So it's class war then...
Discussion
crankedup said:
If it is a subsidy that allows for lower income group students a 'place' then it hardly benefits the wider Society as such.
IMHO it is much to do with politics as it is with education and money. When we look at the percentages involved with positions within Society being held by those people who have attended superior education facilities it becomes abundantly clear that class is still very much an English problem.
We can expect much more of these type of 'stirring' stories over the coming months, before falling strangely quite again.
Why are they superior, and why cant the state sector match them, that should be the question.IMHO it is much to do with politics as it is with education and money. When we look at the percentages involved with positions within Society being held by those people who have attended superior education facilities it becomes abundantly clear that class is still very much an English problem.
We can expect much more of these type of 'stirring' stories over the coming months, before falling strangely quite again.
Why are the failings of the state sector suddenly the responsibility of private schools. The benefit to wider society is in the expense saved of educating the children concerned, the provision of their facilities on occasion and the offer of bursaries to bright youngsters.
Rather than try and destroy the remaining centres of excellence in our education system. Where is Labour's plan to raise standards in the state sector?
There is already a public benefit test for charities. Policies such as these are clearly designed to drive private education beyond the means of middle income parents.
Crude and destructive class warfare.
They are utter scum, but will probably win the most seats at the next election.
irocfan said:
Derek Smith said:
irocfan said:
maybe now, I don't know - what I do know is that I went to private school and my father was a Staff Sergeant in the army... hardly the stuff of a profligate lifestyle 
The army used to pay part of the fee for those posted overseas. Has that been stopped?
The Don of Croy said:
FredClogs said:
Cherry picking the brightest poor kids is not getting involved and experiencing wider society, it's something else. It's to be encouraged and good for the individuals concerned but it does nothing for wider community relations and goes no way to redressing the wider imbalance in our society - both financial equality and parity of opportunity/choice and life experiences.
How would you go about redressing a 'parity of life experiences' without ruining the point of said experiences (their uniqueness being one factor that makes them useful presumably)?The value and experience of children mixing and co-operating across the social strata has no direct financial value, it just sounds like a good thing to be doing. The value of a local independent school putting on a production of Romeo and Juliet in conjunction with a local High school just seems like it might be worthwhile for all concerned.
FredClogs said:
Cherry picking the brightest poor kids is not getting involved and experiencing wider society, it's something else. It's to be encouraged and good for the individuals concerned but it does nothing for wider community relations and goes no way to redressing the wider imbalance in our society - both financial equality and parity of opportunity/choice and life experiences.
What is the current imbalance we need to redress, precisely? What will 'balanced' actually look like after the redressing?
Quantitative answers would be good, since to get somewhere, one needs to know what the destination is.
JagLover said:
crankedup said:
If it is a subsidy that allows for lower income group students a 'place' then it hardly benefits the wider Society as such.
IMHO it is much to do with politics as it is with education and money. When we look at the percentages involved with positions within Society being held by those people who have attended superior education facilities it becomes abundantly clear that class is still very much an English problem.
We can expect much more of these type of 'stirring' stories over the coming months, before falling strangely quite again.
Why are they superior, and why cant the state sector match them, that should be the question.IMHO it is much to do with politics as it is with education and money. When we look at the percentages involved with positions within Society being held by those people who have attended superior education facilities it becomes abundantly clear that class is still very much an English problem.
We can expect much more of these type of 'stirring' stories over the coming months, before falling strangely quite again.
Why are the failings of the state sector suddenly the responsibility of private schools. The benefit to wider society is in the expense saved of educating the children concerned, the provision of their facilities on occasion and the offer of bursaries to bright youngsters.
Rather than try and destroy the remaining centres of excellence in our education system. Where is Labour's plan to raise standards in the state sector?
There is already a public benefit test for charities. Policies such as these are clearly designed to drive private education beyond the means of middle income parents.
Crude and destructive class warfare.
They are utter scum, but will probably win the most seats at the next election.
I don't think anybody is saying that a shift in responsibilities is being sought. Looks like the debate centres around the level of commitment by private schools in assisting public schools is not reflecting the value of the subsidy being given to private schools.
