Private schools should be taxed at 25% to fund teachers for Blackpool says Lord Adonis

[noblegiraffe]

Private schools should be taxed at 25% to fund extra pay for teachers in hard-to-recruit areas like Grimsby or Blackpool says Lord Adonis. This £2.5 billion fund could also be used to fund tuition for those in danger of failing maths and English. I'm sure some people on here might have opinions on that?

And he doesn't think pupils should be expelled unless they've broken the law (not sure what he thinks they are currently expelled for but even breaking the law is often overlooked).

"He said whole towns and cities are affected, referring to reports of how doctors in Blackpool use the "Shit Life Syndrome" description.

"Deep poverty, pervasive drugs, obesity, anti-depressants and mental illness in a large isolated town exhibiting alarming signs of disintegration – including the largest encampment in Britain of children expelled from school.

"...For Blackpool today, read also Hull, Grimsby, large parts of the North and the Midlands, and large towns in the South, including Hastings, Dover and Folkestone.""

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/lord-adonis-calls-ban-expelling-pupils-unless-they-break-law

Does the conveyor belt/rote learning system often seen in South Asia mean that you get a "good job"?
I'm not totally convinced it does, we've a couple of friends who are big employers recruiting into "good jobs" they tell me its not all about good qualifications yes they want them but they're now looking for more than that as well. Im not convinced a Singaporean style education always provides that something else as well.

A "good" education, perhaps, is the education that equips a young person to enter a field of work to which s/he is suited, enjoys and which enables said person to make a living. Some want to be doctors, engineers or similarly professionally qualified; they need the intellect and ability to master the training. Others want to be hairdressers, roofers, or gardeners. Society needs both practical and intellectual skills but (numerically) a greater number of carers; but for stability's sake, we should need aim for a society in which a majority can be as happy and fulfilled in their careers as possible. It's naive to think that supermarket shelves are going to fill themselves any time soon, so someone is going to have to be paid to fill them. I know it's not the most interesting job, so anyone who wants more needs to educate themself for the future they want, or we end up importing unskilled migrants to fill the shortfall.

We’ve got friends with DC’s who are or were educated in Singapore they are very keen to critisise the education, like many they prefer our independent education as they feel it’s more rounded.
I agree OCSock “good jobs” come in many different areas.

Really noble! WSho do you thuk you are? You sound Just Like a Teacher! Why is it only your comments that are worthy of debate? Time after time? I am not closing down debate. I just do not agree with the ideas you are putting forward. I also wish to say that on this forum. Perhaps you are not used to anyone challenging you?

If those investing significant funds into privately educating their children instead invested in making their local schools better for all children we would start to really tackle inequality. We should all be sending our children to local schools and pushing to be high achieving for all children of all ability and background rather than opting out.. Enough said.

Monkey - why would private school parents be able to magically improve their local state school?
What makes private school parents so special and able to do so much that thousands of parents of children at state school aren't already doing?
It's very patronising of you to think private school parents are so superior.

I paid precisely because I didn’t want to spend my spare time making my local school better, which by the way was a high performing ofstead outstanding top performing comp. Id br hard pushed to think of anything less I want than join PTA’s or man teddy teddy bear stalls

But if you can't afford to leave home, then having an excellent local university is also an advantage.

It's quite terrifying that this comment comes from a secondary school teacher. For the poorest families, students loans plus top up bursaries from universities do cover accommodation/living expenses. So it's not true that students "can't afford to leave home".

It is the middle earning families - who are not eligible for top up bursaries, may not get the full loans, may have more than one child at university at a time - who actually cannot afford to cover accommodation and living expenses.

The student loans do of course have to be repaid - but the repayments are as a fixed percentage of income, so an increased loan means a longer repayment period, not higher repayments per month.

So in reality it is the "lower middle" incomes that are being prevented from going to some universities because they can't afford the upfront costs. "Lower" income families won't have upfront costs.

It's quite terrifying that this comment comes from a secondary school teacher. For the poorest families, students loans plus top up bursaries from universities do cover accommodation/living expenses.

