towards facility construction or upkeep? I'd have to see a line-item comparison to feel comfortable with making a comparison. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> My local authority is very badly funded; the 440-pupil Junior school >>> (ages 7 - 10) at which I am a governor receives about £2200 per child [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > anything towards facility construction or upkeep? I'd have to see a > line-item comparison to feel comfortable with making a comparison. I wasn't inviting a comparison with non-UK schools which would be fairly meaningless as you say, but for the sake of interest: the funding covers all the costs of being an employer. Private healthcare benefits are relatively uncommon in the UK as the NHS covers everybody. Retirement, yes. The Capital budget is separate - we get a small capital allowance for ongoing changes but the building and land are owned by the local authority - any significant changes (new build, for example) are funded by them, but we would have to wait in a queue for perhaps 10 years if we need a new classroom. We have to fund IT equipment, decoration, gardening, utilities, stationary, and so on. SignatureDavid > >That's terrible. In the US the average spending for students is just > >over $9,000 a year, which would be £5,600. I don't throw that there in a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > anything towards facility construction or upkeep? I'd have to see a > line-item comparison to feel comfortable with making a comparison. Good point. I'd like to see a solid comparison, but I'm too lazy to do it myself. SignatureSML >It's worth reminding folks that the amount an English school governing >body has to spend is in no way under their own control or influence, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >annual amount of money which varies by age, and also dramatically by the >central government funding given to the local education authority. This is the most significant difference between the two systems. In the U.S. system, nearly all schools are run by an independent local government authority -- usually a school board, but sometimes as a part of municipal or county government. While they do receive some level of state funding in many states, their primary source of revenue is locally imposed taxes. Usually this is a property tax, but some school systems are partially funded by sales taxes or income taxes. (In some states, such as Vermont, there is an additional level of revenue redistribution.) (The U.S. has a lot of local government: according to the 2007 Census of Governments, there are 89,476 local governments, of which 39,044 are general-purpose -- county or municipality -- and 50,432 are special-purpose. Of those special-purpose governments, 14,561 are public school systems; for census purposes this includes both independent and dependent school systems.) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >> It's worth reminding folks that the amount an English school governing >> body has to spend is in no way under their own control or influence, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > (In some states, such as Vermont, there is an additional level of > revenue redistribution.) UK local authorities are funded about 75% by central government, and the remainder by local property taxes (there is no local sales or income tax). So, if an authority wanted to spend 25% more than its previous budget, it would have to *double* the local council tax and rates. That's an extreme example - if the authority wants to raise spending by 2.5%, it has to raise local property taxes by 10%. Even at that level, it would then be penalised by central government for spending more than they think is reasonable - I don't know the details but I think it would lose some future central government funding increases, rendering the action pointless. The consequence is that it's effectively impossible for a local authority to spend more than central government believes it should spend. SignatureDavid >My local authority is very badly funded; the 440-pupil Junior school >(ages 7 - 10) at which I am a governor receives about £2200 per child >per year. The median for similar schools around the country is about >£2900 and the maximum is around £4000. I dread to think what my monthly council tax bill to Surrey County Council (SCC) would be if England's education capitation allowance was increased to above the present highly desirable pauper level. The whole point of state funded services is that they should be suitably awful to discourage their use. When my wife was a teacher she and her colleagues were asked to identify kids in their classes that considered in need of special care. There was no hesitation in the naming of two outstanding scallywags. This was more than ten years ago. Both kiddiwinks are now adults and both have been smacked on the back of the legs with custodial sentences for murder. They are a pair of psychopathic killers and doubtless will go on the slaughter rampage again when they're released. In other words they were only fixed by the judiciary when they had shown themselves to be broken. Imagine the cost to SCC council tax payers if SCC had decided to keep those miscreant under some sort of monitoring! It doesn't bear thinking about. The policy