So it's class war then...
Discussion
jogon said:
fblm said:
edh said:
I'd like to see a school system that was so good that parents thought it was ridiculous to spend extra money on private education.
Couldn't agree more! I don't see how placing additional costs on private schools which would inevitably lead to additional costs on the state system acheives this though. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/educat...
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/979/0/london-orato...
My friends kids went to Hinchinbrooke and are now at Hills Road for A'levels.
Both state schools and excellent but there is no way on this Earth they would have been able to do either if their parents had not paid vastly over the odds for their house!
Randomthoughts said:
So you have no answer to the valid points raised, and instead throw your toys out and refer people to the soundbites that have already been discredited.
Have you ever thought of applying for a position in Labour's PR department?
It's mattnun, remember. That's what he does.Have you ever thought of applying for a position in Labour's PR department?
FredClogs said:
I'm not sure that wanting a roof over my head and a family home is the same as wanting to get a leg up on the hateful capitalist property ladder. Is it?
Besides this is a class war, isn't it?
Why do you think that roof costs so much? It's not high engineering and it's second hand.Besides this is a class war, isn't it?
It costs that much because you can afford it and johnny talented-but-no-parents can't.
Hey, I'm not trying to claim I'm better - indeed being absolutely any level of wealthy or history of wealth is a good reason to ignore/despise you on PH if you have any left-wing tendencies. May as well acknowledge that you benefitted from an unfair system you'd like to change, if you did.
heppers75 said:
jogon said:
fblm said:
edh said:
I'd like to see a school system that was so good that parents thought it was ridiculous to spend extra money on private education.
Couldn't agree more! I don't see how placing additional costs on private schools which would inevitably lead to additional costs on the state system acheives this though. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/educat...
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/979/0/london-orato...
My friends kids went to Hinchinbrooke and are now at Hills Road for A'levels.
Both state schools and excellent but there is no way on this Earth they would have been able to do either if their parents had not paid vastly over the odds for their house!
heppers75 said:
I do not so I take your comments on face value.
I just think removing that status does not help wider society, even if in places it is abused. Weeding out that abuse is a good idea, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not, my issue is that more often than not where government approaches are concerned there seems to be a trebuchet used when a scalpel was necessary!
On the assumption that this is just an attempt to give the schools a choice: charity status and give some [more?} back to the community, or take the consequences (I accept this is a questionable premise) then the vast majority of schools will comply so there will be no baby thrown out. I just think removing that status does not help wider society, even if in places it is abused. Weeding out that abuse is a good idea, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not, my issue is that more often than not where government approaches are concerned there seems to be a trebuchet used when a scalpel was necessary!
So the schools have the opportunity to make a qualitative decision: play by the rules or else do without the concessions. There are many schools which are not charities of course.
As I said, this is more than limited business rates that go with charity status.
No government uses scalpels. No government plans beyond the next election. Come to that, very few governments fulfill their promises, so perhaps all this is just grandstanding.
There was a bit in the Sunday Times, front page if memory serves, about most of the top public schools being the preserve of oligarchs and similar. This from headteachers. It's the market.
edh said:
heppers75 said:
jogon said:
fblm said:
edh said:
I'd like to see a school system that was so good that parents thought it was ridiculous to spend extra money on private education.
Couldn't agree more! I don't see how placing additional costs on private schools which would inevitably lead to additional costs on the state system acheives this though. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/educat...
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/979/0/london-orato...
My friends kids went to Hinchinbrooke and are now at Hills Road for A'levels.
Both state schools and excellent but there is no way on this Earth they would have been able to do either if their parents had not paid vastly over the odds for their house!
My friend has paid a good £300k more for his house than I have mine, it is smaller, has less land and it is nice but not on a par... His kids got to go to HB though!
Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 25th November 22:17
edh said:
Fair points, and historically there were massive disparities in London schools, partly I guess by the middle classes gaming the system, paying for geographical advantage or going private. Pulling advantaged & supported kids out of local schools is going to harm their performance. That's why London Challenge is important (or was until the Tories cancelled it) - read the links I posted earlier. I don't have a great knowledge of the London schools system but it seems particularly disfunctional with kids travelling all over the city instead of going to local schools.
Until we face up to the fact that it is the pupils just as much as the teachers that make a good school nothing will ever change no matter how much money you throw at it. It needs to be tackled at the source - scrap child benefits (do we need the current birth rate given the current immigration levels and overcrowded state schools), give tax breaks to married couples to encourage a stable family and phase out single parent benefits are just a few that I would favour instead of again attacking those who wish to better themselves.
