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?

Also to add we’re talking about a world with education as a thing to fund by itself.
In an ideal world we would build a society with economic help etc (much like Scandanavuan countries) with engaged parents which would solve a large amount of these issues in one go.

I’d much rather pay the tax! We’re immigrants and I’m shocked at how poor the education is here and yet how people defend it. Poor kids are just left to fend for themselves, never mind kids with SEN.

We have gone private because I don’t think state is good enough. I’m not seeking an advantage, I’m seeking quality. It would be infinitely preferable if the local state school could provide that for all children in my town for a bit of a tax increase, to paying a bewildering sum of money to a private school.

Quite a high number of kids with mild SEN are forced to go private if they can afford it too, because their local state can’t support them, I’ve noticed, which should be a point of mortification for the government, and yet… 🤷🏻‍♀️

If private schools wish to retain their charitable status then I would like to see them really work for it.
My first career was as a researcher in charity law and I do think that we should welcome legislative changes that push private schools to do far more to provide a genuine public benefit (above and beyond educating the 7%). I agree that stripping them of the status has a whole pile of complex consequences, but they can and should be pushed to do more to open up their benefit to others.

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.

Is that how you view it for your own dc?

If my dd enjoyed an activity and found enrichment in it, I would happily continue to pay for it, regardless of whether she had any talent. In my experience, that's what most middle class parents do for their kids. Are we saying that poorer kids only deserve such enrichment if they are talented enough to earn it?

Again, I guess it comes back to a question of values and the kind of society we aspire to create.

I think the main point is what is the minimum standard of education we want for our children and what does it cost ( let me put special needs , SEN aside for one moment because I think that is a discussion in itself)

Ds went to Oxford - loads of state school peers / friends - so something is working . ( I use this merely as an example )

I am not sure that it is realistic to make state schools give all the things that private schools can. What is realistic it would seem to me ( teachers leaving state sector clearly a factor ) is the standard of teaching and for want of a better word mentoring / encouragement is the same. In whatever sphere the DC wants to end up.

I went to a private school - I have looked at it now - I would not pay thruppence to send a child there - indeed I would not have paid it when I went there.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, because I was going to vote Labour (despise BJ and his pack!) but now can’t. We moved to private education because the State system badly let down DD and we had limited options in our area. We don’t actually want to be paying £20k/yr on private ed. We don’t have a big house, our car is ten years old, we’ve holidayed abroad twice in last 8 years. Now Labour want me to pay even more so they can grab a few class-war type headlines. It won’t raise the quality of State education and they know that. The only thing that would make a serious difference to that is investing in class sizes of max 20 children, not 32/class. More teachers, more classrooms, more equipment. Punishing those who have fled the system for whatever reason doesn’t help.

Also, it seems to me that the people attacking the private system are often people who aren’t paying much towards the State system and think it’s somehow free. In addition to the £20k/ yr we’re spending on DD’s education, we also pay more than £100k in income tax every year, to fund services we rarely use. Sure we use the bin lorry and the street lighting but I’m not sure it’s worth £100k+

We’ve paid at least twice already for education, for DD privately and also for many others’ children in State system.

The teacher training system is certainly not fit for purpose but it's not as straightforward as "private schools/individual teachers are leeching off the state funded system", as some posters like to argue. Private schools host placements for state teachers and vice versa and this is particularly important in subjects like music where the state provision is dying off due to neglect. Also the govt ignores training for non National Curriculum subjects even when tens of thousands of students take them. There isn't necessarily a great match between teachers trained and jobs available (another downside of a system that is both overly centralised and overly fragmented, which lurches from surplus to shortage) and the onus now is on teachers to train on the job and even to get loans to do so. My (state) school did pay to train me but I also had sole responsibility for my subject. It was a pretty cheap deal for them!

I actually did leave the state sector because of large class sizes - not because of the classes but because of the intolerable amount of marking. I was getting up at 5am on a Sunday and creeping out of bed in the hope of doing an hour's marking before my DH and baby woke up. Miserable.

