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

I find it increasingly patronising that posters claim that they paid because they care more.

I don't claim to care more than you. I can never use any objective facts to judge how much anyone cares about education who doesn't have the funds to finance private education in the first place. Who knows what they would do with an extra £15-20K per year per child after taxes?

I do have strong evidence about the people who have the money, but choose to spend it on other things. Some people prefer a better lifestyle, some think property is a better investment for their children than education. I am happy to let them get on and make their decisions about their money, the same as I make decisions about mine.

I am simply pointing out that you are not talking to a representative sample of rich people down south, but a very particular group of people.

You want to talk about your concerns in Hull. Most of us can't add much because we don't live in Hull and we don't know the ins and outs.

There is a lot of concentrated population in the Southeast of England, that means that there is a critical mass of people having similar experiences that can find each other on these chat rooms. People chatting about their own life-experiences to other like minded people are not trying to make a political statement of some sort by leaving you out. In fact, I got the impression that you were a little frustrated and wanted some engagement, so I tried my best. I'm not really looking to spar with you.

Having had DC in both state and private, I definitely prefer private. It's nice to get what you want. Not just from a perspective of everything being "niace," but from a perspective of being able to choose values that align with your own. I'd look for ways to give more and more people this opportunity rather than less and less. The totalitarian left makes me shudder. In Britain we have private: trains, prisons, water companies, energy companies, etc. Why is education taboo?

I don't think private education can be realistically compared to private anything else. Education is compulsory. Among other things, sending your children to private schools is a very public and obvious statement that what us good enough for 93% of children is not good enough for yours. Also your electricity supplier hardly affects life chances in the same way. One thing I will never understand is why private schools have ridiculously expensive uniforms, which often look ridiculous too and make the poor child stick out like a sore thumb. Can anyone explain?

Schools funding is a huge problem and hasn't improved for the Hull area under any government. Don't think having Prescott in a high profile role under Blair helped any ? And Lord Mandelson as High Steward brings exactly what to the city ? Maybe the MP for Hull West will be more vocal as she was a teacher ?

I believe there is a London / SE focus in government /civil service. There was a paper that went before the House of Lords which said that as a nation we would economically benefit more from a decent west to east coast rail-link than the south to north HS2. Which is going ahead?

Which is why I keep coming back to engage with others outside the city. As empress says most people naturally do not know much about the city. Our councils / MATs need to shout more for a level playing field. Could you channel your interest and passion for improvement as a governor?

I don't claim to care more than most and your passion for education and opportunities for your DCs shines through. I would claim to care more than those who will not read their young child a book.

Just to be clear our income is less than yours and both our cars are older with greater mileages. We afford it because we have only one DS and my husband lost both his parents so there was a home to sell (Hull price no mansion!). Sensibly the money should have gone towards a pension but we made this decision. When I say that 10% of pupils are on a bursary that means the family income is less than £60k (and they expect both parents to be working). We don't get a bursary because of the inheritance (got to have no capital too). Just to show how far removed we are from most independent schools, it is my understanding no-one failed the entrance exam for yr 7 the year DS sat it.

I am very grateful for the friends DS has from his sports. He has known many of them from primary age. He actually sees more of them outside school than his school friends because one of the downsides of not going to the local school is your school friends do not live in walking distance.

As empress says most people naturally do not know much about the city.

I think people from most towns and cities (certainly in the North) would say the same. The country as a whole is far too London/SE centric. No surprise really when a lot of Northern MPs have been parachuted in by central office, aren't locals, and can barely be bothered to actually visit their constituencies. A major improvement could be made cheaply and easily - bring in a rule saying that anyone standing as a candidate in an election must have either worked or lived in the constituency for the past 3 years. At least then we'd get politicians who had some idea of the area representing us.

The irony is that Comprehensive education was meant to reduce inequality and give everyone a fair shot. Places such as Hull are the places where Comprehensive schooling has made outcomes far worse for the 'majority' . Those previously being educated in Modern schools. At the same time completely scuppering children like Users, who should be accessing the same Universities as the Mumsnet Mafia's children do !

Because Comps work in Surrey Hampshire, does not mean they will 'ever' be effective in places like Hull, Blackpool or Gt Yarmouth.

Neither will the perceived panacea that if you throw money , either in terms of brand new buildings, more excellent teachers that things will improve .

Moaner. I would say my choice to use private education means I don't think what is on offer is good enough for anyone.

