To be annoyed at The Guardian largely because it is such a dump solution - private schools

[Dlwch276]

So as part of their recent excessive coverage of a book which attacked the private school system (written by someone who went to private school) The Guardian has suggested adding VAT to school fees.

Asides raising more money via tax i don't see how this would make the system fairer? From what I've seen the logic is that parents who are motivated to pay £20k+ on fees would force state schools to improve if their children attended them. Mumsnet is full of posters at their wits ends trying to affect change at their local state schools. No-one that I've met at our small private is wringing their hands that the local state schools are terrible and that this gives their children extra advantage.

Surely to improve educational equality either we all need to pay more tax to change class sizes or poorer students need better access to private education. In NZ private schools receive the same student allowance as state schools - wouldn't this be a better solution for students not able to access private education? For everyone to sit the entrance exam and then private schools to have to accept the student allowance as fees for those who can't afford it?

Swingofthings a few pages back. Interesting and I agree, it's about expanding options, to a degree.

The nation affording to pay for >7% of the student age cohort, because itnwas in the country's interest to have some highlymeducooke added up,unite differently to having 50% or more. The expansion was always gong to be unaffordable for the centre, and it was upinevitanoe that costs wouid rocket for students.

My (pet but wholly unscientific) theory is that the reason some degrees/universities 'count' more is a harkening back to a time no later than the 80s, when going to university really did mark you out as educated elite.

VikingVolva - do you not think that some universities/courses provide an intellectual and/or professsional training that is (vastly) superior to others?

*I think private education needs to be regulated more closely so that private schools are not free to offer such a very different experience to state schools.

Teacher:pupil ratio control would lead to larger class sizes and fewer extra curriculars in private schools*

This is unbelievable. Why are we not demanding that the state provision is brought up to the level of private provision. Why do we always have to match the lowest level, rather than strive for the highest.

Older - because it’s totally unaffordable for the public purse.

There seems to be a lot of distain towards private schools and specifically the parents who choose them. What about people like me then for example who can easily afford private and whose child was offered a place at several but are doing state til 8, thereby depriving someone who can’t afford private a place at our excellent local state school? Or is it a good thing that we are supporting state education? I’ve heard both of those arguments from people on this and similar fora.

Obviously I think taxing independent schools is a terrible idea given that parents of independently educated children already contribute to the state sector via general taxation but long term we would just have to suck it up, for want of a better expression ie it wouldn’t deter us from using the independent system.
All of that said, in my country of origin, most children attend the same schools, rich and poor, and the notion of independent schools doesn’t really exist in the same way. So ironically in my home country, I’d have no problem with my child attending a non private school. But in London, I wouldn’t consider it.

“Why are we not demanding that the state provision is brought up to the level of private provision.“
Because it is not the job of the state to pay for all the extra “stuff” that makes private education desirable.

“There seems to be a lot of distain towards private schools and specifically the parents who choose them.“
Is there? Where?

Perhaps in the way private school pupils are continually discriminated against and cut off from top universities, jobs and other positions of influence? Oh, wait. That doesn't happen, does it.

And the distain towards state schools, their pupils and parents is pretty extraordinary........

Nobody ever changes their minds on these threads so I don’t even know why I’m wasting my breath but here goes.

Bertrand Russell/Handay

IME quite a few of things that would improve state education are not necessarily more costly. What I think has happened gradually over a generation or two is a wholesale worship of a certain leftist ideology that permeates state educators so deeply they cannot see another way of doing things. It is entrenched. My educational Bible at university, for example, was Marxist Literary Theory and it took me over a decade to realise there were other ways of seeing the world and that people with a different viewpoint were not necessary wrong, just coming from a different angle. It is a form of brainwashing. It took me a long time to realise that Tories do not eat their babies. 😬

Education should not be a race to the bottom. What you propose is that. And if state education continues along as it is, then the brightest and best of our potential teachers will not bother with teaching but go elsewhere. It has happened with those gifted STEM students who end up in finance of all things instead of applying their considerable talent to research science or medicine.

Also, last bit of wasted breath, if you are able to afford c.20K a year in fees then the likelihood is if you’ve already paid a hefty sum in tax.

“IME quite a few of things that would improve state education are not necessarily more costly.”

What sort of things?

LOL. The problem with state education is that every couple of years a new minister comes along with some mad-arse scheme, ignores the representations from the professionals tasked with delivering it and then fucks off to another cabinet post while teachers deal with the fallout. And where do these ministers come from?...

This is good in my opinion @BertrandRussell " Why are we not demanding that the state provision is brought up to the level of private provision.“
Because it is not the job of the state to pay for all the extra “stuff” that makes private education desirable.