I'm with you regarding the education being opened up to all classes of pupil, rated upon merit not money. But I am not sure the subsidy policy is working as well as it could perhaps, drawing attention to it may be a good thing that could, we hope, promote increased links between the two sectors.
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
What a shallow statement that is, lost count of the number of posters who have moaned about their tax on salary. Stock reply is 'we all must contribute to Society, the more you earn the more you pay in tax' seems fair. The next response will be 'but I want to choose where I spend my money and how much I want to spend. I dont want the Government to decide where the money is spent'.
Seems to me FredClogs has a fair case which has received a somewhat hypocritical reply.
No he doesn't have a 'fair case' as it's been shown that it is highly likely that removing this so called subsidy would actually cost taxpayers money.Seems to me FredClogs has a fair case which has received a somewhat hypocritical reply.
paranoid airbag said:
turbobloke said:
heppers75 said:
Interesting post there, on the BUPA and NHS argument, actually yes - if you are paying for a private health care plan which eases the burden on the state system I do think you should be entitled to tax relief on that as well...
Agreed. The notion of subsidy computes badly in what passes as Labour 'thinking'.The NHS should be good enough for everyone given the money it gets.
If you feel it's not and want to subsidise it at your choice, then fine, but asking for money back is crazy.
I could take my own bin bags to the local tip, but chances are I won't get a rebate because they'd argue the still need to provide the tip yadda yadda, just like you'd still get NHS emergency support despite being with BUPA or whatever else.
What you SHOULD be asking from the NHS though, is for them to get their ship in order. Sack off all the plebs and jobsworths and start seriously considering not operating on people who have knowingly abused their bodies.
If the NHS were really good, which they could be if they didn't work to the odd policies they currently do, like money grows on trees, then BUPA wouldn't even have a business model given the NHS would do it all for free!
Dave
turbobloke said:
What is the current imbalance we need to redress, precisely?
One of the widest and rapidly accelerating wealth gaps in the developed world...http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/...
People are literally being priced out of "society".
turbobloke said:
What will 'balanced' actually look like after the redressing?
Young people will be able to afford housing, people won't have to load themselves with mortgage sized debts to obtain an education, old people won't have to suffer the indignity of selling their property to afford care homes and medical care. People born in the same hospital on the same day won't have radically different life chances and aspirations because of the happenstance of their parenting or the freak luckery of biology.turbobloke said:
Quantitative answers would be good, since to get somewhere, one needs to know what the destination is.
The destination is a Northern European style social democracy, where "value" is understood to be more than having £n+1paranoid airbag said:
crankedup said:
But would they have to hike their fee's? Perhaps they may have some room for introducing efficiency saving's? I don't know, never had a look or read any articles regarding this matter. But it seems to me that whilst most businesses carry out routine efficiency investigations, or should do, then education establishments in the private sector would do the same. Anyone know anything about such issues?
(Sorry) you could use some private sector lessons on apostrophes. (Really couldn't resist).It's possible but that's a rather blase attitude isn't it? If a government report finds all public schools could make significant efficiency savings I'd be quite suprised - since even if the govt did find a major and real inefficiency in the first school, by the time it reached the last that inefficiency would have long since been leaked and eliminated by everyone else. More likely any attempt would force schools to cut genuinely useful stuff just to avoid the bad PR.
ps you have misspelt SURPRISED, perhaps we should both pop along to a private school.
Mr Whippy said:
I disagree.
The NHS should be good enough for everyone given the money it gets.
If you feel it's not and want to subsidise it at your choice, then fine, but asking for money back is crazy.
I think you'll find that people aren't asking for money back, just don't expect to be charged twice...The NHS should be good enough for everyone given the money it gets.
If you feel it's not and want to subsidise it at your choice, then fine, but asking for money back is crazy.
crankedup said:
To answer your first point 'why can't they match them'. In a word MONEY. This is the driver of everything in a Capitalist Society. The state schools cannot hope to match the private schools regards quality of education, that's not saying the level of teacher quality is lower. Its more to do with time and facilities available to teachers, class sizes, mixed education abilities within classes.