Edited by jogon on Tuesday 25th November 22:39
Derek Smith said:
heppers75 said:
I do not so I take your comments on face value.
I just think removing that status does not help wider society, even if in places it is abused. Weeding out that abuse is a good idea, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not, my issue is that more often than not where government approaches are concerned there seems to be a trebuchet used when a scalpel was necessary!
On the assumption that this is just an attempt to give the schools a choice: charity status and give some [more?} back to the community, or take the consequences (I accept this is a questionable premise) then the vast majority of schools will comply so there will be no baby thrown out. I just think removing that status does not help wider society, even if in places it is abused. Weeding out that abuse is a good idea, but throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not, my issue is that more often than not where government approaches are concerned there seems to be a trebuchet used when a scalpel was necessary!
So the schools have the opportunity to make a qualitative decision: play by the rules or else do without the concessions. There are many schools which are not charities of course.
As I said, this is more than limited business rates that go with charity status.
No government uses scalpels. No government plans beyond the next election. Come to that, very few governments fulfill their promises, so perhaps all this is just grandstanding.
There was a bit in the Sunday Times, front page if memory serves, about most of the top public schools being the preserve of oligarchs and similar. This from headteachers. It's the market.
There are just too many schools - including my sons that don't really care - they have a plan, they can alter their existence and if the system pushes them too far they will just switch.
That choice serves nobody any better, we all know it so why would we provoke it?
heppers75 said:
Bluebarge said:
heppers75 said:
Oh the irony...
So you scrap the relief, their taxes increase, so their fees increase, so they become even more elitist and even more exclusive and even less affordable.
You also get a huge influx of children into an already overburdened state system.
Giving it a bit of thought I know in my sons year at his school the increase in fees legislation like this would engender would probably see off a quarter of his year as there are plenty of very normal none high flying, just hard working people willing to sacrifice their lifestyle for their childrens education kind of folks. Who with a 25% sort of increase in fees would be priced out. The school would become even more exclusive, probably a bit smaller so there would be job layoffs as well as the effect on the private service companies, catering, cleaning etc etc that support it.
So then you multiply that however many fold around the country.
So tell me again why this is a good idea?
So should HMG subsidise Porsches so the bus network is not overwhelmed? or BUPA to ease the strain on the NHS?So you scrap the relief, their taxes increase, so their fees increase, so they become even more elitist and even more exclusive and even less affordable.
You also get a huge influx of children into an already overburdened state system.
Giving it a bit of thought I know in my sons year at his school the increase in fees legislation like this would engender would probably see off a quarter of his year as there are plenty of very normal none high flying, just hard working people willing to sacrifice their lifestyle for their childrens education kind of folks. Who with a 25% sort of increase in fees would be priced out. The school would become even more exclusive, probably a bit smaller so there would be job layoffs as well as the effect on the private service companies, catering, cleaning etc etc that support it.
So then you multiply that however many fold around the country.
So tell me again why this is a good idea?
TBFrank, your Armageddon scenario would simply not happen - yes some kids and teachers would move to the state system (which is not generally overburdened)but most wouldn't, and there is plenty of scope for cost-cutting at private schools, as a glance at the teachers' car park would tell you.
Would it improve social mobility or ths state system? possibly; but the real point is - why are commercial enterprises who benefit a wealthy few treated as charities?
It is not an armageddon scenario at all, just a practical assessment of the negative side effects of making a decision. Which unfortunately those that subscribe to such envy driven positions often neither want nor believe is real. Like it as not there is a negative impact to the decision and an offset in benefit vs reward. There may well be £Xm in additional tax revenue but that comes with £Xm of impact and additional cost and like all good sound fiscal decisions you need to perform both sides of the equation to reach an informed decision. You cannot just say this proposed legislation will make the country £Xm in year in additional income without offsetting the associated cost of that decision as well.. Of course unless you are wanting to support this at a soundbite level then of course that is exactly what you do!
Then on top of that fiscal equation there is an impact that would further reduce the lefts desire for social mobility by reducing the availability of something that can and does, like it or not, increase that. The even bigger irony being that most of those supporting this in political terms have benefitted from that same system they are seeking to effect. Don't people who support them ever think why that is?
But carry on shooting yourselves in the foot, personally it won't really affect me and I am just trying to explain that there are negatives as well as perceived positives to the proposal.
oyster said:
I think these very same private schools have already done enough by themselves to put their fees out of range of most relatively successful parents. They've tripled fees in just 20 years. So it's a bit hypocritical of the schools, and people on here, to moan about what Labour may or may not do in the next few years.
