To be gleeful that most of us were right

[Wranglestar]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/adding-vat-to-private-school-fees-has-had-no-obvious-impact-on-state-sector-applications-390546/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2ATdaVlNkJsbtC-KizuW4Fw41obnpvezxnFv4IAFwzJPHXmU90Awr5eqAaem9tMIsn9I0vHSC4jrdYONIA#0rd9makyd4264nstc4us9j77yk5kaoswtLondon Economic

And that private schools has had no impact on state school places. The rich have simply - paid more. Excellent news!

and when I say creative, it isn't about limited resources. It's about delivering way more than the curriculum needs you to because there's there's time, space and the will to do that.

And if you think that there aren't children who are a problem (your words) in private schools, you are very sadly mistaken.

It's not a case of thinking they are 'better' than other people's kids - although some child are just cleverer, or better at kicking a football, or singing, or drawing. These things are quantifiable after all.

I do the best for my child because she is MY child. Other people's kids don't factor in my thinking - in the same way that I don't expect my child to factor in theirs.

The whole point of working is surely to afford the nicest life - house, holidays, experiences and for lots of people those nice experiences mean striving for the best educational experiences they can offer.

Society will NEVER be equal because people aren't equal. That may not be 'fair' but it's reality. Not everyone has the genetics to play football in the premier division - does that mean that nobody should be allowed to progress beyond the local 5-aside?

Given the state of current state education - in particular things like support for SEN - we should be incentivising people to opt out of state and leave more resources for those who don't have options.

I went to below average state schools my whole life and there absolutely was violence. This is still happening up and down the country. It is ludicrous to deny this! There was also a complete lack of ambition which was probably even more damaging on reflection.

My children have been to an Outstanding State school in a middle class area and the difference is stalk. Open your eyes! If you're angry about inequality then private schools are a complete red herring. Enormous inequality is baked into the state system and it is funded by us all.

I used to think how you do but I now think the absolute opposite. Major reform is needed to the entire state system and this should be the absolute priority. Private schools are saving the state money and taking a hell of a lot of children that will present a problem to SEN budgets if they filter back into the state sector. Let the rich fund their children's education and let's make sure that our state provision is equalised and we maximise the amount of money available to spend in it. This means incentivising more people to put their kids into private schools and fund the education themselves.

Yes, been there, done that and got the t-shirt. 😂

Also there are only 5 and half milion people in Finland. It's easy to do things better and in a more bespoke fashion with so few people to cater for.

Well, no, I was making a distinction between earning money and making money. I didn't earn money by gambling on currency movements or buying and selling houses in England: I just made money by doing that.

(I didn't, that is, "go out and earn it" as you put it.)

The distinction is important when we think, for instance, of a wealth tax (or, indeed, school fees, contrariwise). I didn't deserve the money I made, any more than any other rich person deserves his or her wealth. As I said, no-one earns enough money to be properly rich - you have to make money some other way. Sure, if you earned it, you deserve it, with all that entails. But no rich person deserves his or her wealth ... with all that entails ... because no rich person can possibly have earned enough money to get rich, that being impossible.

[You might think I'm wrong. But you didn't understand what I was saying, it seems. Do you now? And do you think I'm wrong? How, if so?]

Yes, agree. Finland is also extremely homogenous, so you're not going to have to have issues with integration, providing extra language classes etc. You just can't compare, but Finland is invariably wheeled out as an example.

Every time the UK is told to look at another country of an example of how to do something right it's always Finland, Norway, Sweden or New Zealand.

What do they all have in common? Apart from Sweden which is still only 10m, they all share their population size with Scotland, which at 5m is virtually half that of London alone, at the current estimate of 9.8m. So yes, it's fairly bloody pointless making any sort of comparison about anything whatsoever.

I agree, this poster is reading what she wants to read to fit her agenda, rather than what is actually written.

I am acutely aware of inequality, working with children with life limiting conditions, complex disabilities, sight and hearing impaired, wheelchair bound, an inquality which is much harder to overcome that the place a person was born, how much there parents earn. But some people just want to have a rant.

It amuses me that all the posters attacking me are doing so on the basis that ‘I’m jealous’ as it pretty much tells me all I need to know about your attitudes to community and society. Dog eat dog eh?

I’m actually a pretty high earning professional - but I am vehemently against classist systems. I’m not jealous. I want the private school system dismantled. And I don’t really care how.

Why do you keep ignoring all the posts pointing out that what are claim in your OP is simply untrue?

Why do you need to see the private school system dismantled so much? To the extent, in fact, that you are hanging onto confirmation bias feelings as actual fact?

