‘States will not save if it stops funding colleges’
Tuesday 16th November 2010, 11:30AM GMT.
The heads of the three colleges, left to right, Jo Riches, George Hartley and Lesley Le Page. (Picture by Peter Frankland, 1053943)
THE States will not be able to duck out of its financial responsibility by cutting college grant aid, a former chairman of the board of one of them has said.
Deputy Sam Maindonald, who held the position at Ladies’ College, added that the States would not save money if it did cut the grants.
‘I’m not concerned about the scrapping of the entire grant, because the States of Guernsey will not, at this time, be able to avoid financial responsibility for those students at the colleges who hold selected places,’ she said.
‘Those students have not opted out of the States system. That important distinction appears to have been missed in the Tribal report.’
The colleges explained the position in a letter to parents this week from each of the board of directors, and the three heads.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
It would be interesting to have some figures. I would be interested in how many scholarships are handed out. How much funding is provided. How much would the scholarship placements cost if paid for by private individuals.
If, as I suspect, the case is that the placements cost more than that charged to private individuals then private education is being partly subsidised by people that cannot afford it.
Report abuse
Elizabeth College fees are about 8-9k a year all in – as I understand it scholarship places are at the same rate. In addition the College receives about 2K a year subsidy for each pupil.
From my personal point of view that equates to about a quarter of gross income – which is just about affordable ( no new car or fancy holidays for us !! ) Add another 2k and it wont be – so add another pupil to the States system ( is there room ? would it cost them less than 2k a year ? )
And I’ll get that sportscar I’ve always wanted – plus the kids can have the holiday to Florida they want. Every year …..
Report abuse
Steven – I think you have asked a good question…
To clarify there are about 80 students per year at Elizabeth College (for example) – around 25 get a scholarship “paid for” by passing the 11+
Basically these students are totally funded by the States – the rest are fee payers – these students receive a “subsidy” of £2k per annum from Education in addition to the fees paid by their parents.
So only those children who get a scholarship are actually funded as you suggest – the rest get a small retainer (compared to a States run School per pupil) and the rest of the fees are paid for by their parents.
In effect we have a 4 tier system – secondary, grammer, fee payer and scholarship.
By anyones reckoning an utter poop shute.
However, until a proper alternative is really thought through, the present system works as it was intended.
Getting Tribal involved agian will only waste even more money.
Report abuse
tony
your spending a quarter of your gross income of (£32k–£36k) sending one of your kids to private school after tax and insurance. pull the other one!
you could afford the extra two grand a year by getting a part time job. Five hours a week should do it.Then you wouldn’t have anything to worry about.
I,m really looking forward to this debate on thisisguernsey there will be some REAL nonsense posted, loads of ridiculous arguements mainly from the pro funding lobby apparently everyone is making huge sacrifices to send their kids to the cheapest public schools in the british isles yeh right!. Take the boys college, Frankly apart from the luxurious sports facilities icluding two playing fields,brand new pavilion,floodlit all weather pitch,swimming pool,rifle shooting,tennis courts,sumptuous sixth form facilities complete with pool tables,huge flat screen t.v., study rooms and computer games room,lovely kitchen,private school owned minibuses, private fund with huge sums of money in it from benefactors,posh uniforms, small classes,incredible holidays and massaged exam results I don’t see the attraction.
End funding now they don’t need it!
Report abuse
kevin – I don’t think that Tony said that he is only sending one pupil to the college.
it is a complex issue – not least because ending the subsidy would certainly mean that the college really does become the exclusive preserve of rich kids, plus a few scholarships (for which the college would charge the States more). The middle income families would no longer be able to send their kids there. Who does that help?
a £2k subsidy seems good value to me in order to reduce the numbers that the States educate directly.
Report abuse
Tony – don’t complain on here that you cannot afford Florida holidays and sports cars. The fact is you have made a choice to pay for your child to attend Elizabeth College, it was not forced upon you.
Very few of us are so rich that we can have everything we want, meaning we all need to prioritise our spending – or go into crippling debt.
By all means make a rational case in support of the current system but please, spare us the sob story – it’s frankly rather pathetic.