Here we go again. People making sweeping generalisations about private education. I wasn't privately educated. Went to a failing sec modern and wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Why do some on this thread think that if you can afford private you can afford any fees. How are the current schools going to cope with taking an influx of children immediately. My children have been to private school. Adding VAT would kill us. Additionally do you think the money would be immediately ring fenced or would it disappear into the ether?

Would the PP who want this to happen quickly be happy if 'other's' get a place in your favoured school as opposed to yours.

Private schools are only successful because the state system in general does not offer what is required by parents.

It is telling that in areas where grammar schools exist , the number of private secondary schools is greatly reduced.

The idea of putting VAT on school fees is another 'crazy' socially 'in-mobile' policy from the cabal that abolished assisted places.

These self appointed 'freedom' fighters largely benefited from 'public school' educations . Note, not the 'Grammar come Independent' schools that VAT would close.

These schools should still be 'state' funded but with top up fees for wealthy parents.
However, they should be able to educate everyone who passes the entrance exam.

Went to a failing sec modern and wouldn't wish that on anyone.

I went to a failing comp and wouldn't wish it on anyone. Funny thing was that up to 2 years before I went there, it was a successful grammar school. It converted to a comp, built a couple of new teaching blocks, the local sec mod was closed down and the sec mod pupils moved to the ex-grammar. It was like a bloody warzone. Shame that my parents fell for the lie that everyone would get the grammar quality education because it was marketed as an expansion of the grammar rather than a downgrade of the grammar into a sec mod! Teachers were having nervous breakdowns, school was getting vandalised, and the "grammar" pupils in the upper forms were leaving en-mass to escape. It was an absolute hell hole. In fact, it still is, 40 years later as it has yet again received a poor Ofsted report and suffering dwindling pupil numbers as most sensible parents won't send their kids there. It needs shutting. Such a sad demise from what was once a successful, popular grammar school, all at the altar of "comprehensive" education.

Its funny, private schools get good results. We are not paying to get what I would expect to get at a state school. Yet some on this thread seem to be have it in for the privates. Someone even talked about the funny uniform.

Why not look at WHY the privates are successful and then copy that. For me its discipline and a sense of worth. The school has given both of my DS supreme confidence to aim for what they want out of life.

Why are private schools successful? Because they charge for entry and choose their pupils. State schools aren't allowed to copy that! (Except grammars which choose their pupils and are obviously successful).

Hillingdon - I’m against private schools because I think their existence is divisive, unfair to children and damaging to society.

Every day I drive my children past a palatial private school to their state school - a horrifically overcrowded site next door where 3 times as many children are crowded into buildings and grounds a quarter of the size of the private school. I think about the fact that the vast majority of the parents of the children at the private school voted in the government which is busy impoverishing my kids’ comprehensive and destroying the morale of their teachers, while mostly opting their own children out of the educational shit storm they’ve created. And yes I do think ‘you absolute selfish, smug fuckers’

The existence of private schools allows the government to create havoc in state schools without having to worry that they’re going to face any meaningful opposition from the only people whose opinions they really value - Tory party doners, heads of industry, and those of influence in the media, none of whom has any vested interest in holding them to task for the the damage they’re doing to state schools because guess what - nobody who actually has a voice or any influence actually has their children in a state school.

As for private schools being better - tell you what, take your fair share of very disadvantaged, low achieving and disruptive children, double your class sizes and slash spending per pupil by a half, then come back after a couple of years and show us how much better private schools do things.

The thing is that the people who send their kids to private school already pay a large amount of money to support to state schools - it's called income tax. And because they're almost certainly higher rate tax payers we're talking about 40% of their earnings. So how is it fair to then tax private schools at 25%, when the schools themselves don't have money - they get whatever money they have from parents - so that's yet another tax on parents to support schools that they're not using. I appreciate that if you choose to send your DC to private school then you're okay with paying twice, but to pay three times would really be taking the piss - and if private school fees go up any more it would price out anyone but the super rich. How is that fair?

Oh and the most selective school in the area in which I live is the local grammar - none of the private schools are anywhere near as difficult to get into!

Minifingerz - there are a lot of children from overseas at British public schools. They are very popular with Russians and Chinese (children of high ranking members of the communist party for example, good to know they are sticking by their principles) and others from countries all over the world.
If fees go up substantially the schools will make up the shortfall of British children with foreign ones - there's no shortage of applicants.
Is it British children that you object to going to private schools or would you still object if they were mostly filled with foreign students?

Minifingerz 13.6 Million people voted Conservative at the 2017 General Election !