Terrifying? Get a grip. Oh yes, they can take on extra debt, lucky them. And it's bloody expensive before you get to the point where you're actually at university picking up your student loan cheque. I've mentored FSM kids through the process.

My local university has a widening access scheme which grooms kids for university. They spend a lot of time on campus and end up with a lower UCAS offer. Something else kids in these deprived towns with no local uni won't be able to do.

Bubbles I posted a suggestion that I read somewhere that top universities should open satellite campuses near deprived towns to improve social mobility and somehow you've twisted that to make out I want poor kids to go to crap universities and that 'as a teacher I should know better' and 'seem to think this is ok'. You're talking balls, that's the problem.

Im am by no means saying that its only private school parents who make a difference to schools but they do claerly have available resources which could help local schools and i am not just talking about the high performing local schools. If everyone just expected to go to their local school there would be a much stronger lobby to make them better if they are not so.. Private education continues to contribute to a tiered system that many other European countries do not have..

Student loans don't always cover basic living expenses such as food an accommodation, even for students getting the maximum student loan. And bursaries aren't usually guaranteed in advance of starting a course. For a child whose experience of earning is NMW with parents on less than national average income (or possibly living off NMW themselves), taking out £40000 of loans is a pretty scary idea. Moving hundreds of miles away from home is also a consideration if your entire family has lived in the same place for generations and you can't even visit the uni before applying because you can't afford the travel costs to get there. Throw in a healthy dose of 'never been more than 50 miles from where you grew up' and it is easy to see why remote universities might not be appealing.

This isn't to suggest children from poorer backgrounds shouldn't go to uni, or should be swayed by these things. It is simply recognising that there are barriers to accessing higher education for some children. If it is "terrifying" to parents when teachers recognise the barriers, how the hell can we help children overcome them?

Requiring universities to provide affordable accommodation would be a good start, and switching from loans to grants+graduate tax would (IMO) help. Satellite universities might also work - taking out such high loans to move away 'for the experience' isn't something many children from low-income families would consider.

The financial resources of privately educating parents would be diverted into the housing market pushing up prices in good catchments even more. It would also cause more social stratification as currently people will buy in more mixed areas knowing the local school isn't good but knowing they can privately educate. This would include professionals, such as GPs, who will leave deprived seaside towns.

happy - Id be hard pushed to think of anything less I want than join PTA’s or man teddy teddy bear stalls

Fair enough but that's a bit of a trivialisation of what parents can offer schools whether state or private. For example, my DP is an Oxbridge grad and a doctor and has got involved in the application and interview prep process for Oxbridge and/or medical school at a couple of our local schools. That's a valuable resource (or certainly the schools seemed to think so) and not one all schools might find easy to get hold of.

onewhite I admire people who get involved in anything like that but it’s just not my thing.
I also very much doubt that my efforts would have a positive impact on a school.

Moving to university/jobs has further barriers in a population that hasn't ever left the town, whose siblings/parents/aunts/etc all live within that town, who cannot see the advantages because there are none in the town. Where there is multigenerational unemployment so families do not value education. That is before you move onto the more direct impact of poverty on eg food, housing, clothing which also impacts on readiness to learn. Spending money in schools is not going to impact on many of these barriers.

Student loans don't always cover basic living expenses such as food an accommodation, even for students getting the maximum student loan. And bursaries aren't usually guaranteed in advance of starting a course.

There are RG level universities for which the maximum loan of 9k per year easily covers accommodation in the area and other expenses. There are bursaries guaranteed up front and there are travel grants for students to get to the university to visit. There are taster days in year 12, for which all expenses are covered for low income families with no history of university education. It's not usually necessary to go hundreds of miles away to find a higher ranked university. How about teachers/those who want to help looking up what universities actually offer, and guiding deprived students towards these universities?

It feels like we bang our heads against brick walls. We at universities do so much work to try to get the students from deprived backgrounds to come to us - and then people on here just want to put more hurdles in their way and not actually find the solutions that already exist.