I don't think anybody is saying that a shift in responsibilities is being sought. Looks like the debate centres around the level of commitment by private schools in assisting public schools is not reflecting the value of the subsidy being given to private schools.
I'm with you regarding the education being opened up to all classes of pupil, rated upon merit not money. But I am not sure the subsidy policy is working as well as it could perhaps, drawing attention to it may be a good thing that could, we hope, promote increased links between the two sectors.
I'm sorry but I think you're wrong, or at least misleading. Teachers in private education ARE better teachers. To say otherwise is just to perpetuate a very long term excuse by sucessive governments.I don't think anybody is saying that a shift in responsibilities is being sought. Looks like the debate centres around the level of commitment by private schools in assisting public schools is not reflecting the value of the subsidy being given to private schools.
I'm with you regarding the education being opened up to all classes of pupil, rated upon merit not money. But I am not sure the subsidy policy is working as well as it could perhaps, drawing attention to it may be a good thing that could, we hope, promote increased links between the two sectors.
Along with ..
We don't have the best soldiers in the world
We don't have the best doctors in the world
That is simply something politicians say to use patriotism as a form of argument, and frankly the rest of the world laugh at us when they hear it. As hard as it is to hear you need to understand the limitations of some forms of work.
Your argument is akin to sayning mo farrow is the fastest runner in the world even if we took his shoes away. Or the armed forces are the best in the world if we give them thirty year old technology.
A teacher is not the stuff of movies, they are the sum of their ability to enthuse and educate. Without the money behind them to help its impossible to say how good a teacher is had these been available. Furthermore the sort of disincentive that chonic poor funding gives creates crap teachers though little fault of their own.
One last point, its not the merit of the pupil thats important, again this is simply movie film quotes with no basis in reality. Its the merit of the family environment thats important. Its that which turns okay kids into interested pupils and high achievers. Unless a government is going to micromanage to the level of the family then there will never be equality.
Unless you accept this education discussions will just bog down in the sort of irrelevant political class arguments that are on this thread.
Randomthoughts said:
Yes it is. Where do you think the middle stops?
Even without hitting the higher rate of tax, a working family on £30k-£40k each can quite happily put a child through a private education as long as they don't live in extravagance. Numbers of £10k-20k per year have been banded around, and that's one person's income at most. Assuming they aren't dying to have kids at age 18, having spent decades spending money on booze and fags, there's no reason whatsoever that this isn't possible.
And as has been demonstrated a number of times on this thread, fairly common.
Whatever you are smoking, please stop. Even without hitting the higher rate of tax, a working family on £30k-£40k each can quite happily put a child through a private education as long as they don't live in extravagance. Numbers of £10k-20k per year have been banded around, and that's one person's income at most. Assuming they aren't dying to have kids at age 18, having spent decades spending money on booze and fags, there's no reason whatsoever that this isn't possible.
And as has been demonstrated a number of times on this thread, fairly common.
80k gross so around, 55k net.
Property in The southeast, Average is 250k, more if you need three bedrooms.
two cars or rail fares
food
council tax
etc
school fees 12-15k per year.
it just doesn't work. especially if the parents have student debts, or no deposit on the house.
Gargamel said:
Randomthoughts said:
Yes it is. Where do you think the middle stops?
Even without hitting the higher rate of tax, a working family on £30k-£40k each can quite happily put a child through a private education as long as they don't live in extravagance. Numbers of £10k-20k per year have been banded around, and that's one person's income at most. Assuming they aren't dying to have kids at age 18, having spent decades spending money on booze and fags, there's no reason whatsoever that this isn't possible.
And as has been demonstrated a number of times on this thread, fairly common.
Whatever you are smoking, please stop. Even without hitting the higher rate of tax, a working family on £30k-£40k each can quite happily put a child through a private education as long as they don't live in extravagance. Numbers of £10k-20k per year have been banded around, and that's one person's income at most. Assuming they aren't dying to have kids at age 18, having spent decades spending money on booze and fags, there's no reason whatsoever that this isn't possible.
And as has been demonstrated a number of times on this thread, fairly common.
80k gross so around, 55k net.
