Is equality in education actually achievable? and is it what we want?

[SinoohXaenaHide]

So, market forces and political currents over many decades seem to have fixed the amount that the taxpayer is willing to pay per year per child in state education as around £7k per year (£7,100 to be precise according to this article)

And in a well-run school with willing and able pupils, that amount of money is enough to provide a fairly decent quality of education. Obviously with more money a school could do more, but that would cost more tax, and this seems to be the level of balance between tax and education quality that we corporately as a population will accept.

In the UK the distribution of individual income means that about 20% of individual earners have more than twice the median disposable income. It's not at all surprising that some more well-off families wish to purchase a different education than that which is provided by taxpayers. About 7% of children are educated privately. In a free society the freedom to choose to educate ones children outside the state system is important and I don't think anyone is saying that it should be illegal to spend ones spare income on education if one chooses, only that this shouldn't be subsidised by the tax payer.

The above linked article says that Labour will abolish the tax advantages of private schools and use the money to fund state schools. We've had thousands of threads which go over and over how the practicalities of achieving that would be complicated (it would require a rebuilding of charity law from the ground up. Let's not get into that again though) but setting that aside, you are only talking about creaming an extra 20% of what is spent on 7% of pupils - although the rocketing of school fees might drop that to only 6% as a lot of self-funders can only just afford the fees as it is - and then you spread that among the 94% of pupils in state education. I've done the maths and that works out as less than £100 extra per pupil per year in state education - that's not going to make much difference.

To actually level up state education to the kind of quality that would begin to make private education obsolete because so many fewer feel the need to opt out of it, would take an injection of income into schools of more like £3,000 per year per pupil. That would be what was needed to get class sizes and facilities to a level that is more similar to the private sector. That would require about £30 billion pounds more per year into the education budget - there are about 30 million tax payers in the UK so that would require each tax payer to pay about £1000 per year more tax. Or if you made it progressive, that would be an extra £625 per tax payer for basic rate, £1,875 per year (3 times as much as basic rate payers) for those who pay at the higher rate and £5,625 per year (9 times as much as basic rate payers) for those who pay at the highest rate. This would raise the required £30 billion per year.

For comparison, the changes to National Insurance coming in next year to fund social care are expected to raise £12 billion - barely a third of that. So the kind of tax rise required is phenomenal.

Do we as a population want to see the kinds of tax rises that would be needed to actually level up our childrens education? Could a political party ever be voted in on a policy of tax rises of that magnitude in exchange for creating a state education sector that is good enough to make private schools obsolete?

@alexashutup So if you had a child who was average in a hook and one who was a talented footballer you wouldn't spend more time/money on the one with the talent? You would rather the one that potentially could be a premier league footballer lost out because you can't afford to spend the same amount of time or money (which is I necessary as they don't have a particular talent) on the other one? I find that strange but interesting. Another feiend of mine has a similar dilemma when one of her kids was offered a scholarship at a really food private school but her other son wasn't good a sport so she knew he wouldn't get a scholarship and they couldn't afford to go private. As a result they are spending more on the older one because private school just costs more but they wanted him to have that opportunity not just say no because they can't do the same for the other child. Not trying to be goady I guess I just have a different opinion to you

So @flippertyop, you are actually doing the opposite for your own family than you are recommending we should do as a country? That's interesting.

Personally, I go by the same principles. The ones with the greatest need probably need the most resources. We don't need to spend more money amplifying the advantages that the most able kids already enjoy. We need to invest more to help the kids without those advantages to overcome the obstacles that they might face.

I don't think that's an emotional argument. It's a perfectly rational one about the kind of society that we wish to create.

You’re assuming that the so called ‘levelling up’ of education will improve outcomes for all pupils, when in fact there are far more powerful factors at play that influence pupil outcomes. These factors include (but are not limited to)

1. Lack of Early years support - via health visitors, Sure Start, nurseries.
2. Increasing levels of Poverty.
3. Mental health of parents

Unless these are addressed, putting more money into actual schools will be like putting a plaster over a broken leg.

*at school not in a hook

@AlexaShutUp

So *@flippertyop*, you are actually doing the opposite for your own family than you are recommending we should do as a country? That's interesting.

Personally, I go by the same principles. The ones with the greatest need probably need the most resources. We don't need to spend more money amplifying the advantages that the most able kids already enjoy. We need to invest more to help the kids without those advantages to overcome the obstacles that they might face.

I don't think that's an emotional argument. It's a perfectly rational one about the kind of society that we wish to create.

Absolutely!

