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.

If we were to embrace well funded, effective comprehensive education then I would certainly not want to then fail the whole project by imposing the setting ideas of the past on it.

One of the things I would like to see further research into is how effective setting could work. I think that this could actually be the most exciting aspect of the project:

• how do you set? by broad subject or you could have sub sets eg in maths setting not at the level of 'maths' but at a lower level say 'geometry', 'algebra', 'statistics'.

• how do you structure regular assessment without getting stuck in a bureaucratic testing progress?

When I talk about setting in comprehensive school of the future then I am not talking about the setting which was used in the late 70s, early 80s when I was at school.

I certainly dont know the answers but I would certainly be interested in the debate and the result.

Yes, seeker and I seen nothing wrong with that - I do not want my children educated with - in my case the words would include the opposite sex, children with an IQ lower than 120, perhaps parents who cannot pay (although that is not essential) , disruptive children in the school, children who may not have similar university aims. In other words I like most parents want what is best for my children. Just as a parent might feed their child good food not junk or read to them at night. It is the morally responsible route.

However I am not suggesting all very academic private schools are packed with perfectly behaved children, but in general I suppose I buy an ethos. As the person said about Eton I could say about North London Collegiate - even in those schools you get a range and every girl will know who is almost genius level, who is simply bright and I am sure it must be the same in state grammars. Achieving children tend to do well at hobbies too. Of course there were some state school pupils at the Olympics although private school ones were massive unrepresentative. However the sort of child who works very hard to get 11A* tends also to put huge effort into their music practice and sports activities.

Also if you have fee paying parents who are in some case sacrificing a lot for their children they tend to ensure they turn up at lessons that have been paid for.

Whether we want selective schooling in English schools (most areas have no grammars) is a different issue. This is state money, rough and ready just about good enough education which is free for all. I would certainly remove all religious involvement in state schools. I would like more children to be able to read and spell better which is what Tesco want. Exam results might have been going up but they find many people unable to speak very well and clearly and cannot add up and write to the extent they need on the tills and in the stores.

Xenia descends into self parody again.

Just noticed an interesting dichotomy. Private school, and to a lesser extent, grammar school kids work very hard for their 11As. If a child at a comprehensive gets 11As it's because the exams have been dumbed down......

Who said that?

Children in comprehensives who get 11 As in decent subjects -ie not BTECs allegedly equivalent to 4 or 5 GCSEs, or 3 or 4 GCSEs in essentially the same subject- eg Maths, Additional Maths, Statistics, or soft subjects such as "Business Studies", are certainly a lot* brighter than the average private school pupil.

Tweaking the statistics by putting pupils through the types of subjects I just listed does not put the school on an equal footing with school doing more traditional and rigorous subjects, nor does it put the student on an equal footing with students doing more traditional subjects when it comes to university applications. In fact it sells them down the river. The only benefit is to the school.

Nobody actually said it. But you only have to read the papers on results day......

And people are always going on on here about how easy GCSEs are- then how hard working private and grammar school kids are.

It was just an aside really....

Or else 11 is too many, and, as I have seen Xenia herself say on other threads 'a bit state school'. Made up of GCSE Hairdressing etc.

I think people should put their money where their mouth is. Rather than raise tax, state schools can Levy a tuition fee of at most £200 per month on parents. The money is paid direct to school and is on top of,existing govt funds. PTA can then decide how best money can be used. In my day former state sch their were 300 pupil in a very MC area. That would raise about £720k pa.
Now let's see who will vote for that. Or maybe we just other people to fund things for us.

I don't understand your idea at all, socarless. The majority of people couldn't spare £200 per month out of their current incomes. Would their children be removed from the school? How would the school police the collection of this money? Tax on income at least removes the money from people before they get to spend it, so they are forced to rebudget accordingly...

That's a good idea. I'll stop paying the bits of tax that pay for things I don't approve of or don't use and give that money to my local school. After all, I'm a pacifist. Why should I pay for the army? I don't climb mountains- why should I pay for mountain rescue?

So the schools with the wealthiest intake would have the most money to spend as they see fit?

I said at most, so it could range from £1 to £200. We made contributions to our state school if at least £10 per child a year and despite being in a MC area never met target. Such a shame.

I guess as with every thing in this country it will be means tested. Already as I learnt from MN schools with high ratio of deprived children get more funding anyway.

I think if you asked some private school parents who are already paying 50% tax + NI, and hefty private school fees (so not utilising state provision which that their taxes help pay for), the answer may be no, if they already feel part of the squeezed middle. On faith schools also, in the US they are not paid for by state and I think should be the case here.

So yes, schools with wealthy catchments get an extra bonus straight from source to do with as they please under this plan, right? I don't think I'd vote for that, to be honest.

Even if it's means tested, rich kids will get more money spent on them!

so you have a problem with 'ruch mustN't then? The children in the state schools in by area are MC not flowing with money. The tax that will be raised through the op will it only go to wc/poor schools? What a twisted way of thinking.

That should read so you have a problem with rich kids

Not at all, but it seems a very odd and unfair way to organise state education! I don't think it would catch on....

Of course if you don't earn a penny but rely on husband or state for daily bread, increasing tax would favour you but not the hard working. But if the sort of Levy I proposed was put out it will not favour those who choose not to work and whilst some who work may find it a stretch it will not be as bad as an additional tax as there is a range and it is decided locally not in westminster.

In France, many private schools are heavily subsidised by the state and (apart from the international schools) cost a fraction of English private schools. I know because I have friends with DCs at the best academic selctive schools in Paris who pay about 1- 2k Euros a term (not means tested) where an equivalent here would cost at least 5k a term. They also go on language exchanges abroad (eg in Germany and Russia) for weeks at a time. Here we have just abolished child benefit for the squeezed middle. In France they have generous tax breaks for having kids (more beneficial the more you earn). The tax philosphy is completely different here vis a vis education and children and I don't think France has the same angst here of private vs state.

No one says children ate state schools get 11 A because exams are easy. Most children in both sectors don't get 11 A even at the best most academic schools in all sectors.

As regards paying the state system many do - Blair paid for tutors from Westminster School. Some state schools ask for "contributions" for various things. People tend to appreciate most that for which they directly pay.

socareless it's very easy to tell others to pay more tax isn't it!

How about this for an idea? How about those who could work but don't want to, go and get a job? Then they themselves can increase the tax coffers...

"That's a good idea. I'll stop paying the bits of tax that pay for things I don't approve of or don't use and give that money to my local school. After all, I'm a pacifist. Why should I pay for the army? I don't climb mountains- why should I pay for mountain rescue?"
I too am anti war and would happily not fund pointless unwinable wars but am happy to pay for mountain rescue education health etc such a great idea but like other great ideas sadly unworkable.