Report abuse
So as I understand it the Tribal has found that the States could save just under 500K over a 5 year period if they put the potential ‘scholarship’ students into States schools instead of granting scholarships at 11+ stage. However the negative point to this is that this then makes the colleges much more elitist.
So we’re weighing up saving £100,000 per year and having a very exclusive institution (which could then be detrimental in itself) or continue with the subsidy and include scholarships and therefore students from various backgrounds and not just from wealthy parents.
Interesting topic. Personally I’m for keeping it as is then. What are other’s views?
Report abuse
Paul, I wasn’t complaining at all. Truth be told, the thought of a holiday to Florida every year fills me with dread … And there’s nowhere fo me to park a second car anyway …
I’m pointing out that “saving” 2k a year on the subsidy is unlikely to save the States anything for a significant number of college pupils – but would save their parents a fortune ( which to be honest I would probably save to send the kids to university – as it is it looks like that will require an extension on the mortgage … ) and put a college education out of the reach of all but the wealthiest.
Of course many won’t consider that a bad thing …
Report abuse
It just isn’t right to subsidise private colleges with tax-payers money at a time of difficult financial circumstances. Abolish the selected places and do away with the whole scheme. It is not a good use (or the best use) of scarce government funds. The money could be much better spent improving the other States’ schools or introducing new education services. We really need to get our priorities right here. Spending public funds on the private colleges while there is no public pre-school education is a shameful position. It just underlines the pro-rich stance of the States and reflects the number of “OEs” in the Establishment and government of this island.
If the usual suspects come out of the woodwork and try to argue that removing the subsidy will make the Colleges more elitist, then one approach would be to replace the current grant aid with a more limited, means-tested scholarship which would be more affordable than the existing arrangements.
People deliberately choose to send their children to private school and so they should be prepared to shoulder the real cost of that without State handouts to ease the pain. There are perfectly decent State schools in this island and I have never fully understood why so many people effectively decide to pay twice for the education of their offspring.
Report abuse
Lynnie – super question.
Yes it is the system. That system was debated ad nausium around 7 years ago in the States and the status quo was the result.
What Steere and her cronies want is to get rid of the scholarship entry into the colleges – which will effectively make the colleges private schools (assuming the grants are also taken away). And yes, Lynnie, you are spot on.
TL sums it up perfectly regarding funding and the issue in general. Putting it another way those parents who fee pay are also subsidising those who gain a scholarship and therefore not expecting general taxpayer subsidy (which we pay anyway).
Tribal can bang their drum until the cows come home but until the whole system is overhauled nothing is going to change.
For those who still fail to understand – the colleges are part of the system of education in Guernsey (like it or not) – they are not private schools in the UK sense.
Paul Le Page – sorry sir but I’ve come to expect better comments from you.
Report abuse
Maths was never my strong point so forgive me for any inaccuracies, but doing some quick calculations based on Gilthead’s figures the States pays about £110,000 per annum to subsidise approx 55 paid students. That equates to roughly the cost of 12-13 paid students.
A potential solution could be to cut the subsidy for paid students but up the amount of States scholarship places.
The States could then take about 37-38 places – or nearly 50% of the annual take up. The college gets the same amount of money but more people have the opportunity to attend on merit, not wealth.
I’m not saying I think this is the best solution, but I reckon it’s worth considering.
Another thing to bear in mind – if the States cut the subsidy totally, the colleges may well up their fees to compensate – meaning the States will have to pay more for the scholarships, thus eating into any potential savings.
Report abuse
If the scholarships to the Colleges are scrapped at which schools will the Education Department find room for the additional 500 plus bright pupils? Presumably the Grammer School. Will they be able to fund the additional building cost, teachers costs,etc., etc, out of the present payment to the Colleges? Or will they have to increase the size of the level below the Grammer?
The present system works well and should be left alone.
Report abuse
Interesting responses.
Paul Le Page. I think you were a bit harsh on Tony, he started by giving us facts as he understands them and then gave us a personal perspective. This does help one to understand the concerns that alot of people who are not very wealthy, who wish to give their offspring what they consider a better start in life, have.
Lynnie. There is another way. The 2k subsidy could be withdrawn and scholarships maintained.