Property in The southeast, Average is 250k, more if you need three bedrooms.
two cars or rail fares
food
council tax
etc
school fees 12-15k per year.
it just doesn't work. especially if the parents have student debts, or no deposit on the house.
Secondly there is simply too much evidence which suggests that plenty of people do manage. One of my sons best friends at school his parents are a private nurse in a care home and a management accountant in a manufacturing business locally. They are in their late 30's and had their son in their early 30's, have no family money and receive no bursary etc. Both university educated and had the debts to prove it, they are quite open about the fact they have decided to drive two crappy cars (a ten year old Focus and an 8 year old X-Type) and live in a location and house of a lesser level than they could so their son can go to the school.
It is about how much you prioritise your lifestyle vs your childrens future.
sidicks said:
Mr Whippy said:
I disagree.
The NHS should be good enough for everyone given the money it gets.
If you feel it's not and want to subsidise it at your choice, then fine, but asking for money back is crazy.
I think you'll find that people aren't asking for money back, just don't expect to be charged twice...The NHS should be good enough for everyone given the money it gets.
If you feel it's not and want to subsidise it at your choice, then fine, but asking for money back is crazy.
Dave
The basic reason Independant schools are better is due to being in a compeititve market.
If an independant school is average / poor, all kids leave and it closes. This simple fact drives everything, the governors, the Head, the teachers, etc.
If a state school is average / poor nothing really happens except maybe a follow up Ofstead visit.
A very big generalistion, but in my experience of both, the staff in independant schools work alot harder with more direction and push the kids harder. Off course there are state schools where this happens and they are usually very good schools.
If an independant school is average / poor, all kids leave and it closes. This simple fact drives everything, the governors, the Head, the teachers, etc.
If a state school is average / poor nothing really happens except maybe a follow up Ofstead visit.
A very big generalistion, but in my experience of both, the staff in independant schools work alot harder with more direction and push the kids harder. Off course there are state schools where this happens and they are usually very good schools.
heppers75 said:
Gargamel said:
Randomthoughts said:
Yes it is. Where do you think the middle stops?
Even without hitting the higher rate of tax, a working family on £30k-£40k each can quite happily put a child through a private education as long as they don't live in extravagance. Numbers of £10k-20k per year have been banded around, and that's one person's income at most. Assuming they aren't dying to have kids at age 18, having spent decades spending money on booze and fags, there's no reason whatsoever that this isn't possible.
And as has been demonstrated a number of times on this thread, fairly common.
Whatever you are smoking, please stop. Even without hitting the higher rate of tax, a working family on £30k-£40k each can quite happily put a child through a private education as long as they don't live in extravagance. Numbers of £10k-20k per year have been banded around, and that's one person's income at most. Assuming they aren't dying to have kids at age 18, having spent decades spending money on booze and fags, there's no reason whatsoever that this isn't possible.
And as has been demonstrated a number of times on this thread, fairly common.
80k gross so around, 55k net.
Property in The southeast, Average is 250k, more if you need three bedrooms.
two cars or rail fares
food
council tax
etc
school fees 12-15k per year.
it just doesn't work. especially if the parents have student debts, or no deposit on the house.
Secondly there is simply too much evidence which suggests that plenty of people do manage. One of my sons best friends at school his parents are a private nurse in a care home and a management accountant in a manufacturing business locally. They are in their late 30's and had their son in their early 30's, have no family money and receive no bursary etc. Both university educated and had the debts to prove it, they are quite open about the fact they have decided to drive two crappy cars (a ten year old Focus and an 8 year old X-Type) and live in a location and house of a lesser level than they could so their son can go to the school.
It is about how much you prioritise your lifestyle vs your childrens future.
Gargamel said:
Yes but some people do live in the south east. Have to pay high house prices and higher school fees.
I don't think it is doable, certainly not if you have more than one child.
I do agree there. I don't think it is doable, certainly not if you have more than one child.
However I also know of another couple who moved up to the midlands (where we are) and both took substantial pay cuts to put their child into a private school. I do not know their situation very well as they are friends of friends so to speak but their daughter is the year below our son.
It is I suppose about just how much you want to or are willing sacrifice.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff