Would Labour voters be upset if joining the EU meant they could no longer tax children’s education?

[Blarneyspoco]

Taxing children’s education is banned as part of EU membership. If the U.K. rejoined the EU, would Labour supporters be upset that they can no longer levy the tax or would it be seen as a necessary compromise.

It's not good enough for me. What's also not good enough for me is that at my DC's leafy suburb state school, 80% of young people go to university whilst at a school seven miles away, just 10% go. Dismissing schools as 'shit' fails to take account of the socio-economic context in which they operate and the impact of family background on aspiration.

Are saying the local school is making up stats that only 65% of kids are at a 4 in English. At my kids school it is 100%. Level 3 is around an 11 years ability tested at 16 - 45% of kids are 5 years or more behind - that is a disgrace to me.

Also the cost of fuel to a business just gets passed on to the customer.

And do you have the means to provide a private alternative ? Because if not, you’re stuck with what the state provides. Like most of us. The fact is that your own experience is not universal. If it was, then 50% of state educated pupils wouldn’t be progressing to higher education by age 25 and the 75% immediate progression rate wouldn’t exist. Only 27 -34% of Oxbridge students are privately educated.

Oh am I?

I’m being realistic, instead of worshipping ideology.

Agree. Pretty poor not to have grasped by now that the price of fuel pretty much dictates the price of everything else.

There is still a cost/benefit.

Logically, people come off smoking onto vaping as part of the process.

I get it many kids are resilient and able to achieve despite the shit their school throws at them. Think how well they would do in a good learning environment? 90% plus of children at Oxbridge should be from state schools, if our state schools weren't letting kids down.

Of course I'm not saying your school is making up stats. I am arguing for an analytical approach to understanding why our education system is failing too many young people. It's what's behind the 14-19 reforms being introduced by Labour. Using emotive language like 'shit' and disgrace' solves nothing, distancing the problem and loading blame onto schools.

This thread is hardly a beacon of reasoning.

That’s the case for Starmer and co and their actual policy.

Why 90%? 18% of 6th form kids go to private school. And that is A Levels before uni selection.

We also have many state school kids using private tutors, that other cannot afford. Are they privileged? Should they be included in kids that have had a private education? If not why not?

And what about those kids from a 2 parent happy nuclear family, not divorced. How do we add them to the privileged list? If not included why not? Research shows this is the primary factor in ensuring a persons success.

How many does that leave that in the % that 'should be' at Oxbridge?

Indeed. I put it down to our 'shit' state schools. Having been educated in several myself, I speak with authority.

Their reasoning and your reasoning don't align.

I'd be amazed if they did, since you would be starting with different inputs at the very least.

The percentage of privately educated reached 18% in six form, because in the state school 45% don't reach the basic level of literacy to do A -levels. The vast majority of privately educated kids reach the grades for A-levels or equivalent, a much lower percentage from state school can do that. The failure of state school is already pretty evident at 17. The rest of your post makes very little sense.

Their reasoning hasn’t done them well since they’ve all been ousted from their jobs in two years.

Being unable to listen and plough on with dud policies contributed to that for them.

Thank you. Some of these ignorant generalisations about state education are laughable. DD achieved excellent grades at GCSE and A level, a first class STEM degree at an RG university and an academic award for her first year at her post grad (RG) university in spite of being state educated.

If there is one thing the left loves more than anything is telling people what to do and how to do it and the punish them for their choices.

If there is one thing the right loves more than anything is telling anyone who voted Labour is poor, jealous and wants to punish Tory voters for their choices - oh and make sweeping generalisations that are laughable and untrue.

I agree that the VAT on PRIVATE education (not "children's education" because that covers all children) was ill thought out. I am not poor and I have friends who were privately educated and friends whose children were privately educated and don't judge them for it because it was their choice.

I voted Labour in the last GE because we have a cracking Labour MP who was born and went to school here, and lives here. She engages with her constituents and the general public and supports loads of good causes.

It makes complete sense. The fact you don't want to see it, simply represents cognitive bias. Or wilful ignorance. Or cognitive dissonance. Somefink like that anyway.

And the Libdems unless the school in question can evidence its community work to justify its charitable status. So basically only the government and the future coalition government should Labour not secure a majority.
Should be gone in no time!

We don’t bully the rich enough in my opinion

There's also the issue we have with using the term 'state education'.

As we all know some state schools are far superior to others.

Highly selective grammar in High Wycombe or sink comp in Toxteth? Hmm according to the government they're the same thing in the stats.

Of course when they talk about successful state schools it's usually grammars and/or nice ones in nice areas.

So true. We should totally bully rich people so much then steal all their money. Oh. Wait.

*the latter being the ones they send Their kids to.. obviously.

Actually yes. The only solution to the UKs social system is total redistribution of wealth.

Another blanket statement. State schools are letting some pupils down. They are also doing a sterling job for others. Still others are not doing as well as they could. They are not letting all pupils down.

Then there's the question of how to define a good learning environment. Relevant here is that private schools have about three times more per pupil to spend than state schools. Private schools provide pastoral care at a level not possible in the state sector because there are not enough staff. Quiet places to study are more numerous and better equipped. Class sizes are smaller. Facilities for sport, drama and art are better. That's what parents pay for.

Schools like Michaela and Mercia, state schools ranked first and second in DfE league tables for progress from KS2 to KS4 and GCSE attainment, are succeeding partly because they have taken radical steps to change the school environment through zero tolerance behaviour policies, and address home issues that negatively impact education such as homework being done at school because some homes have no quiet place to study.

Questions worth asking are:

1. Given the learning environment in most private schools, why don't all pupils excel?
2. If the funding per pupil were the same in private and state schools, would educational outcomes be comparable?
3. What is the correlation between pupils achieving well at school and parental championing of education?