of only fixing things when they're actually broken works brilliantly with potholes. SCC's Highways Dept solution is contiguous potholes. One pothole can be nuisance but a road that has deteriorated to being an unmade road is a wonderful cash-saving test for Surrey's huge population of four-wheel drive cars. About twenty years ago SCC decided to stop teaching village children cookery lessons. They ripped out the cooking equipment and got rid of all those nasty knives and cleavers. It was a sensible move that saved money on teaching staff, insurance, gas and electricity. After all, what kid needs lessons is getting hold of junk food? All they have to do is point at the illuminated picture of the Wimpy of their choice and it's provided by state-educated sous-chef who has been trained to punch pictograms on a membrane cash register rather than resort to the skilled task of entering an amount. That function demands a staff member on a higher rate of pay. Similar savings were made when SCC scrapped home economics. I recently spent an eye-smarting afternoon with a Provident Finance agent on her round on a quite dreadful chav estate. What struck me, apart from the stink of cigarettes which C2s seem to adore, was that she was greeted as a friend by all her customers, and that most of those customers had an attitude to money that I found quite bizarre bordering on what seemed to me to be incomprehensible. Many of her customers were interested only in whether or not they had reached roll over point on their repayments in order to qualify for loan 'top-ups'. The agent went to considerable pains to point out that new loans on top of old loans amounted to ludicrous interest rates but I could tell that the customers weren't interested. Their eyes glazed over as they waited to sign on the dotted line and grab the money. On one occasion the money enabled a member of the household to go out and return with cartons of cigarettes! I agree that Provident Finance interest rates are a disgrace, but dictating to people how they acquire their loans or dispose of them would be an even bigger disgrace. No one held a gun to heads. I don't know what the answer unless, heaven forbid, financial probity taught in schools. A contribution that SSC made to the economy of the country was to scrap National Savings collections in schools. I've been a compulsive saver ever since my schooldays when I used to buy a 2/6d (12-1/2p) National Savings stamp every Monday morning and every eight weeks had the joy of contemplating another whole one pound saved. My compulsive savings disorder turned me into someone hates borrowing money but prefers to pay for things when I can afford it. I used to think of my saving phobia as a fairly harmless disorder. Now I learn that blame for many of the ills facing society today can leaned against my mudscraper so much so that the English government have had to introduced cash incentives for people to get into dept with their German-inspired car scrappage allowance. Today I have to save monthly to pay my council tax bill. Just think what I'd have to pay if SCC encouraged the 40 per cent of village parents not to pay to send their kids to private schools by providing decent education! SignatureJames Follett. Novelist. (G1LXP) http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk http://www.pbase.com/jamesfollett [snip good stuff mumble mumble frequent enough] > Today I have to save monthly to pay my council tax bill. Just think what > I'd have to pay if SCC encouraged the 40 per cent of village parents not > to pay to send their kids to private schools by providing decent > education! If you're having trouble paying your Council Tax, why not get a job with the Forestry Commission? Aim 1 of the Commission's Equality and Diversity Strategy is 'To recruit and employ more people from a diversity of backgrounds in order to make the Forestry Commission representative of the population of the areas where we operate.' They are particularly keen to recruit six target groups, chief among them people aged '0-24 and particularly 65+' and 'women, men and trans- gender'. (Do you like to press wild flowers, Jimbo?) ** While I'm here and Jimbo might be looking, does anyone know what the 'E' in 'C3HARGE' stands for? C3HARGE is the new CERIAC. CERIAC was the UK Health & Safety Executive's CERamics Industry Advisory Committee. When CERIAC's remit was suddenly and joyously expanded by a revitalising agenda, it was obvious to everyone that a new nalgonym was not just essential but vital and necessary: thus was C3HARGE born. The long-form name is the 'Ceramics, cement, concrete [C3], heavy [H] clay [the 'A' in clay?], refractories [R] and glass [G] manufacturing industries joint health and safety advisory committee'. Which 'E' is it? The one in 'health' or the one in 'safety' or one of the ones at the end of 'committee'? This is not a trivial question. Livelihoods - even lives - are at stake. (Else why spend all that money?) -- VB >>> We have to be careful in assigning labels such as 'public school' here. >>> They may well have been founded by merchants, typically, and to be among [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >While I'm ruminating on such things, Jimmy McNulty of Wire went to Eton. You couldn't tell it from his accent. (Just started season 