We should provide every child with a good education as far as they want to take it. Those ( state) schools who do - fantastic. Teachers per pupil / no. of after school clubs etc this is what fees pay for , but essentially a well taught curriculum I reckon will do right by the pupils. Not in every school , but it gives a chance. I have said this so many times & I repeat - private school does not = good. The worst can be bad & the mediocre can be ( again IMHO ) not worth the money nor the candle.

Education is zero rated for VAT across the EU. It is not permitted to add VAT on top of fees for education. End of. So forget adding VAT to school fees to subsidise the/any government's cheapskate instincts.

There is, or should be, a real societal debate about what proportion of tertiary education is needed to keep the economy revving well. I suggest that it's lower then the 50% Tony Blair wanted, but well above the 7% who went to university with me in 1974. For the sake of balance, set the line at the top 20%. But when I went to uni, we had means-tested grants (no fees), so my parents paid the maintenance (living cost) element until they were divorced, after which I had a full grant.

What does society want and expect from education? Is it to enrich the individual, or to enable wealth creation, or to enrich society?

What proportion of the population value education as a means of improving society?

Is education always and only about social mobility?

Is school a method of socialising young people until they are fed to the economic machine, to pay tax? Or child care to release employees into paid work and paying tax?

What responsibility should parents bear in getting their children ready (daily) to be educated?

Is there a cultural/social benefit that flows from having a well educated population?

What is a good (as opposed to a functional) basic education?

Considering that a significant % of students leave secondary education (now aged 18) with only a frail grasp of reading, writing and arithmetic, why are we keeping them in school past their intellectual ability to learn? Prove that you can pass a standard level test to leave school, and if you want, leave. You can read and write.

Most of these questions did not matter much to most of the population even 50 years ago. But they matter, and how they are fairly paid for matters even more. We need the best minds, but can't discriminate against the dullards, who have an equal right to live a dignified life.

Increasingly I think that a universal very basic per capita income from age 16, without social housing, or any extra benefit entitlements for children or accommodation, is the way ahead. I can already hear the screech of indignation from the disabled and mentally infirm; but am unsure how society protects the most vulnerable.

@XingMing - I would just say that "dullards" is unkind and not fair. Not everyone is massively academic in the sense of passing exams. .There are other skills freely available. & Many who are not hugely academic are sparky & talented at other things. & some who are not but I think "dullards" is a word which is better not used.

All those thoughts, and all you can read is one word? In the same sentence as dignified... gosh, some people like to focus on the minutiae!

Ok, Bertrand, for example, one of the things some of us on the PTA suggested was making the voluntary ‘less voluntary’ as it were. So for example with sport/extra curricular/wrap-around care, every parent at some point during the school year HAD to assist once for an activity. A compulsory rota if you will. We figured that it wouldn’t be too hard if plenty of notice and consultation was given and it was only required 1-2 times (Max) during an ENTIRE academic year. So no more than 4 hours from one parent over the year. Costs nothing. Activities can happen. Tapping the existing parental base for any artistic/sporting talents therein to see if our kids could benefit from them when this hideous government decided art and music and sport were not important.

The resistance we came upon against left us banging our heads against a brick wall. It was tear inducing, let me tell you. I could give you other examples, a trust set up by this school that could have been brilliant but for the head squandering the money on pointless things that the children neither needed nor ever used. A trust that the PTA bust its balls to raise money for banging on doors of local business and getting them to pitch in for local kids. I honestly think we need real parent power, where heads are way more accountable for how they run their schools, not so much to Ofsted as to the parents actually using the school.

I’m not suggesting free schools are the way forward, but I went in to lead a workshop in a free school a few years ago and was really amazed by what can happen when parents pull together and are resourceful in terms of good ideas and time. If we are stuck with this current political attitude towards education we will have to think out of the box.

Of course there are things that more money makes easier, but in the absence of more funds I still truly believe there ways to make things better.

Every person in a classroom, especially the teachers, can spot the inidividuals who couldn't light a Toc H lamp. They will be with us forever, and we need to make certain they have a forward route into employment, that isn''t reliant on benefits. They too need the dignity of contributing through work, and also to have enough to live with dignity.

I get dignified ( and also your point about having a right to live a dignified life ) - yes I do - just to me "dullards' isn't a nice description - sorry if that counts as minutiae to you. But yes i did read "dignified" Still don't like " dullards" . How would you describe a dullard - I agree btw with your point everyone should have a dignified life. But ( and yes minutiae ) I don't agree with describing some young people as dullards - It's just a point , dullards has a certain implication. A point but one I made. Shoot me now.

What is the current euphemism for the intellectually challenged non-achiever, please, Basilisk? We both know that they are in every mainstream classroom, and I think we both want them to thrive. I am happy to moderate my terms if there is a shorthand that explains what I want to say?

Politely....

I honestly do not know @XingMing - Just dullards as a word jarred with me. Sorry - & yes you are right we both want all to thrive. Of course.

Politely also ......

Perhaps "young person who has to repeat a year" would suffice?