@AlexaShutUp as a mother yes as a tax payer I would prefer my money was spent where it's going to get the best return and that is on children that can excel. Those who are more practical can train on the job in many instances and don't need that support in academia. If I had 1k as a tax payer I would wish to spend it on the child who will achieve the most with it - by that I mean will be of the biggest benefit of society as a whole. So yes I am doing exactly the opposite of what I would advise are as a tax payer but that is because that he is my child and I have an emotional attachment. If a child had dyslexia but with help could be a lawyer would I invest more in them than anyone else? Yes. but if they were only going to ever do an unskilled job should they get the same investment? No. It's not black and white

[quote flippertyop]@alexashutup So if you had a child who was average in a hook and one who was a talented footballer you wouldn't spend more time/money on the one with the talent? You would rather the one that potentially could be a premier league footballer lost out because you can't afford to spend the same amount of time or money (which is I necessary as they don't have a particular talent) on the other one? I find that strange but interesting. Another feiend of mine has a similar dilemma when one of her kids was offered a scholarship at a really food private school but her other son wasn't good a sport so she knew he wouldn't get a scholarship and they couldn't afford to go private. As a result they are spending more on the older one because private school just costs more but they wanted him to have that opportunity not just say no because they can't do the same for the other child. Not trying to be goady I guess I just have a different opinion to you [/quote]
No, I wouldn't invest heavily in one child to the detriment of another.

My friend did do this, actually. Her dd was an elite athlete, competing at national/International level. My friend poured everything into supporting this child and she did extremely well. Meanwhile, the younger kid - who had plenty of talents of her own - went completely off the rails because she resented the excessive focus on her older sister. A couple of years ago, the older sister decided to stop competing because the pressure was impacting on her mental health. The relationship between siblings and between the mum and youngest daughter remains very fraught. How could it not be? She always felt second best.

Re the private school scenario that you mention, if it was only a partial scholarship, I wouldn't feel obliged to make up the difference unless I was able to put a comparable sum by for the other dc in order to support them in whatever way they might need.

@AlexaShutUp and I know someone in the first situation who now earns loads of money and has bought their siblings houses and given them experiences they never could have had if that time wasn't invested. I guess we just have different views on things but that's what makes the world go round

So yes I am doing exactly the opposite of what I would advise are as a tax payer but that is because that he is my child and I have an emotional attachment.

I find this very interesting. As a taxpayer, I guess I want to create a society in which every child has the kind of opportunities that I would strive to give my own dc. And I do feel quite emotional about the fact that some kids don't get those opportunities.

I cannot look at it in a cold, detached way that calculates return on investment. These are actual, real children who we're talking about. Why shouldn't we, as a society, do for them what we would do so willingly for our own kids?

And thinking about it I am investing in my son because I think it will get him to average grades which means he will do OK in life. If I thought he was not capable of doing more than a menial type role I wouldn't be spending it. That would not be a good investment because he could do that without the extra money being spent

We clearly have very different values @flippertyop.

Im mesmerised by this. How early in the state education process do we decide to heavily invest in the naturally intelligent and invest less in our future low skilled job people. Do we decide when they do their base line assessments aged 4/5 or their SATs in year 6. Why would giving an 'intellogent' child a suitable education cost so much more than giving a 'i can function in society' education to someone else.

The govt currently wastes huge amounts of money training new teachers who either go straight to the private sector (no requirement to teach in a state school), quit teaching before they start, or leave within the first few years
It also works the other way.

I completed teacher training in Computer Science in 2019 and I desperately tried to find a teaching job after the course.

Contrary to Government hype, many schools computing education is being ignored today.

During my training I often encountered schools where computing equipment was so old that it had a major impact on whatr could be taught in class.

Another aspect was the fact that in many schools the existing CS teachers did not have any computing qualifications themselves.

I have seen A-Level CS taught by someone who was teaching themselves the syllabus a couple of weekas ahead of the students.

I have since found other CS NQTs like myself (with a CS degree) with similar issues and unable to get a teaching role.

The mind boggles @Elephantsparade.

Some kids will be relegated to the shelf stacking cohort, whereas others will be placed on the doctor track. I too would love to know how and when this selection will be made.

I've done the maths and that works out as less than £100 extra per pupil per year in state education - that's not going to make much difference.

Haven’t rtft but bravo on doing the maths. This has been my point too.

I found your analysis very helpful but I'm not sure a per child allowance is the right way. Some schools have good facilities and some don't and that is the case in both the state and the private sector. Some teachers can teach and inspire in the most dire of circumstances and some will never be able to do that no matter how elaborate the facilities. The vast majority do a good job in trying times. I agree with a PP that we also need to do more to make teaching an attractive option - experienced teachers ought to earn the same as GPs and have similar hours imo.

Often where private schools score is not so much the facilities and class sizes as much as the intangible extras - being able to weed out the children with behavioural issues who should often be in special schools more suited to their needs but the LA doesn't want to fund so keeps them in mainstream disrupting the education of 30+ children instead. They are able to offer more in terms of extra curricular often by buying in support etc.