What on earth do mean only parents of the 7% of children at private schools can hold the Conservative Government to account.

Thank god the state school system does not have to take any extra 7% of children and the extra drain on resources that would incur.

Ha! You think the Tories are making a bad job of education? You should see the mess the SNP have created! The English system is better than the Scottish one. Great swathes of the north of Scotland can't even recruit teachers. My dc1 is going private just to be on an equal footing with state schools in Scotland's central belt where they take 8 of the GCSE stage exams as opposed to only 6 in our area. My dc3 has SEN and won't have that option so will be part of what is being referred to as a failed generation of children with SEN.

whin ditto. Not in Scotland but my dd is at independent because it's the only way to get the range of subjects and qualified staff to teach them that many of the anti private brigade take for granted in the state comprehensives their dc attend.

It's not only private and grammars that select, religious criteria and catchment are very good for weeding out undesirable families too.

"I find it increasingly patronising that posters claim that they paid because they care more."
I can only speak with an authority about myself I've never said this overtly or discretely I also don't recall anyone else ever saying that on here though others may disagree.
I was happy to carry on paying taxes for education and pay school fees because I choose to pay and I don't agree with vouchers for fees because I suspect they'll only really benefit those who are already paying.
The solution is for our governments (of any persuasion) to give more money to education and to address the many concerns parents have of which some are legitimate including teacher crisis (and lets not forget other areas of public sector), and to work on state educations reputation (where applicable) so that many parents don't feel that independent ed is the best solution to their individual child's education.

Juneau - so you think it’s good for children in general and our meritocracy that those children who are the highest achieving and have the most support from home, should have more than twice as much money invested in their education than the least able and least well supported?

Or are you saying that if the system works for your children then the rest of us should think it’s great too?
It’s a shit system. It stinks. It’s unjustifiable in ethical terms. It’s an embarrassment.

And yes - lots of people vote, but overwhelmingly those people who have the ear of the public and good contacts and influence with government have no stake in state education and therefore are happy to tolerate underinvestment in it (or downright vandalism in the case of this current lot).

happy gardening - how about we make a commitment to even out spending across the state and private sectors with creative redistributive taxation so that state educated children can compete on the same sort of playing fields as their privately educated peers?

And how about private schools earning their charitable status by providing financial and academic help to those children who are currently at the bottom of the heap in the state sector, instead of to state educated children who are already achieving at the very highest levels?

happy it is not just about money but also a short sighted cut in teacher training numbers (by SNP) and mostly the awful 'Curriculum for Excellence' which the SNP have put in place.

As members of a society, we are inclined to think "it would be good if all children were educated properly". That goes without serious argument.

But I only have one child, I take the opportunity education creates as being of paramount importance. I do not want that/my child's opportunity to learn derailed by my nephew, who is disruptive, disinterested and just wants out of education ASAP (all true and within my family FWIW). My local schools are full of "nephews" so I forgo holidays and cars and all the other consumer goodies to pay to give said child a shot (and it's only a shot) at a better future via private education. For which decision a host of people will give me grief each time I explain my reasoning. I don't live in the leafy suburbs with a choice of successful comprehensives, or even a choice of schools.

For user, if he's still reading, I think you are in the marginal middle ground. Years ago, you would have put your sons in for the 11+ and hoped they passed. Most parents who think education is a route to a better life will move as many mountains as they can, with support and money if the option is there. However, we need to understand that children are not de facto equal intellectually and don't all want the same challenges or risks, and not all are prepared to do the work.

Minifingerz, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. So forcing the idle and disinterested into the private sector would only ruin two systems. And you can't level spending if people paying for private education are already paying twice.

"how about we make a commitment to even out spending across the state and private sectors with creative redistributive taxation"
What sort of creative redistributive taxation will even out spending?
Would adding VAT onto the fees of 7% of school children raise enough money for the other 93% to "even out spending" I very much doubt this. "And how about private schools earning their charitable status by providing financial and academic help to those children who are currently at the bottom of the heap"
I agree bursaries should be available to all regardless of what part of the heap you are in, but from having seen the accounts of DS2's school who charge huge fees, have very expensive assets, wealthy donors and have no vacancies I'm not in the least bit surprised that many independent schools are not in the financial position to offer many bursaries big or even small bursaries to many. DS2's school is aiming to have a needs blind admission policy ?by 2020. I'm pretty sure that they said that to do this the bursary pot would need to 20 million (invested). This is a lot of money and most independent school just don't have that sort of spare money kicking around.