Would you be prepared to pay more tax to get better state education for all?

[happygardening]

Any other suggestions welcome to ensure that all where ever they live and whatever their background have access to education of the highest quality.

I would if it meant all private and grammar schools were abolished.

Yes, as long as there were no grammar and no private schools, no single sex schools, no faith schools.

Yes! If I was guaranteed that it would go on education, and secondly, if I was guaranteed it would go on front line education, eg more teachers/specialist teaching staff.

I would want a truly comprehensive system, with all children going to their local schools.

No.

Yes. Without conditions.

Simply "yes" but not as simple as that. I think a lot of money is wasted and resources are used in the wrong way. I think all schools should publish their accounts including expenses paid to staff and consultants. I don't mind paying teachers a good wage (they deserve it), but I do object to waste and expensive cars for SLT etc.

yes. we used to pay 30% tax did we not. And O and A level standards were better than they are now.

But, I think we need to recognise that some pupils do not want to be in school and in a poor school setting can cause almost constant low level disruption. I would like to see those pupils take out of the main classes and educated separately - maybe in the empty ex-grammar schools
Seriously, I think these secondary age pupils should be educated in a separate space as they can have a negative impact on the whole learning culture in a school that is far bigger than they merit. The whole ethos can be determined by a few, and I would rather it was a positive can-do culture.

I am not sure more tax would necessarily result in better state education, depending on what your definition of that is. Reason being the state of state education is not necessarily due to lack of funds, behaviour in schools is one, various political agendas, individual parents own perception of what constitutes a good education, home backgrounds etc

i'm not even sure the population as a whole agrees that state education isn't up to scratch, many believe it is quite good.

Yes. My DS goes to a super selective Grammar but I would still say yes.

DS and before him DDS went to an outstanding state primary. DD1 very bright went to outstanding local comp as did DD2 who has mild learning difficulties. DD2 did a Vocational course in hairdressing in year 10 and then went onto college to do level 3 and barbering.

I have three DC with very different needs and IQs and they were all catered for. From my perspective there is nothing wrong with the education system.

Why no single-sex grammars?

I went to one, with one year in a standard state school, and it was by far the best thing. Just amazing, academically.

I am not convinced that resources are the key problem.

I would like to see the abolition of all state funded faith schools.

I think there should be more outreach into those communities that feel disenfranchised from the education system. I would also like to see a higher value placed on practical and vocational skills.

Yes to higher value placed on vocational qualifications.

Instead of them being viewed as 2nd rate qualifications.

'I am not convinced that resources are the key problem.

I would like to see the abolition of all state funded faith schools. '

How would you afford to pay the churches which bought their land in the nineteenth or early twentieth centuries, built their schools, etc.

What amother said and with far more investment in quality vocational schools.

I don't think that higher taxes could possibly achieve what OP wants, no matter what reasonable conditions were imposed. Sorry.

No.

However much tax we pay, there will always be familes who simply don't give a toss about education. You could throw money at schools all you like, and it would never solve that problem.

I actually think that all schools should be privatised, run by people who can manage and lead people (rather than being driven by doctrine). But that's not likely to happen...

Why would being a privatised school be better?

Private schools have more money hence better. But making all schools private just means that money is creamed off in profit which should be going back into the system.

I'm not sure throwing money at the issue will help - if it did, standard would have shot up under New Labour.

Schools get pretty similar funding now - aim of for areas with grammars, but why are some schools so much "better" than others? For the issues of demographics of the catchment aren't go to go away.

Abrai1d
I don't think the churches could sell you the schools because they would have been set up to provide a Christian education.

Churches only have to provide 10% of the Capital costs of running the school (which can be waived by the LEA) the other 90% of the Capital costs and 100% of the running costs are paid for by the State anyway.

I thought we already spent more on Education as a country than other countries who manage to do better than us....?

I would pay more taxes specifically towards education but I would like to see smaller class sizes and smaller (secondary) schools in return.

Yes, but I too would like to see smaller class sizes, and decent equipment, plus sufficient school places to stop this mad scramble which happens in some towns and cities.

No.

But I would be willing to pay more tax if state education was abolished and instead all the funds were used to pay the private school fees of children on a means-tested basis.

No - because I don't believe it's all about how much money is invested.....the current variation in quality within the state sector cannot be explained just by funding. Agree with scaevola - it doesn't change the different demographics of each school's catchment.
If private schools are abolished, more government funding would be required to pay for all those children not currently educated in the state system.