£100 a head doesn't go far in terms of a facilities budget but might well be enough to bring in a music specialist once a week to run choirs and instrumental groups/bring in someone to coach debating/acting/ceative writing regularly, introduce a different sport or two etc etc - all things that private schools I know do.

I suppose that's what Boris is talking about with his 'levelling up' mantra
Sorry but I don't think that "levelling up" is anything more than a slogan with no real substance.

I have since found other CS NQTs like myself (with a CS degree) with similar issues and unable to get a teaching role.

We've been totally unable to recruit a CS teacher for the last few months and have had issues with recruitment for years. Very surprised to hear of CS teachers unable to get a job!

@StarCat2020

I suppose that's what Boris is talking about with his 'levelling up' mantra Sorry but I don't think that "levelling up" is anything more than a slogan with no real substance.

Agreed. I doubt that Boris has any tangible idea of what it is supposed to mean.

It's a bit like "building back better"

Nobody disagrees with the slogans but let's have a strategy to back them up.

@randomsabreuse "The vast majority of private schools do not confer the networking advantages suggested"

I do agree with this - I think it is a myth. Pay for school for many reasons if you will , but being part of an old boy's or old girl's network is ( these days ) a pretty rubbish reason - More likely that Uncle Bill can put a word in to his mate who knows someone to get you an interview ( in any sphere of work. )

DD went to a private primary. Fees were £5,500 a year. They are currently £7038 a year so same cost as state in Op’s post. This is a year not a term - deprived northern town before people say no private is that cheap. Included a longer school day as standard (no wrap around care costs) and 2 weeks extra holidays - by going away then we saved a lot.
It was noticeably more old fashioned than local primaries - functional but definitely had whiff of bygone era. Facilities weren’t fancy some parents painted the gym, lots of donated items, old equipment.
Small classes my DD’s was largest at 15 pupils.
Very much emphasis on basics in terms of education - reading, maths, grammar. Speech was corrected. They didn’t have all the dress up days and projects etc like other primary schools.
Behaviour standards were very high they stood out positively at events with other schools.
There were pupils with additional needs - my dd has a physical disability. It was ideal for children who needed a bit of extra help but not enough to qualify for sufficient support in state.
Emphasis on public speaking - things like English speaking board, poetry vanguard.
11 plus prep done as part of school day.
Obviously all parents were invested in education and co operative.
It was a very positive experience for my DD and set her up well for secondary (she’s now at a state grammar)

Catching up reading through the replies so far.

Good point made by a few that the additional money for the state sector wouldn't be just spent at a level £100 per head and would probably make a significant impact for those who are being failed the most egregiously by the current system. So yes that's good. The other side of that coin is that a very large number of pupils whose current education is at the "ok/acceptable" level would see pretty much no benefit.

Also I really appreciated the point about the leaky bucket of pouring resources into training teachers who then don't stay in the state sector. I definitely agree that something should change there - but if teacher training involved signing a contract to pay back the costs of training if you don't then work in the sector for X years, wouldn't that cause some even more serious barriers to getting people to sign up? I couldn't be a teacher myself I know I don't have the skills, but if I ever considered it then I know a contract like that would be massively offputting. Better to make the conditions for teachers at state school more attractive so that they actively want to stay because they enjoy their work and feel supported and appreciated, rather than trying to handcuff them into a job they can't wait to leave but have to serve their indentured time.

I disagree with the idea that it's right to invest more money in the more able. If anything, the more able should be easier and cheaper to teach. Those who are less likely to get academic qualifications need significant attention and resources to get their basic skills to a reasonable enough level that they can be employable in a range of possible careers, and should yes also have access to good quality vocational qualifications. Every child of whatever attainment level deserves the opportunity to reach their full potential and be celebrated for that - and never made to feel that if their full potential is greatest on an axis other than academic prowess then that is somehow inferior.

I know I haven't addressed all the points above. Will keep reading and considering the further points made...

"but should the tax payer foot a large bill for someone who isn't going to deliver much back into society"

So in practice how does that work.
Children with severe sen usually have higher funding. Would you reduce that funding to less than the average child gets? How does that work? Children with severe learning difficulties in classes of 50 with one teacher?

Good post. I'm a higher rate tax payer and happy to pay £5,625 extra pa - cheaper than the £40,000 pa we'll pay for our kids because the local comp's shit.

2 things

1. Even with the best teachers in the world it’ll be impossible for equal education to be achieved in isolation as a stable home life is a major determinant.
2. It will be very expensive to let kids ‘try’ a range of extracurriculars the way private schools do. Even for parents earning a decent amount activities are expensive.

Education (like healthcare) will never scale. It’s individual.

I’d happily support things like special schools and smaller class sizes but to bring state schools up to the level of private is a waste of money (of course depending on the type of private!). Maybe some extra funding to provide some cultural exposure but unless they show a talent it’s a waste to fund it for several years.