People that have children that didn’t make the cut in the eleven plus but would like their children to be educated in these establishments could apply for a 2k grant. Only people below a certain income need apply. That could give the States a saving of 600k over a five year period if we take Giltheads figures concerning the student/scholarship split.
Some argument could be raised that if the subsidy was removed the colleges would not offer scholarships. This is unlikely as it would be extremely detrimental to them.
Report abuse
How much does it cost the states for each pupil in the state system – more or less than the £2k subsidy
Report abuse
lynnie has put it very well.
Also, I think sometimes we forget this point: Generally, and I mean GENERALLY before I get all the stereotype rubbish, those educated at the Colleges, in particular those clever enough to win scholarships to College TEND to have very high paid jobs.
They then a) pay back their fees through their higher taxes, b) contribute more to general taxation and therefore island life and c) by virtue of these jobs themselves contribute significantly to island life.
Report abuse
@Tony – apologies if I misread your post, and you’re not alone in your thoughts about a holiday to Florida….ugh!
Report abuse
Chris – I agree to the extent that public funds should not be used to subsidise education for a minority, but I think that the point is that, as you say, those parents are paying twice, while the States is making a saving by having fewer students to educate. As long as the States is merely using that saving to enable the college to keep its fees down, then I see no problem.
by the way, I’ve got no vested interest either way.
Report abuse
Some of you appear to be brainwashed by the current rich banker spin…and also fail to understand the education system in Guernsey.
Refer to my post 18:59 yesterday.
Lets clear up a couple of misunderstandings:
- by selectiong to fee pay some parents simply reduce the risk of the 11+ lottery.
- all children (except the scholarships) have to pass an entrance examination – this is equivalent to an 11+.
- and again I stress that the colleges are part of the system and tinkering isn’t going to help anyone.
- the colleges are not private schools in the UK sense.
- you do not have to be rich to send your children to one of the colleges.
Report abuse
sorry – this one pls :)
Steven – I appreciate the sentiments and as a parent of a young child I am aware that I may be faced with a similar dilemma at some point.
What raised my hackles yesterday was Tony using exotic holidays and sports cars as examples of the “sacrifice” he is making to send his kids to college. From his response it seems he was speaking hypothetically and an apology was therefore forthcoming.
However – although I may have made a bit of an ass of myself by my little rant, it’s not all bad as I think it raises a valid point. For many islanders, holidays and nice cars are beyond their reach, let alone sending their kids to the colleges.
I fully support the idea of the colleges – it is good for society that kids get the most appropriate education. However, I believe they should accept more people on merit alone, not on wealth. As Gilthead pointed out “the colleges are part of the system of education in Guernsey (like it or not) – they are not private schools in the UK sense.” This being so, I do not think it is acceptable that a state subsidised school only accepts approx 30% of students by scholarship.
That is the principle behind my idea above – I’m not saying it’s perfect but I think accusations of exclusivity against a school were nearly 70% are fee payers are perfectly understandable.
Report abuse
The present system is bonkers!
Why on earth should the States be subsidising wealthy parents? It’s absurd. The £2K should be pulled as soon as possible. Yes, more pupils will end up in the state system at extra cost to us all…but an awful lot of current private school pupils will stay where they are. In fact, I’d suggest the vast majority would, despite the whingeing of parents who have to fork out some extra cash.
The scholarships should also be means tested. They should purely be for families that are unable to pay the full fees. How many wealthy families remove their children from private edcuation just prior to the 11+, knowing their kids have a great chance of gaining a scholarship to re-enter private education?
Report abuse
Greg ref your second paragraph @ 11:32 – answer, none.
There are a lot of very wealthy parents who’s kids go to either grammer or one of the secondary schools – so by your “logic” they too are being subsidised. Utter nonsense.
I’ll say it again a little more simply for you – the colleges are part of the education system in Guernsey. They are not private schools per se. The fee payers are actually subsidising the other schools as it costs a lot more to educate a child than 2 grand a year.
ALL education is funded from general revenue so if the grant is removed I shall be asking for a refund.
