Share it fairly but don’t take a slice of my pie
I'm staying with my parents in Milton Keynes this weekend. C. works for a major UK retailer, and is 'encouraged' to spend a couple of days each year helping out in a store. This year she is choosing MK, and as it seemed ridiculous for us to take 2 cars down from Nottingham, and because I had a bit of shopping to do, I have ended up wandering up and down the shopping centre, desperately killing time until she knocks off at 6pm (having arrived a little before 9am). I am currently sat in the lobby of the "Easy Cinema" in their "Easy Internet" bit waiting for the start of "Bad Santa" in a couple of hours... that should take me through the rest of the day. I spent hours and hours of my life in here as a teenager, in the days when it was UCI The Point - the UK's first multiplex cinema. I saw my first "18" certificate here (Tango & Cash !).
It looks a little run down now. The main cinema seems to have migrated over to the X-Scape snowdome place over the way, but they only had the enormo films on, and I really wanted to see this one.
Anyway.
I had a letter from my old school when I got home. They seem particularly self-satisfied that they have been held up by the Daily Telegraph as an example to other independent schools. Why? Well. It's something of a long story... so bear with me... Entry to an independent school like Rugby is usually done via an entrance exam called the "Common Entrance". In theory this is to make sure that you meet the required academic standard for entry, but in practice (at least in my day) if you were good enough to put your name down for the school, they didn't knock back your fees, whatever your score. An alternative to this was the Scholarship exam. If you were bright, you were put forward for this... the prize was a number of entry scholarships i.e. money off your bill. The top scholarship was worth 80% of the fees - so not to be sniffed at.
I believe the school considered this charity.
The reason they school are feeling smug, is that they have decided to change this system, because apparently they have come under some criticism for offering these scholarships to people regardless of how well-off their parents were: your intelligence was the only criterion. Under the new proposals, the maximum scholarship award will be a reduction of 10%. To get a scholarship worth more than that, your parents will have to be means tested.
I think this is a way of the school showing how much effort the are making to encourage the children of less privileged backgrounds; of showing how great their largesse is by generously offering a place amongst the elite for the lower classes. After all - as they say themselves in the letter, they reckon it costs about £23k a year all in to send a child to Rugby (hell, considering what we have been saying about the UK average salary, that's an awful lot of money...)
As you know. I'm a cynic, and I knew there must be something in this.
For starters, the school are asking for MY money to help them fund this. They also sent this letter to my parents. Frankly, I think my parents have given enough to this lot. They "suggest" £20 a month should do it. I suggest they piss off.
What's their real motive for this sudden wish to spread their wonderful education around? I wonder if it's anything to do with the fact that Rugby, like other independent schools in the UK, is a registered charity. Yes, that's right. In terms of tax status, Rugby School gets the same breaks as Oxfam. They are EXEMPT from tax because "the advancement of education is a charitable objective". How ridiculous is that?
Pretty ridiculous. In fact it's bloody scandalous. How the hell can they justify that?
Oh look. It turns out that the government is looking to challenge this status unless the school can demonstrate that they pass a "public benefit" test.
So the cause of Rugby School's smugness? They are taking TINY steps to open up their education to less well-off kids. And what's more, they're trying to fund this by getting money by asking people like me.
They can piss off. If I have a spare £20 a month, I can think of MILLIONS of better ways to make it available to the needy.
Unbelievable.
Un-believable.
I can't believe their bloody nerve.
It looks a little run down now. The main cinema seems to have migrated over to the X-Scape snowdome place over the way, but they only had the enormo films on, and I really wanted to see this one.
Anyway.
I had a letter from my old school when I got home. They seem particularly self-satisfied that they have been held up by the Daily Telegraph as an example to other independent schools. Why? Well. It's something of a long story... so bear with me... Entry to an independent school like Rugby is usually done via an entrance exam called the "Common Entrance". In theory this is to make sure that you meet the required academic standard for entry, but in practice (at least in my day) if you were good enough to put your name down for the school, they didn't knock back your fees, whatever your score. An alternative to this was the Scholarship exam. If you were bright, you were put forward for this... the prize was a number of entry scholarships i.e. money off your bill. The top scholarship was worth 80% of the fees - so not to be sniffed at.
I believe the school considered this charity.
The reason they school are feeling smug, is that they have decided to change this system, because apparently they have come under some criticism for offering these scholarships to people regardless of how well-off their parents were: your intelligence was the only criterion. Under the new proposals, the maximum scholarship award will be a reduction of 10%. To get a scholarship worth more than that, your parents will have to be means tested.