You are wishing for something that would see a lot of kids having their education disrupted, a lot of staff losing their jobs at schools that close and a lot of people working in auxiliary support businesses to the sector (uniform suppliers, caterers etc) out of work too. So you are vehemently desiring something kind of... mean.

It’s a question of degree isn’t it? Do I want to give my child advantages in terms of better health and wellbeing? Yes. Do I want my child to think they can opt out of participating in their local community, hoard the best assets, game the system to advance them over others? Never have to be in a room with people who have serious disadvantages in life? No, I don’t. And for what it’s worth the parents gaming the system to buy a house in the catchment of a ‘good school’, campaigning to maintain unfair admissions that advantage middle-class children and upholding inequalities in the state sector are just as revolting to me as those of you sending your children to private school and pretending it elevates you morally. You

Perhaps those schools are good because of the middle class parents?

My child goes to a comprehensive that NOBODY wanted their child to attend until the HT decided that the secret was to make it desirable to the middle classes. It's now one of the most over subscribed schools in England with great results and offers things that many private schools could only dream of. Huge music department, 4 languages, 6 Arts subjects, free horse-riding and archery lessons.

Well yes that’s my point. You need a social mix for equality - quite obviously there is not political incentive for investment and spread of resources to schools mostly attended by working-class children. Which is why a system where everyone attends their local school and all those schools are equally well resourced is fairer than a system where the wealthy can ‘game’ or opt out entirely. I’m aware that there is no political will for this to happen, because many people want their own children unfairly advantaged, as this thread proves.

How is it gaming the system to buy a house near a good school? Lying about living near a good school by giving a grandparents etc address, that is gaming, actually living near one is not. How would you change the admissions system to make it fairer?

You are saying giving better "wellbeing' is fine, but their school life is a huge influence on their wellbeing? It's not about how much the parents of the children in their class earn or what job they do, it's about whether these children are taught to show other children and adults respect and kindness. I don't care whether my child sits with the children of a carer or a consultant, a builder or a banker, but I do care that she is treated with the same respect that I have taught her to show others.

She knows well about inequality, having been born with several health conditions which mean she cannot do some things her peers can. Equality isn't just about class, or income.

I went to a failing school and came out with excellent grades as I had the good fortune of being academic, and having parents who were ambitious for me to have better opportunities than they had. My brother has a disability, and despite a private education, and support, he did and will continue to struggle. Life sadly is not equal. We can all do more to lift up those who are struggling, but not by trying to bring down those who are thriving.

At least you’re prepared to admit that the reason you’re in favour of the policy is so that harm is caused to private schools, rather than improving the state provision. Let’s just drag everyone down to a low level. At least then they’re “equal”.

Why do you keep ignoring all the posts pointing out that what are claim in your OP is simply untrue

Because I’ve not actually seen anything proving that @Ddakji

So if a child is at a school where they have a rubbish maths department should parents be banned from paying for private maths tutoring after school to compensate?

How about sending them for piano lessons, or dance classes or tennis coaching?

Holidays in France that might mean they speak better French in the GCSE oral exam? Should that be banned?

What about the child whose parents are both teachers, or university professors? Should they be allowed to help with homework or exam revision?

Where are you setting the barriers?

Our kids aren't competing with the neighbours kids for jobs, they're competing on a global stage and damn right parents who can are going to make sure their children are well prepared for that.

There is no level playing field.

Some people choose to make do with the local provision and shrug their shoulders if their child is failing maths and wants to play computer games all weekend. That not me and that's not hundreds of thousands of other parents.

Bridget would say yes, ban everything that makes anyone different.

So you don't admit that nothing is evident from numbers applying for state schools, when that is normal behaviour for parents whether they ultimately opt for private or state?

True that

Sorry, what is your point? The data has shown that more children than ever - the vast majority - have been offered their first place at a state school. Whether some of those then choose to go to private is irrelevant. Point is there are enough spaces. Because the private school ‘exodus’ for new pupils never happened.

You’re describing parents who are just trying to access the best education possible for their child (either private or state) as “revolting”. Any decent parent would try to provide the best opportunities possible for their child. We have parents who can’t even be bothered to teach their child to use a knife and fork, potty train or to brush their teeth, and yet you think the “revolting” parents are those trying to do the best by their child. That really is warped logic.

As for “upholding inequalities”, perhaps we should ban parents from reading to their child, or providing healthy meals. Perhaps we should ban them from helping with homework. Let’s stop families visiting museums or from extra curricular activities. After all, those things all create inequality and are things which not all children have.

Really? You don’t know the difference between applications and places taken up?

If you have DC I am guessing that they went to a decent State school?
People who say they could pay for Private but choose not to or say that they wouldn't pay for Private even if they could afford to always have a decent State option they can use.