Report abuse
“Yes, more pupils will end up in the state system at extra cost to us all”
I’m intrigued, don’t the State Schools have relatively fixed operational costs with economies of scale factor into the disussion.
A school with say 300 students wouldn’t necessarily mean that the arrival of an extra 20 would mean an extra £40000 cost would it?
Report abuse
Don’t be fooled by the hype that all of the brightest pupils take the scholarships to the Colleges, I know for a fact that quite a few of the highest achievers in the 11+ (and by that I mean those that pass without the artificial private tuition) actually opt for the Grammar School as their first choice, as quite frankly it is a better school.
Report abuse
@ Greg. As far as I’m aware, once your child is at Beechwood or Melrose there’s no getting a scholarship if you pull them out.
As for all this “subsidising the rich”, I think this needs some perspective:
The truly ‘rich’ on this island have no inclination to send their darlings to mingle with the masses at local schools, fee-paying or not.
I know of 2 kids at boarding school in the UK whose parents ship them back & forth on their private jet. Mainland boarding is the schooling of choice for many over here, especially those in open-market.
Report abuse
Gilthead
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the College entrance exam equates to the 11+ and therefore all of those who pass it would also pass the 11+? If you’ve got the money you’ll get in, otherwise why bother paying for it if your child could pass the 11+ anyway? Oh of course, you mention it’s a lottery, perhaps hugely exacerbated by the ridiculous numbers of people paying for extra tuition these days? In my opinion it could/should simply be a case of a certain number of scholarships being made available for those that wish to take them and the remaining pupils do not recieve a subsidy from the States as it is their choice to choose that method of education for their child.
The 11+ system as a whole needs looking at as it so widely abused/distorted these days that the original thinking behind it is now totally irrelevant.
Report abuse
Greg – but what is wealthy? Where would we draw the line? And without getting too philosophical on you what is “wealth”?
Joe could have a nice 3 bed semi and no mortgage (he won a Christmas lottery a few years back), therefore him and his wife decided to pack in their highflying careers and do something they enjoy because they don’t have any financial concerns. They both have jobs that bring in a household income of £30K a year.
Bob on the other hand is a high flying exec on a salary of £100K a year. He has a nice house (and nice hefty mortgage)a summer home (with mortgage) 3 cars and makes regular charitable donations, the missus is a housewife and the kids are in private schools. However he has less ‘expendable’ income than what Joe has. Therefore Joe would feel the strain much less if he were to put his kids in the colleges than what Bob would.
We could draw the line with well if you bring in x salary then you are not eligible for a scholarship and you will have to pay for college. Of course we do something similar with University grants but there’s a bit of a loop hole with ‘blended’ families (as they’re known these days) therefore the step parent’s salary would not be taken into consideration. So what happens if Bob detailed above is the step father?
Unfortunately there is no simple answer to any of these questions or the questions that the States will have to ask themselves apart from are we asking the right ones and do they really matter.
Report abuse
What a complete con!
The college needs the scholarship kids more than they need the colleges.
Top results achieved by the scholarship kids boost their results each year which then enables them to “sell” their school to fee-paying parents. No scholarship kids = no excellent results = fewer fee-payers.
Its as simple as that. Stop the funding and nothing will change, the colleges wont drop scholarship places – they cant afford it.
Report abuse
Mrs Meat, I know of quite a few people who have taken their kids out of Beechwood or Melrose with the full intention of them taking the 11+ and gaining a scholarship. I presume there is some rule meaning you can’t do it with just 1 term before the exam, but it can be done. And it is done.
Report abuse
One point…. Means-testing as a sole measurement of wealth is simply not fair. Assets are more accurate measurement these days.
Why should the son/daughter of someone on a high income who works 70hour weeks, up to the eyeballs in debt on their recently purchased first home be excluded at the expense of a son/daughter of someone who has a lesser income but inherited their huge house or two…. ?
Report abuse
I think you have to put your child back into the primary system for a year if you remove them from the private sector before you are allowed to take the 11 plus.
Report abuse
GsyGooner – excellent team by the way!
Yes the enterance exam is broadly similar to the 11+ and a number of those sitting it fail I’m afraid. You may also like to know that there no right of passage from Beechwood to College. Every year there a number of kids who simply don’t make the grade.