I think this is a way of the school showing how much effort the are making to encourage the children of less privileged backgrounds; of showing how great their largesse is by generously offering a place amongst the elite for the lower classes. After all - as they say themselves in the letter, they reckon it costs about £23k a year all in to send a child to Rugby (hell, considering what we have been saying about the UK average salary, that's an awful lot of money...)
As you know. I'm a cynic, and I knew there must be something in this.
For starters, the school are asking for MY money to help them fund this. They also sent this letter to my parents. Frankly, I think my parents have given enough to this lot. They "suggest" £20 a month should do it. I suggest they piss off.
What's their real motive for this sudden wish to spread their wonderful education around? I wonder if it's anything to do with the fact that Rugby, like other independent schools in the UK, is a registered charity. Yes, that's right. In terms of tax status, Rugby School gets the same breaks as Oxfam. They are EXEMPT from tax because "the advancement of education is a charitable objective". How ridiculous is that?
Pretty ridiculous. In fact it's bloody scandalous. How the hell can they justify that?
Oh look. It turns out that the government is looking to challenge this status unless the school can demonstrate that they pass a "public benefit" test.
So the cause of Rugby School's smugness? They are taking TINY steps to open up their education to less well-off kids. And what's more, they're trying to fund this by getting money by asking people like me.
They can piss off. If I have a spare £20 a month, I can think of MILLIONS of better ways to make it available to the needy.
Unbelievable.
Un-believable.
I can't believe their bloody nerve.
posted by swisslet @ 14:03
6 Comments:
At 2:57 pm,
Graham said…
The bottom line of any school is this; would you send your kids there?
As for mine, I know I wouldnt, and I can't think of a more damning condemnation of an educational establishment. I wonder how you school though, survived the 80% reduction in fees before given that they are now reduced to begging bowl status before giving a 10% reduction. mmmmmmm.
I would personally use that letter the same way I use job rejection letters. You're gonna run out of toilet paper someday....
At 11:13 pm,
John McClure said…
To hell with whatever latin or greek they taught you in your time there - reply in anglo saxon!
At 12:13 am,
Damo said…
I went to a comprehensive, as did my brother. Oddly enough, a friend of mine, who was otherwise on the road to nowhere, went to a Grammar School in Bristol and it transformed him. Whereas his sister went to the same comprehensive as us. Work that one out.
I'm not a fan of the concept of selective education (i.e. education that is a closed book to many due to cost), yet I can quote you that example. One of many issues in life that I wish could be seen as 'black and white' but can't.
At 5:23 pm,
swisslet said…
No. If I have kids, they wouldn't be going near this place. It's probably almost unrecognsable to me now - fully co-ed, decent exam results, everybody has their own study/bedroom (no more dormitories).
I still wouldn't.
I don't like what they turn out.
At 5:23 pm,
Jenni said…
I agree with Graham, it seems suspect that in order to reduce fees more than 10% now they need to have an additional funding drive, whereas before they could give scholarships of up to 80%. I also think it's a bit suspicious that they had to come under criticism for offering large scholarships regardless of means before they decided to rework the scholarship funding scheme. Kind of an indication of just how "charitable" they want to be, eh?
But, to end on a positive note, hopefully some good will come of it for a handful of students who otherwise wouldn't have been able to attend.
At 10:16 am,
LB said…
Everyone has their own personal and entirely valid reasons for donating or not donating to certain charities.
For what it is worth, my major objections, and stuff that I wont contribute to are those "charities" which I consider already should (or do) get some of the quite significant amounts of income tax and national insurance I already pay.
If I am asked to contribute to a charity for a hospital scanner, or in your instance a school, I pay for both health service and education every damn month through the deductions from my salary. In the same way I wont use a toll road - £165 a month road tax and ludicrous fuel duty should mean I get to drive on a road anyway.
I suppose you could logically extrapolate this argument that part of my tax should be spent on foreign aid, or the protection of rare animal species, but in very simple terms I agree with you wholeheartedly. Your school can bugger off.
My University write to me for money from time to time. And one of these days I am going to write back and tell them that the [excellent] degree I got from them will more than pay for itself, thank you very much, as I have been working in a half decent job for ten years and, I imagine, for at least another twenty. I suspect this will generate enough tax to pay for my degree, and quite a lot of others....
Post a Comment
<< Home