If I were trying to fix the school system I would start with SEN support. The private schools round here are overflowing with SEN DC at secondary level, and there's a reason for that! If their parents thought the needs could be met in state, surely that's what most would do.

@ all Skysblue yes, same situation for us. It is outrageous!

Well said Sky. Perhaps let all parents opt out of state schools and get a £7000 a year voucher per child which they can use at private schools. For those which cost £10k a year outside the SE that would mean a parent would "only" need £3k a year (more in the SE) and cold mean more children access the better education the private sector provides.

Now Labour want me to pay even more so they can grab a few class-war type headlines.

Completely agree with this and rest. They’ve annoyed me with it and it’s a vote changer.

@RedMarauder

If you know any teachers in rl ask they why they left teaching. Absolutely no-one I know who was a teacher left because of class sizes.

Decreasing class sizes would have a huge impact on quality of life for teachers : less marking, less reports, easier behaviour management, easier planning, more time for 1-1 in class etc

@AlexaShutUp

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.

Is that how you view it for your own dc?

If my dd enjoyed an activity and found enrichment in it, I would happily continue to pay for it, regardless of whether she had any talent. In my experience, that's what most middle class parents do for their kids. Are we saying that poorer kids only deserve such enrichment if they are talented enough to earn it?

Again, I guess it comes back to a question of values and the kind of society we aspire to create.

There's a difference between training people to a high standard and teaching them enough to enrich their lives. Playing an instrument for example - a few years of lessons is enough for a child to learn songs for their own enjoyment, and participate in the school band. They don't need individualised/small class lessons for more than a decade. Which is what many private schools offer - many kids go, and pass music exams because their parents want them to and then never touch the instruments again as adults.

Bear in mind that this nuance comes because of the OP's question - making private schools obsolete. Many private schools are value for money not because of the education itself but as a one-stop shop for extracurriculars. It's often cheaper to send kids to school and have one location for everything, rather than send kids to state school and pay for extracurriculars elsewhere.

If you want to make state schools obsolete then you'll also want to make individual extracurriculars etc obsolete. There will always be enough money to give everyone basic exposure, and extra for those who truly excel. There are better uses of money elsewhere compared to funding lessons for pushy parents who think that their little darling will be the next Yo-yo Ma. Because we're operating under the paradigm that EVERYBODY goes to state school, not just the 'poor kids'.

@Skysblue

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, because I was going to vote Labour (despise BJ and his pack!) but now can’t. We moved to private education because the State system badly let down DD and we had limited options in our area. We don’t actually want to be paying £20k/yr on private ed. We don’t have a big house, our car is ten years old, we’ve holidayed abroad twice in last 8 years. Now Labour want me to pay even more so they can grab a few class-war type headlines. It won’t raise the quality of State education and they know that. The only thing that would make a serious difference to that is investing in class sizes of max 20 children, not 32/class. More teachers, more classrooms, more equipment. Punishing those who have fled the system for whatever reason doesn’t help.

Also, it seems to me that the people attacking the private system are often people who aren’t paying much towards the State system and think it’s somehow free. In addition to the £20k/ yr we’re spending on DD’s education, we also pay more than £100k in income tax every year, to fund services we rarely use. Sure we use the bin lorry and the street lighting but I’m not sure it’s worth £100k+

We’ve paid at least twice already for education, for DD privately and also for many others’ children in State system.

This. In actual fact what the private school system was SUPPOSED to do was let parents who could afford it pay for their kids, and have lots of fancy choices and extras. And then use their tax money + freed up spaces for those who deserve it. It didn't mean 'make state schools so shit that people go private who wouldn't ordinarily have'.

Interesteting post but not one mention of pupils with sen

A huge amount of pupils are able learners who just need a few tweaks to help them learn like providing more visual learning for them.

