Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 5

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

Starting a continuation thread in anticipation of the fourth one filling up…

www.mumsnet.com/talk/education/5301690-whitehall-braced-for-private-schools-collapse-4?page=39

How do you think it changed in September 1976?

A 16 year old who joined a socialist movement would have been perfectly capable of asking to move schools for sixth form in order to align with his political views. Many children ask to switch schools at 16, for various reasons.

I suspect that then as now, he was flip-flopping a lot on what he believed...

It’s probably more that he didn’t want to leave his school and neither did his parents which is understandable, then 40 years later he instigated a set of policies to force other children out of their schools.

@Another76543There’s no such thing as a private grammar school. There are private schools which retain the word in their name for reasons, I assume, of tradition. There are c148 state grammar schools, some of which are very good. They pretend that they are open to all on academic selection alone, but if we are honest, we know that is not true. And we also know that they have a damaging effect on the education of the majority.

Exactly. Perhaps he didn’t want the upheaval of moving schools. He’s now happy to force that on other children though, often part way through a school year and not necessarily at a natural transition point. Adding VAT onto fees part way through an academic year (when they had pretty much said they wouldn’t) was particularly spiteful.

There would be nothing exceptional about that - in real socialist countries like USSR, N Korea, Cuba etc children were/are ideologically aware at a much younger age, by 14 they would be planning their party career for sure. Going to a fee paying school would be unthinkable for a socialist. You're not a "true leftie" if you don't know the history of socialist youth movements 😁

Labour are not socialist though, they are "rich people with rich friends", I get that 😁

I’m fully aware of that. The fact remains that Starmer attended a school named “grammar” which was fee paying. Your previous post asked me if I thought that all children at grammar school were attending private school paid for by someone else. State grammar schools do not charge fees. The taxpayer funds those in the same way as other state schools.

The whole thing is just spite, I had some respect for supporters who thought it was going to raise revenue for state schools but this vague virtue signalling nonsense is just pathetic. The only upside is Labour will be long remembered as the party that brought in the education tax.

Bought in the education tax that then allowed super elites to flourish and create a whole exclusive tier of education unattainable to the middle classes.

Long remembered but hopefully shortly lived.

Ha at last line.

What do you want them to do? Close state grammar schools because you can't access them?

The supporters have completely stopped pretending that the policy will raise £££ VAT moolah bonanza for 6500 teachers and umpteen rice crispies. Let alone the simultaneous pretence that it will also abolish paid-for education leading to (depending on whatever squirrel they're pointing at) floods of high-achieving scholars with sharp-elbowed parents to raise standards at state schools and/or absolutely nobody arriving in overcrowded state schools and/or crowds of posh dimwits bringing down standards at state schools.

That's why we're currently into the nth page of "I see no hypocrisy, but let's keep talking about hypocrisy".

"I cannot tell a lie ...because that's Rachel's speciality. Mine are double-think, hiding the truth, mealy-mouthed equivocation and sycophancy".

Is that not their argument to close the privates?

Well they want to close independent schools because not everyone can access them.......but that's OK yeh??

LOL sums it up perfectly!

Of course there is no such thing as a private grammar school! Another bonkers comment.

I am not clear how my DC taking super selective grammar places untutored is so unfair and damaging to the majority. These schools tend to take in from a wide geographic area (like private day schools) and there are no secondary moderns in the area. They got in purely on their own academic merit and the fact the schools were commutable. I agree it is different in grammar counties.

I think they actually want people to pay VAT.

No. If you look at interviews with Reeves, Raynor, Phillipson, Ellie Reeves, Milliband etc they all clearly state they want to close all independent schools. VAT is the only means they have without extensive and expensive legal battles.....oh hang on a minute!

If others cannot access them they are not really free to all though, are they?
If a kid couldn't get in to your kid's school but had to pay to go to the local private to get away from gang culture in the only remaining state option, for example, would you think you were supremely lucky as if your kids had had a bad day on exam day that could have been you/if your kids had had SEN that could have been you, or did you pat yourself on the back for having bright kids and then come on here to denigrate posters wanting the same chances for theirs?

Do you understand the difference between charging VAT and closing schools?

" I am not clear how my DC taking super selective grammar places untutored is so unfair and damaging to the majority"

In other words "I am happy for my kids to have advantage and privilege PAID FOR by taxpayer but I don't agree with other people's kids having the same WITH NO COST TO TAXPAYER"

Is this a wind up????

Charging VAT is closing schools. Hope that helps