5.) SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>>> We have to be careful in assigning labels such as 'public school' here. >>>> They may well have been founded by merchants, typically, and to be among [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > You couldn't tell it from his accent. (Just started season 5.) Perhaps that's because despite going to Eton, he's from Sheffield. We've recently finished Season 2. I'm dithering about recording the remaining seasons from BBC2 as they seem to be broadcasting the lot. We've just watched the last episode of Season 1 of Battlestar Galactica and I'm rather unsettled (I won't say why, in case it spoils). I don't have any more DVDs at the moment ... SignatureDavid > I attended a boy's grammar school (high school) that had its origins in > a dame school founded in 1704 by Elizabeth Fuller. ISTR that "Amethyst > Deceiver" - Linz (Lindsay Endell) attended the girls grammar school that > had its origins in the same dame school: > http://www.watfordboys.org/ > http://www.watfordgrammarschoolforgirls.org.uk/ Indeed I did. And we spent an inordinate amount of time in the first year learning where the apostrophe went in "Girls' Grammar School" and "Boys' Grammar School". SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary > I attended a boy's grammar school (high school) that had its origins in > a dame school founded in 1704 by Elizabeth Fuller. ISTR that "Amethyst > Deceiver" - Linz (Lindsay Endell) attended the girls grammar school that > had its origins in the same dame school: > http://www.watfordboys.org/ Are British headmasters sadists? Only long trousers allowed also in the summer ... SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe est > Are British headmasters sadists? Well of course they are. What a strange question. Mike M >> I attended a boy's grammar school (high school) that had its origins in >> a dame school founded in 1704 by Elizabeth Fuller. ISTR that "Amethyst [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Are British headmasters sadists? Only long trousers allowed also in the >summer ... Long trousers are needed to keep the legs warm during a typical British summer. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) per@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) Whose moving finger wrote, and cheerfully Clicked "Send" to wing the words below to me, Can't lure it back to cancel half a line: 'Tis stored on Google sempiternally. >> I attended a boy's grammar school (high school) that had its origins in >> a dame school founded in 1704 by Elizabeth Fuller. ISTR that "Amethyst [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Are British headmasters sadists? Only long trousers allowed also in the >summer ... At my school it was short trousers all year round in the first and second forms (some boys were already six-footers), then long trousers all year round. I remember some boys changing to short trousers just as the bus drove through the school gates, while others were frantically combing their hair behind their ears. SignatureJames > per@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) > Whose moving finger wrote, and cheerfully [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > drove through the school gates, while others were frantically > combing their hair behind their ears. It would be rational to use short trousers in the summer and long trousers or breeches in the winter - right up to and including year 13. Or simply to let the pupils decide for themselves ... Personally, I wear shorts from around easter till october - and I only take on long trousers at funerals or on formal birthdays for 80 or 90-year-old family members. So one day in September I will wear long trousers - my mother's brother reaches the age of 80. SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe est >> per@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) >> Whose moving finger wrote, and cheerfully [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > So one day in September I will wear long trousers - my mother's brother > reaches the age of 80. In my school daze I went to a Catholic grammar school with the usual Catholic school dress code. I went to the local Public high school and we had a minor dress code, no jeans, shorts or T-shirts. Nowadays I see the kids dressed as they wish, times change. >>The English colonists in America very quickly established what we call >>public schools. [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > http://www.watfordboys.org/ > http://www.watfordgrammarschoolforgirls.org.uk/ It took just 23 years after the landing at Plymouth for American style "public" schools to be created. It was what 1888 for it to happened in England. The Enclish brought a lot with them to the new world but it seems they left the restrictive class system behind. > The Compact Oxford gives one definition of public school as "a private > fee-paying secondary school." > > Why does British English call a private fee-paying school public? Back in the middle ages, the public schools were private schools open to the fee-paying public ... BTW, a "pub" is short for "public house" - in other countries "public houses" would be houses with "public madams" ... SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe est |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.