Pgce does not. Cover sen, how to spot various sen and then even if they did Senco seem to have little experience in sen or the law to assist teaches and parents further.

So I'd probably throw money at this first, small tweaks to teacher training and make it law that all Senco have deeper training in sen to five proper tips and information advice.
I stress this because many times in class the bored unegaged child is the one who will cause issues because they can't keep up and are bored out of their minds.

@Skysblue you use more than bin lorries. Covid should have reminded you that health care for instance has to be tackled at a society levelm We all benefit from a vaccination programme - its no point only the rich getting a measles vaccine for instance. You dont need to use state education to benefit from it - we all benefit from a well educated workforce designing things, working in labs etc

[quote flippertyop]@SarahAndQuack intelligence is innate although certainly you can improve or under utilise your natural abilities. There is no doubt though that intelligence is varied amongst the population. Personality is also a factor. Two children can have the same start in life and one is driven to a hieve and one is not. Luckily we are not all the same and we don't all want the same things or there would be an issue [/quote]
No, intelligence is not innate. Sorry. Nor is there much good evidence about what 'personality' might be or contribute.

If you think the only reason not to vote Labour is because of their hatred towards Private school's you are misguided !

For the record the Wealthy Middle Classes love Grammar schools. I've heard it said by some people that they save them £100K a year when factoring the tax taken out on three times 15K Private School fees. This one guy told me, the savings on Private Education meant he could buy his second Ferrari.

The wealthy middle class believe that by going 'Grammar' they are getting down with the masses. It is quite funny because most of them had never heard/considered of Selective State Education. This, until it was deemed fashionable and financially effective.

While we have the wealthy middle classes, in control of the Grammar Schools and Economically Selective Comprehensives , inequality will grow.

I am probably one of the above people, but at least I was State School educated not a 'carpetbagger' parent seeking inexpensive selective schooling.

Re the no teachers leaving due to class size surely less pupils is less work. The staff at DD’s private primary had mostly been there a long time, stayed until retirement and seemed happy. Prepping a lesson for 10, marking 10 books a lot easier than 32. In younger classes there was a TA too. Plus extra staff like French teacher l, games teacher or dance teacher came in so they weren’t with class constantly. Yes they had to be a bit more engaged with the parents in terms of feedback etc but you can have a little chat at end of day if you’ve only got a few children.

Not sure if it’s still the case but private reception was state subsidised when my DC went. They still got early years funding until term after 5 so they knocked that off bill. They also accepted the tax free childcare vouchers whilst they were under compulsory school towards fees.

‘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.’

This really underestimated how difficult it is to work in replen. Sure, it is far easier than being a doctor, but it isn’t so easy that anyone can do it.

It still requires a level of numeracy, literacy and communication that many school leavers don’t have.

Additional money in schools needs to go to the children who are below the capability levels of retail and hospitality work.

As for the high achievers, they are being held back at two bottleneck, over subscription for certain universities and courses and for entry level jobs in certain professions.

The government could resolve that by capping numbers of private school leavers in medicine, law, BBC, senior civil service, as aides in their own parties.

There has to be the gap as that is what people pay for, whether private or post code. Whilst improving education for all is important so many people who can afford it want a better education for their child only even if they do not admit it. Private and grammar school could close tomorrow and there would be an increase in private tutors to maintain the gap. When I worked at the LEA there was two types of postcodes, one a child needed to be excellent to get the top grades the other you had to be average. Extra money spent in the poorer postcodes whilst good and would improve the standards the richer post codes would match the resources to stay ahead.

@Cherryana

Some of the replies on this thread have been some of the best I have ever read on Mumsnet about education.

Actually, I thought Labour did a good job for a government (about 15 years ago). There was the 'building schools for the future' which rebuilt some really grotty schools in my area. Plus there was all the investment in 'Surestart centres'. A pronged 'attack' on social mobility that really did connect with parents and offer support from infancy.