Satellite universities might also work.

No, it wouldn't work - because satellite campuses (a) would cost money that universities just don't have and (b) they wouldn't have research. Universities are not schools. The difference between high level universities and lower ranking ones is research, and quality of research staff. A satellite campus would simply be an extension of a school - it wouldn't have the same status.

And, again, most of the derived towns under consideration are not actually that far from high ranking universities. The barrier is to get students to go tens of miles away from home, not hundreds.

noble: you have not grasped that satellite universities are second best and second rate. Why should a top quality university not be the goal of deprived children? There is money available to help and you seem fixed on the poorer people in the community staying in that community. You like that your local university offers lower grades and makes an effort to woo your students. You do not appear to say they could do better! You have only supported local options in this debate which is a second class option and should not happen.

Not all students have to go to London universities so references to KCL are meaningless. The students can find much cheaper options that are just as good in league tables.

What deprived areas need are excellent schools, excellent teaching, good advice and ambition. What they don’t need are patronising offers and second rate colleges pushed on them by marketing and well meaning, but politically motivated, teachers.

you have not grasped that satellite universities are second best and second rate

Has Oxford tried it?

You like that your local university offers lower grades and makes and effort to woo your students. You do not appear to say they could do better!

What makes you think my local university is a second-rate college making patronising offers?

A compare and contrast exercise between Blackpool and Bournemouth might yield some useful information, not least because back in the 90s Bournemouth was struggling with the benefit tourism type problems that affect other seaside towns.

Both are within commuting distance of good Universities, Southampton in Bournemouth's case, which is really popular with local students. Bournemouth also has a new University (in fact 2) which enjoy good local reputations and deliver more-vocational courses with good links to local employers.

Bournemouth's schools however are generally good.

I suspect this is more to do with a good economy in Bournemouth/Poole, low unemployment, more parents with tertiary education, higher aspirations (though often a real reluctance to venture too far from home for tertiary education) than it is about money going into the school system. Plenty are on minimum wages (hotel workers, care workers) but those I have met, whether British, EU or from overseas, usually want better for their children.

I don't actually know the answer. As a Londoner, Bournemouth is a more comfortable place to be, with a distinct can-do attitude. I have not been to Blackpool for a while, but was in Burnley recently, and used to travel to Oldham regularly. Both feel quite dressed. Pity because parts of Burnley are potentially very attractive, and people in Oldham were lovely..

Out of interest, does Southampton make reduced offers to local students? Or is this only done by universities in more deprived areas to get the local pupils into university? It works both ways too. Pupils get to university and courses have students!

What level of university does this? Does Durham do it for the former mining villages? How about UCL for kids from the White City Estate? Or is it not something the top ones actively do for local students?

I know they make contextual offers for any qualifying student but how many actively reduce the tariff for local students?

Pathways to Law can result in a reduced offer for participants. Participants attend at their closest university (e.g. Warwick so not a second rate college) which runs the scheme.

No idea about Southampton, but do know that LSE and others work hard with outreach programmes for local students from challenged schools. It works well for London kids who often have little desire to leave home, but who have a fantastic range of Universities to choose from.

Maybe the solution is for localish Universities to work with local schools to help overcome barriers rather than set up satellites.

user, I don't think some universities realise that what they offer isn't getting through to students. My job is (in order):

• safeguarding
• exam results
• keep student interested in my subject
• everything else

I simply don't have time to keep up with the myriad of different options available at each of the universities in the country. Better offers may be available but unless people realise that teachers do not have the time to absorb, let alone disseminate, the information it is no wonder the info isn't getting through.

How do universities inform students about travel costs being covered? How do they tell students about their accommodation costs? How do they explain bursaries awarded in advance? If the answer is "teachers" then perhaps society needs to realise there is a limit to what teachers can do in the limited contact time we have. If you want me to spend time explaining student loans that's fine. Which part of my physics teaching should I give up to do that?