Ok – I’ve been defending the colleges not the system. I happen to agree that the whole 11+, grammer, scholarship, secondary system we have is absolutely ridiculous.
I’ll say it again for clarity – the States either keep the status quo or they totally reform the education system as was proposed a number of years ago. And thrown out.
Tinkering with the current system will not do anybody any good whatsoever.
Report abuse
Lynnie, i’m not really bothered how wealth is measured, but there are clearly children in receipt of scholarships at College who’s parents are wealthy no matter how you measure it, and can clearly afford the cost of private education. And to me, that is wrong.
And the per pupil subsidy is also wrong. I’ve yet to hear any argument that is even remotely presuasive in favour of keeping the subsidy.
Report abuse
Greg
To a degree you have a point, as I am sure you are correct that people who could afford to send their children to College get scholarships. But a couple of points:
1. It’s not their fault that their children have to sit the 11+, pass and are offered a scholarship – most people would take “free money” if they were offered it.
2. Where do you draw the line? I would struggle to fee pay my kids to college, so if they pass, I presume I could send them, could I please? How much money do I need to have before I can’t?
I actually can pay for most of my healthcare myself. Should I? Or should my taxes, as they do currently? Why should it differ for education?
3. All that being said, it is funny that extremely wealthy people seem to come up against tax silliness. I understand that Lord S’rallan of Sugar, worth around £700m, STILL gets his winter heating allowance as a pensioner, and despite personally speaking to HMRC, not only keeps getting it, but can’t even seem to give it back!!!!
Report abuse
Greg – Stating ‘wealthy parents can clearly afford the cost of private education” may not be entirely true (as per my previous post and also Wil makes a valid point) and is just your perception. I don’t want to get into semantics but rather show that I don’t think there is just an easy solution to this that can be summed up in two short paragraphs.
If we remove the subsidy would we also then have to consider asking wealthy parents to pay for the cost of educating their child in a States school? No of course not, that’s part of what their tax money goes to so why shouldn’t they receive this benefit if they decide to put their child in a Private school? (I’m assuming the subsidy is calculated on this cost). They’re still paying tax after all, in fact, more so than “average Joe” if they are in fact wealthy.
By the way I’m not a great advocator of the colleges, I was schooled at St Sampson’s Secondary School I just enjoy the debate ;-)
Report abuse
Billythefish:- No, it’s not their fault however surely the scholarship is designed to give the opportunity of private education to someone who would not normally be able to afford it? I don’t know where the line should be drawn, but the current system is wrong. Perhaps guidance could be found from the UK?
Lynnie:- If we remove the subsidy, parents (wealthy or not) have a straight choice. Free education for your kids in the state system, or pay extra for the private system.
The argument that they have already paid tax so should receive a subsidy is false. Otherwise childless couples would be entitled to a rebate?
I don’t have anything against private education, and the local colleges are probably superior to the state run schools. But I just find it astonishing that the subsidy exists. And I find the arguements supporting the subsidy are weak.
Report abuse
There is a difference between EC/Ladies and Grammar in one or two rather important (to some of us) areas – notably EC and Ladies Colleges are single-sex schools and some of us perceive this to be an advantage for our kids – secondly, there is (supposedly) a greater emphasis on the pastoral care side of things.
There is also one great advantage in the Colleges being in Town – I work in Town and it makes life much easier – no dedicated school run.
Frankly, the additional 2k per pupil per year we are talking about is not much compared to the subsidy the state sector receives.
How much are we about to spend on Beaucamp? And we already own the land!
40 Million? Average of 500 attending each year? Estimated useful life of 40 years? That’s 1 million a year, between 500 pupils a year – which would be £2000 a head, without any running costs! The capital spend won’t even show in Education’s budget, will It? It will be capital spend, from a central allocation – so we never really see the total costs.
Siffleur:
I imagine the real costs of education are not hugely different, whether in state or public school sector. If I am paying a Not-for-profit organisation 8k and the States whacks in a subsidy of £2k that’s £10k per pupil per year. The College has reserves for future capital requirements and contingencies, whereas the state school relies entirely on the taxpayer.
The anecdotal evidence suggests UK figures of around £6000 revenue spend per pupil per year (primary and secondary), which if one then includes the capital costs (see rough figs above), could rise to a total cost of around £8000 a year. Guernsey figures assumed to be very similar.
It follows, then, that EC parents paying 8,000, plus a £2,000 clawback from the States should be enough for EC to run a reasonable annual surplus, which seems fair enough, as this has to be used for reserves/ capital spend.
Those parents will also not have used their entitlement to have their child educated at state cost, thus giving the states a “subsidy” of (say) £8k less £2k, or around £6,000 per feepayer, or getting on for £2 million a year, or if you want to think of it another way, the total annual cost of educating 250 children in the States schools. Alternatively, for each fee paying College man, his parents also subsidise three quarters of the cost of a non-College colleague.
Fascinating stuff.
Report abuse
What is less widely known is that the pension contributions for the teachers at the “private” schools are actually paid for by the States. The subsidy for places would probably pale into insignificance if the financial implications of this were made public.
Report abuse
As usual there is an awful lot of jealousy based logic being put forward for withdrawing funding to the Colleges, much of it being peddled by people with no direct experience in education.
Both the Colleges and Grammar provide an excellent education, but it is absurd to pretend that each extra child attending State or Grammar Schools will save the States £2000 if College funding is withdrawn.
The present system works well, if only because it teaches children the value of hard work and aspiration. Most of the scholarship entrants have got places through own sheer dedication and effort, not necessarily because of pushy parents or force fed tuition.
How about we stop trying to make local education the dumbed down politically correct level playing field which produces such mediocre results in the UK?
Report abuse
How many people who criticise the 11+ are doing so because they’ve been through it and it let them down?
I did my schooling at a UK comp and That was a let down. My school was an ex-grammar and the teachers who had stayed on were bitter and just waiting for retirement.
The schooling suffered by everyone being at the mercy of those who couldn’t or wouldn’t learn. Yes, we had streaming, but only by the time we had suffered 3 years of everyone thrown in together.
I would have fared better over here as I’m pretty sure I would have reached Grammar.
Report abuse
as i stated early on in this debate some really rubbish arguments made. I mean one guy says the entrance exam to elizabeth college is the same as the eleven plus. Unbelievable!
truth is that if you remove this subsidy the colleges will still thrive,few if any pupils will move to state schools. the colleges don’t NEED the subsidy,the parents don’t NEED the subsidy but the subsidy will continue but not out of NEED. The subsidy will continue not because it is right but because enough members of the states are not brave enough to stop it.
Report abuse
Agree 100% with Kevin.
Report abuse
kevin – really rubbish and unbeleivable? Its true my friend none the less.
You are probably right regarding the thriving of the colleges without the subsidy – but that isn’t the point is it?
The education system is what it is whether you like it or not.
Put it another way – if I was a Jehovah’s Witness (which I’m not) and I turned round to you and said “I don’t want to subsidise the blood transfusion service because I don’t NEED it” what would you say to that?
Report abuse
kevin – the fact that some posters on a forum post weak arguments does not mean that your argument wins the day! If you read the above properly, you will see that there are some very good arguments which take the opposing view to yours. You are entitled to disagree, but they are not rubbish arguments.
whereas your argument as set out in your last post seems to be based on the judgemental assumption that every parent whose child is at EC or LC is rich and would be able to happily afford the loss of the subsidy. That is just plain nonsense. You have no way to support that argument and it is blindingly obvious that there will be some parents who did decide to send their child to EC or LC but for whom the cost was almost prohibitive, and for whom the loss of the subsidy would make the cost prohibitive. Yours is probably the most “rubbish” argument of the lot.
Report abuse
Gilthead – I think you will find due to the wording in Billet D’Etat XXIII 1998 that Elizabeth and The Ladies’ College receive funding for 161 special place holders each, regardless of whether all of the places are actually in use. That’s 23 places per year x 7 (years 7-11 and 12/13).
Report abuse
Bring back fee paying to the Grammar School, that will put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Report abuse
Valeite
I am so glad to read your post! I was having a conversation with a friend recently and she seemed to think I was having a senior moment when I mentioned that in the 70′s it was possible to fee pay for place at the Grammar schools.
Report abuse
Questor – sorry out by two. I did say “around” mind you!
Excellent post TL and a good point raised by valeite…
Report abuse
TL, I fail to see any persuasive arguments in favour of the subsidy. Most seem to forget that we can’t opt out of the services provided by our taxes.
I agree with your point above that some parents would not be able to afford the extra £2K if the subsidy was removed, although I do think the figure would likely to be small. However, why should these parents benefit from the subsidy in the first place, when so many others don’t? If you aren’t able to pay the £6K (or is it £8K?) per annum fees then you have no chance to benefit from the subsidy.
Kevin is correct though, as the colleges would survive without the subsidy, the states schools wouldn’t be swamped with extra pupils..and above all the States will never change the current system because of personal interest.
Report abuse
Jane – I think the last intake of fee payers at Boy’s Intermediate was around 1973 or 1974. Stopped doing Latin around the same time, which may be related, somehow.
Nice school, too, in those days. Proper Victorian teachers in mortarboards and gowns, hundred year old desks with inkwells that were still in use!
Report abuse
Greg, I agree that we cannot opt out and just pay the taxes that fund the services we use (that would rather destroy the point!). I don’t smoke, but still pay towards care for sick and dying smokers. I don’t have kids but still pay towards education (both State and the colleges’ subsidy). But I don’t really see that as the point.
We have decided that education funded by the State is a good thing. The question is then how do you make a system that works. I am assuming that the college subsidy matches the proportionate cost of educating those same kids in the State system. If so, this means that the decision of some parents to take their kids out of the “State” schools is neutral to the public funding issue. By making it neutral, the colleges can be a bit more accessible to families in the middle, which I believe is a good thing. I agree that the colleges would not collapse, but I think that they would become more elitist (in a wealth, rather than academic, sense – which is the worst form of elitism).
I also agree that scholarships should be means tested, as the current system undermines the supposed reason for scholarships.
But if the decision of parents to send their kids to the colleges is neutral to public funding, why the objection? Surely it can only be out of resentment that some people can top up their education by sending their kids to a school that is perceived to have some advantages – i.e we accept that the family in Fort George can send their kid to the college, but we don’t like the fact that the family at the end of our own clos can do so as well.
Report abuse
Merge the Colleges and lets have Bowel Cancer Screening!!
Report abuse
gilthead and tl
if you want something and you cant afford it you either increase your income or leave it alone. you don’t ask others to support your choice.
tha analogy about the Jehovas witness does not fit but I accept what you say in as much as we all pay taxes for things we may not use.
tl your assumption that I think everyone who sends their child or children to the colleges is rich is wrong but perhaps we could take your idea that bit further and means test ALL parents at the school and have a sliding scale of subsidy.
As I’ve said it is a good debate but one which is academic, the States won’t change anything the pro funding lobby is one that is just too powerful even though their argument isn’t.
Report abuse
TL, maybe it’s dangerous to assume that the £2k subsidy is equal to the cost per child in the state system. Would be good to see some official confirmation on this!
I appreciate your point on the neutral funding angle, but I feel that once we start with education why don’t we look elsewhere. I don’t use public healthcare, so perhaps i should get a subsidy towards my private health insurance? I don’t use the library, so maybe I should get a subsidy towards my Amazon spending on books?
I also think that whilst the subsidy helps the family at the end of your clos, it doesn’t help the family living in a States house.
I guess the only way we’ll ever know the right answer is to remove the subsidy and see how many pupils leave the private system!
Report abuse
Perhaps if we (a) implement my earlier suggestion to remove subsidies from fee payers and use it to up the amount of scholarships then (b) combine this with means testing for scholarships, we would surely go some way to ensure that more students attend the colleges based on academic merit and not on parental wealth?
Report abuse
“The States won’t change anything the pro funding lobby is one that is just too powerful even though their argument isn’t.”
You are so right there Kevin. I support what you say but, as you say, this is an academic argument. The old school tie network in the States simply isn’t going to change things.
I also agree with Greg. I fail to see any positive arguments in favour of the subsidy.