I also think the Warnock review and its impact on SEN education and inclusion was great in theory and poor in practise and does not serve many well. It formed the basis for shutting down special schools.

To create a climate for equality of opportunity I would:

• Create more specialist provisions so some pupils had a more tailored education in a less sensory stimulating environment.

- Focus on working conditions for mainstream teachers with less face to face contact so that planning and marking to be done in the working day. (This would mean there would need to be an increase in teachers).

• Fund services and support eg Speech and Language, Ed Psych, Mental Health
• Re-open Surestart in communities to support vulnerable families and children from infancy.

This ^

So very much

@Boulshired

There has to be the gap as that is what people pay for, whether private or post code. Whilst improving education for all is important so many people who can afford it want a better education for their child only even if they do not admit it. Private and grammar school could close tomorrow and there would be an increase in private tutors to maintain the gap. When I worked at the LEA there was two types of postcodes, one a child needed to be excellent to get the top grades the other you had to be average. Extra money spent in the poorer postcodes whilst good and would improve the standards the richer post codes would match the resources to stay ahead.

This raises another interesting question. What is the ‘true’ potential of a child? SEN aside for the same acceptable standard of classroom teaching some children will get an A and others a C. With private tutoring, intensive private prep etc a student may be pushed up a grade. Is the duty of the school to help a child fulfil their natural potential or achieve the best grades? I’d argue that in general it’s the former. There’s quite a bit of nuance but a ‘good education’ means that everyone achieves what they would achieve under ideal circumstances.

If everybody ended up getting A*s you end up needing another way to distinguish people. Which invariably leads to the American university entrance system prioritising lots and lots of extracurriculars, leadership activities invariably raising the bar higher and higher. The pressure is crazy and these are just kids. In a zero sum world there will always be a need for a defining factor to tell people apart. If ‘just studying’ (and some evidence of additonal interest ) becomes insufficient this will disadvantage poorer kids.

If only there was an exam that couldn’t be prepared for 😂

@Kite22

Interesting. Perhaps there ought to be a requirement for people to work for a minimum number of years within the state sector or else pay back the costs of their training?

It is fairly staggering that this isn't built in to the agreement, I think most normal people would agree. The concept of saying to students "come and do this training for a year and we will pay you thousands" without any sort of contract where they have to commit to using that training, is frankly ridiculous, and could only have ever been thought to be a sensible use of public money by people who do not live in the real world.

I agree that more needs to be done to retain existing teachers, but it seems to me that a lot of things would need to change in order to tackle this?

Oh yes, lots and lots. But including a lot of stuff that wouldn't cost money.

Just to correct a few misconceptions… trainee teachers have to pay for their course - either by private means or by taking out a student loan (which have increasingly punitive interest rates) I retrained as a teacher after many years in a senior financial role. Through school direct I worked in the school 4 days a week all year, with 1 day a week for training. In the summer term the trainee does the majority of class teaching (it’s very different from a PGCE, which is more studying, with a couple of school placements). This ‘learning on the job’ route into teaching used to sometimes pay a small salary, but the government recently cut any salary support, so all trainees now have to rely on their savings/student loan to get through the year. The government offered just £4K living expenses LOAN to cover the year. I would never have been able to retrain if I hadn’t had a DH bringing money in.

The only areas of teaching which ‘pay thousands’ are in secondary subjects which struggle to get enough teachers - maths, physics, chemistry, modern foreign languages. For example, a maths trainee is given a bursary of £24k (and possibly doesn’t have to pay the tuition fees either). That is vastly different to the experience of the majority of trainee teachers.

I do agree that anyone receiving money to train as a teacher should be expected to work in the state sector for a certain amount of time or pay back the cash. I know two friends who trained as chemistry teachers and left after their training year - makes me cross!! But the majority of trainees aren’t paid anything, even those who are working in a school.

We know that moonlaser but Boris et al still think you can bribe those maths and science grads in, and there are lots of students who are happy to take the money and run.