Private schools, times a changing?

That's actually not accurate on a number of levels.

1) Smaller class sizes and fewer disruptive children (particularly those with undisclosed/acknowledged learning difficulties) mean that children in independent pre-prep and prep schools are developmentally well ahead by the time they hit senior school age

2) Independent pre-prep/prep school pupils will have gone well beyond the national curriculum into extension subjects by Year 6 whereas this is much less likely to be the case in state primary schools

3) Disruption in KS1 is a major issue in state schools. The above mentioned undiagnosed/unacknowledged learning difficulties are real issues as are lack of English as a first language and lack of home support to learning. Anecdotally illustrating this, I am a Governor at an OFSTED Outstanding state primary in Central London. Pupils experience very high indices of deprivation. KS1 stats are a car crash, by end of KS2 an absolutely inspirational team of teachers have got the cohort to target or better. HT with 40 years experience in primary education is really clear on her mantra "We spend KS1 getting most of our pupils to the educational start-line"

4) If you are in London and you want your child to go to an independent London senior day school, the academic bar is at a height where the overwhelming majority of kids from state primaries simply won't make it. The large majority would be screened out in the pre-testing and the few that get through to sit the actual exams will be at a massive disadvantage compared to those from the independent sector who have been preparing for their whole school life. Yes, of course, you'll get a few super bright kids who will get through and a few more who will make it with the help of parental support and tutoring but they are the exception not the rule.

As an aside, one of my nephews, having done a few child acting parts as an extra on Hollioaks (boy on skateboard in background bring my favourite), decided to.do a drama degree.
Unfortunately it didn't qualify him for anything, so eventually he went into estate agency. I asked him what qualified him for that.
His response.
I have a degree in lying convincingly, or as they call it in acting circles, improvisation. I can pretend to be anything I want with confidence.
Plus, I've rented a flat, and understood the paperwork and law relating to lettings better than any agent I've come into contact with.

He's now a Sales Manager with 6 negotiators working for him.

Went to a state school, with a very strong drama and dance department.

I expect the oppostie - pulling up the ladders is a Labour trait.

Sir Humphrey says:

Very bold minister; in theory this should produce better outcomes as well run schools can expand and parents/children can vote with their vouchers. Potentially if problem children come with more money there could even be a profit motive for schools to come up with innovative solutions to get them better outcomes. As children get older you could potentially have them able to buy individual courses from individual providers. All great in theory.

Issues:

1: Education isn't frictionless commodity. It takes a long time to set up or expand a school and build a reputation, it's also difficult to leave a school once children have enrolled. If bad schools fail they will bring plenty of children down with them. Creative destruction isn't something that can really be part of an essential public service.
2: In lots of places there isn't enough children for there to be choice or options so you could end up with those who can buying education somewhere else and those who can't travel being stuck with a single provider and all the most difficult children. With a captive market you've got the motorway service station equivalent of a school.
3: Unless this voucher is means tested or reduced to zero if you pay for any of the cost of education you have basically subsidised private schools. Furthermore what most of today's state schools would do is add a top up fee to remove as many of the difficult children as possible and you end up with an education system entirely stratified by parent wealth.

I'm sure that there are solutions to the above but you end up adding complexity and pretty soon it's as complex as the situation we have today with as many gaps in it.

The academy chains were meant to add some elements of competition as better schools took over failing ones. However the issue there is that academy schools are substantially more expensive to administer than an LEA school and aren't accountable to parents or the local community.

The idea of education vouchers and choice tick lots of boxes ideologically with a portion of the conservative party, the fact that they've never gone anywhere near it suggests that they can't make it work politically or administratively.

Personally I think the whole choice idea was pretty silly with an essential public service. Where there is currently choice what should happen is places would be allocated so that all the schools resembled the average school population in the LEA. If you want competition and incentives do that on the school side not at the parental choice end.

Academies and Free Schools are accountable to communities, not least as their communities were involved in setting them up and remain involved in various ways including governance. In addition they're directly accountable to Ofsted and Regional School Commissioners (RSC) tasked with approving new schools and intervening when existing schools underperform. This doesn't look like a deficiency in accountability.

There are valid points at the link below on how conclusions being drawn from recent research on relative costsa are fundamentally flawed.

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/why-new-research-on-the-...

The point being discussed was accountability in academies with a feel to the debate that academies were somehow less accountable. I mentioned RSCs already and Ofsted is a shared line of accountability.

All schools are accountable to parents and the community where parental choice is a practical reality.

The point wasn't that both LA schools and academies do or don't have parent governers, it was that academies can have community governors and sometimes an LA governor. I've previously been on the GB, and remain a Member of a MAT, relating to academies with both.

Academy and Free School independence from LA control has all manner of implications, including that new academies and free schools are founded in a process which includes community involvement. Many LA schools were founded in the year dot by officialdom and are seen as accountable to the community because they're also accountable to an LA, however those two things may appear the same but aren't.

LEA schools are accountable to governors some of which are parents, the governors being able to sack the head teacher (which they did at my daughter's school), accountable to councillors who at least in my area are relatively easy to contact.

My local academy has a forum for parents but ultimately it has zero power over the trust or trustees. The school feels free to just ignore the local community when it has negative externalities like parking chaos including staff parking inconsiderately because they couldn't be bothered to get out to unlock gates to get to their off road parking spaces.

My local academy does not have governors, it is part of a multi academy trust. The trust has some parents on the trustee board but the board selects who these are (most appear to be either education professionals or senior professionals) and they aren't at the local school.

Parent governors at my daughter's school are elected by parents at the school.

I see the Beeb has regurgitated the Labour/IFS VAT exemption bks again today.

Learning shouldn't be taxed. Dive in to the IFS report and it's a remarkable piece of political theatre. It has to reference the savings made by privately educated children not being provided for by the state. But it can't equate that with what it frames as state subsidy by not taxing payments to schools that are not state run.

Step back and see the problem through the prism of the state legislating that children have to be educated. It supposedly commits to providing education for all children, but doesn't and can't. It's the elephant in the room that it has to ignore. It then blithely attempts to regard private education as inelastic, without any regard to the obvious economic situation facing many private providers.

It then also makes the leap to try and justify VAT by arguing that if parents weren't paying the fees, they'd spend the money in other areas that would incur VAT. It's a risible piece of work.

If vouchers aren't the solution, then those that don't incur State costs should get a rebate. That obviously includes those that are home schooled.

The education sector is inherently unfair. That exists across the whole system and isn't restricted to the state/private schism. Live in the wrong postcode and you might be excluded from having your children taught in a better school that is actually a closer travel distance away.

Improvement needs investment and money needs to be raised to pay for that. But it also needs honesty. VAT on fees will simply make private education more elitist. The subsidy of the state system by private school parents, will continue, now added to by tax paid out of income already taxed. Very little will change until it is accepted that schools need to be removed from political influence, funded properly and parents listened to and respected.

Taxing education. Madness.

In an election year with this threat of spite and envy looming, it is surprising the current government is doing nothing to address this especially whilst it has a working majority. Surely they can address and debate while they have the edge, or do they not see any danger?