Report abuse
@ Paul Le Page, that’s probably the most sensible suggestion I have seen.
Report abuse
Probably take a hammering for this comment, but why pay for your children to go to a school where they were clearly not intelligent enough to get into in the first place just for social status!!!
A lot of the kids who are paid for to go to the colleges spend many of their school years unhappy as they are unable to keep up with the level of work
Just let your kids go to where they’re capable of achieving
Report abuse
I was going to agree with Paul Le Page but add that equity testing would be a better indicator of wealth but…. I am unconvinced that if funding was dropped completely then the colleges would scrap scholarship places. It defies logic that they would – they NEED the marks from these kids.
In fact if i worked in the colleges, I would be in full favour of Paul le Pages comments….. put all the money towards increasing the number of scholarship places. If they did this then they could use even more scholarship kids high results to boister their results as they do now-but even moreso…. this would fool more fee-payers into thinking it was a better school and therefore they would be willing to pay more…. Its brilliant! -If i were on the board of one of those colleges I would grab hold of this option with both hands and not let go.
Report abuse
Some of you people on these pages seem to think that every fee payer is very rich,how wrong can you be.I struggle and do without to send my child to college because the states schools are rubbish.Take away the subsidies and fees go up which leaves me in a bad way along with others in the same boat.I repeat not all fee payers are very rich.
Report abuse
Bemused – the problem with your view is that when there are only a handful of places up for grabs, inevitably some students will miss out on a college education to make way for a fee payer.
I am not putting my idea forward as a perfect solution, but surely the more scholarships that are made available, the more likely those children are to get that opportunity?
Report abuse
“states schools are rubbish” – could you quantify that statement please Donkeys Life? Rubbish in what way exactly?
Report abuse
@ Donkey’s Life, I don’t think anyone assumes that every fee payer is rich. But i think the assumption is that the mean wage of fee payers is probably well in excess of the Guernsey average.
If the subsidy was removed, would you put your child(ren) back into the state system?
Report abuse
donkeys life,
that’s some statement ref state schools.Probably born out of ignorance rather than knowledge
my two sons with good degrees both went to state schools one of them has taught at Grammar and now teaches at La Mare.How would their achievments compare to pampered ex college kids I wonder?
Anyway lets turn this around a little.One positive way for college fee payers to look at this is you’ve been having private education for years on the cheap and got away with it.
Report abuse
kevin
I`ll give you back the money you paid through your taxes to send my daughter to a “private school” if you give me back the money i gave to send your sons to their school, deal? i bet i end up with more than you do.
How much did it cost me to send your 2 sons to school?.
Report abuse
@ Paul le page,attitude and performance
@ Greg,no.
@Kevin,were these degrees issued at a local school.
Report abuse
@ Donkey’s Life, I think there would be plenty like you who would keep their kids in private education even if it makes life harder for you financially. Which makes a mockery of previous comments (by others) that removing the subisdy would mean hundreds of extra pupils in the state system.
@ BCB, pointless comment. Did you miss out on education totally?
Report abuse
bcb
your choice I’m afraid. people don’t send their kids to private school to save tax payers money they send them because they feel they are buying their children an advantage. you have bought a product just the same as anything else. frankly if you’re daft enough to want to pay for something that you could have for free (your child’e education) then you don’t have the right to expect tax payers help. If anyone’s child is a straight A student they will be a straight A student at any of our schools.
donkeys life
where were you educated?
I went to the Grammar school and it certainly wasn’t rubbish.
No they came from Winchester and Manchester both universities. What I find amusing in this debate especially the last time it was on is that ALL of the insults aimed at schools themselves, the pupils,and the teachers came from the pro funding lobby I wonder why that is?
further, would you like to expand on attitude and performance.
Report abuse
kevin
Thanks for the insult but because i`m so “daft” it tends to just go right over my head.
I didnt expect tax payers help or should i say i did, because it is part of the system.
Hey dont worry i`m sure D Jones will be along soon so plenty of chances there for you to offload your childish(cowardly)insults at. :)
Report abuse
wow!
bcb what an over reaction !!
Report abuse
Kevin
Yeah good though eh!
Report abuse