Mismanagment of schools

[skech]

A very disturbing and shocking truth came to light recently; the UK government released figures showing the cost per pupil in the school year 2009-2010 and it seems that a number of schools had cost per pupil of over £30000 per year.

A typical state school in London has a cost per pupil of nearly £9000 per year. Now this doesn't seem to be much at first glance. But when you look closely at the nature of the state school; 9am till 3pm or thereabouts 5 days per week. Facilities are not exactly the best on offer to the pupils and results in GCSEs and A-levels are lower than public schools - in short the standard of education in state schools is typically lower than their public school counterparts.

No here is the shock - most public schools are charging fees of around the same cost £9-10000 per year. A public school near York, Queen Ethelburga's charges day pupils just £2795 per term or only £8385 per year yet the standard of education is higher and the standard of school life; class sizes, equipment etc is far higher (they even have an equestrian centre). As an example the pass rate at this school for A-Levels is 100% and at GCSEs is also 100%.

Just why this should be is a puzzle; the only thing I can think of is mismanagement - as an example we learned that our kid's school gets charged a ridiculous amount for their printing and as the owner of a printing company I knew that I could do the same printing for 40% less and told the school; but guess what? the school has awarded the contract for the next 5 years. I did not bother to ask what the tendering process was.

If the government is going to spend £10000 on my childrens education per year, can they just give me the money and I can send them to a public school.

[gwpriester]

As a conservative friend of mine once said, when I suggested we could pay each member of the country a fixed amount and the money would go directly to the people and not the corrupt government, "What, do you want to give the money away?"

Your point is well taken.

[skech]

I have heard this argument myself gary from quite a few people. They say that they do not want their taxes going towards someone's children other than their own, of course they know that that is what is happening anyway with their taxes; perhaps it is because they want to keep the status quo and keep the classes (in this case social classes) separate why else would anyone oppose this?

[gwpriester]

Well, I have a crackpot theory. There have always been two basic kinds of people on the planet. Givers and Takers. The Takers believe they deserve everything they have, even if they have never worked a day in their lives, and do not believe they owe anybody anything. My cousin is a good example. She inherited enough money from her father to live well her entire life. But is she grateful and generous? No. She says the poor are poor because it is their lot in life and they need to get used to it. (My top list candidate for the Milk of Human Kindness Award!).

The givers and more generous in spirit, grateful for what they have, compassionate to the plight of those less fortunate, and so on.

And as far as I can see, the Takers are the winners.

But as I said, it's my crackpot theory.