6,500 new teachers

[OlizraWiteomQua]

Quite honestly I would love for taxes to be put up sufficiently that the underfunding of state schools can be reversed and the schools become well resourced enough that people currently paying private fees start to feel that it's a waste of money and are happy to use the state schools because they are providing the same quality.

And it's appalling that Rishi attacked Labour's plans as a punishment for parents who "work hard" as if people on lower incomes are working any less hard. Differences in income are primarily due to differences in opportunities from birth, and secondarily due to the luck of how much one has been blessed by way of brains and talents, and thirdly by whether your vocation and talent happens to be in a career area that is well valued and remunerated by our culture, and only after all that is how hard you work relevant.

But what I am appalled by is the paucity of ambition. This apparent "revolution" is to fund 6500 new teachers. There are 32,000 schools in the country so that's about 0.2 new teachers per school, or one new teacher per school for the 20% most-understaffed. That is such a tiny, incremental change that it will make practically no difference at all. There are 640,000 teachers in the uk. To make a real impact to the quality of state education we should be funding at least 65,000 more teachers to bring down class sizes significantly and reduce the massive burden of overwork that is driving qualified teachers out of thr profession broken by the ordeal.

What I don't understand is why Labour's plans are so small. The VAT is allegedly going to raise £1.5bn per year but 6500 teachers will only cost 0.2-0.3bn per year. Where's the rest going? Is it destined to be swallowed up in general tax income? We should be demanding more.

Because it takes tax and taxes are quite high already in income and vat and no one wants to tax wealth / inheritance or excessive company profits even though that might also help reduce inequality because the people with real control aren't the politicians but the super wealthy

But why are Labour proposing to spend only about a 5th of the expected income boost from private school fees on the state schools who need it? Why not all of it?

I honestly think we have hit a point where both labour and tory have got in a situation where they cant meaningfully raise anymore tax. They have the same national debt, the same gdp being a bit crap, the ageing population.

So all either party can do us reareange deck chairs on the titanic. Which is why the ambition is so small.

Don't schools have to balance their books?

How much sort staffing is because of a reduction in number of posts (on affordability grounds) compared to failure to recruit?

Also, we're told that the falling birth rate (since 2012) means fewer school places will be needed - presumably that has an impact too?

Because labour won't have any power because the government isn't what controls the uk
With a healthy dose of people won't vote for anyone who might raise taxes

Maybe it's because 6500 is an achievable target and they are setting themselves up for success?

I use state sector education for my kids but worry that VAT on private school fees will open the gates to VAT on university tuition fees and fellow state school users should be pondering this possibility too.

I think it's all about values. There is an academic called Sonia Blandford who I have seen lecture on social mobility and she said at the end that she was still working class because she cares about people!!

This attitude to my mind is why social mobility has worsened over the last 20 years - how are children going to try to get jobs and keep off benefits if they think people will see them as uncaring? They would have to risk ostracisation from their own families and communities.

We need to have aspiration as a core value in our society. We need to praise and congratulate people who are successful, in monetary terms as well as in other walks of life.

We need to challenge this idea that to be successful you have to achieve at someone else's expense. Teachers can believe in children for ever more but if the children think success is immoral they will not pursue it.

This would override most of the problems we have in education

I don't think Rishi Sunak meant that people on lower incomes don't work hard, I think he was making the point that people on higher incomes also work hard and are often dismissed as having an easy life. The assumption by Labour has been that employers, farmers, private school parents, people expecting to be left a pension, pensioners (probably others too, sorry if i forgot you!) can be taxed at life-changing levels and it doesn't matter that the rug has been pulled out from under them. Metaphorically had your hip broken? Get to the back of the waiting list. What Labour don't realise is that you can't do any of your usual activities whilst you are suffering with a broken hip...... and that's a big problem for all of us.

Most people work so this idea of transposing 'working class' with 'working people' doesn't work. Society can't be categorised like it used to be. Labour don't have an easy description for their supporters any more but they still want to hurt the people stuck in the middle whilst they continue to enjoy their gifts, expenses and massive salaries. Starmer, Rayner, Phillipson and Reeves are talking about people with 'broad shoulders' but they themselves are the people with broad shoulders but they don't seem to be paying for anything.

I think the reduction in social mobility is down to changing attitudes. People believe that rich people are nasty and benefitting at other people's expense. We need to promote aspiration again. I think if we could do that, many of these issues would disappear, or at least improve.

sorry for the rant 😬