The simple fact is that you have to be seriously wealthy now to afford to put children through a private education. Maybe if you're a middle earner you could afford 1 child to get educated this way, but forget 2 or 3 kids.
I disagree. I am by no means rich but I can still, with prudent budgeting, send two children to one of the best independent pre prep/prep schools in London and support a comfortable lifestyle for the family. Most of our friends are in similar positions.The simple fact is that you have to be seriously wealthy now to afford to put children through a private education. Maybe if you're a middle earner you could afford 1 child to get educated this way, but forget 2 or 3 kids.
I am a governor of my old school, which is a charitable foundation. It is a middle of the road school, charging about £28k a year for boarding. We have a lot of assets, many of which generate income and we manage the school very efficiently but we don't sit on a huge endowment. If we were to risk losing our rates relief (although I doubt we would as we do a fair bit in the community), I very much suspect that we would have no choice but to up our revenue generation from our facilities, which would mean that we would actually be able to do less community support not more. I very much doubt that we would be unique
Edited by ClaphamGT3 on Wednesday 26th November 00:38
Derek Smith said:
On the assumption that this is just an attempt to give the schools a choice: charity status and give some [more?} back to the community, or take the consequences (I accept this is a questionable premise) then the vast majority of schools will comply so there will be no baby thrown out.
So the schools have the opportunity to make a qualitative decision: play by the rules or else do without the concessions. There are many schools which are not charities of course.
What you are ignoring is the fact that a number of ways in which independent schools currently justify charitable status, mainly in provision of bursaries to poorer children, are ignored by this proposal.So the schools have the opportunity to make a qualitative decision: play by the rules or else do without the concessions. There are many schools which are not charities of course.
After all, from a Labour perspective, you cant have working class kids getting ideas above their station.
crankedup said:
julian64 said:
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.
I didn't say that teachers in the state sector are worse or better than in the private sector.
I disagree with your assertion regarding 'the family environment' not pupil merit. That cannot be the top parameter, it is however a very important one. A wonderful family environment will always be of great value whether its a C- child or a A+++ child.
Sorry I do not accept that it is your parameters and only yours that merit the validity of a discussion.
Well then the gap is too wide even for a discussion. We could argue apples are oranges all day with no progress. Its just a shame that either your children or my children will suffer for what their parents believe in.
Interesting you may want to look at what the politicians do with their children. It seem to make quite a difference to them whether they are deciding for a population, or their own.
JagLover said:
What you are ignoring is the fact that a number of ways in which independent schools currently justify charitable status, mainly in provision of bursaries to poorer children, are ignored by this proposal.
After all, from a Labour perspective, you cant have working class kids getting ideas above their station.
The bursaries are the major way schools conform to the requirement for charity status. Whether these are entirely what they are purported to be is another matter. One of our rugby crowd had a child at a private school by way of bursary but they had to withdraw the child because they could not afford the on-costs.After all, from a Labour perspective, you cant have working class kids getting ideas above their station.
They gave me a list of them. It was a surprise.
I don't think this proposal does ignore this. If anything, it ignores the other benefits charitable status bestows on such schools. Rate relief is merely one.
I'm not against schools being charities. Quite the opposite. In many ways a large private school will bring money into the local community. One local to us used to have recommended B&Bs to 4* hotels in the area for visiting parents and the threat to be removed from said list was viewed with alarm, so it must have been an earner.
I'm not sure what you mean my 'working class kids above their station'. From what I know of the labour party and its supporters, good quality education for the masses is one of their big things.
Derek Smith said:
JagLover said:
What you are ignoring is the fact that a number of ways in which independent schools currently justify charitable status, mainly in provision of bursaries to poorer children, are ignored by this proposal.
After all, from a Labour perspective, you cant have working class kids getting ideas above their station.
The bursaries are the major way schools conform to the requirement for charity status. Whether these are entirely what they are purported to be is another matter. One of our rugby crowd had a child at a private school by way of bursary but they had to withdraw the child because they could not afford the on-costs.After all, from a Labour perspective, you cant have working class kids getting ideas above their station.
They gave me a list of them. It was a surprise.
I don't think this proposal does ignore this. If anything, it ignores the other benefits charitable status bestows on such schools. Rate relief is merely one.
I'm not against schools being charities. Quite the opposite. In many ways a large private school will bring money into the local community. One local to us used to have recommended B&Bs to 4* hotels in the area for visiting parents and the threat to be removed from said list was viewed with alarm, so it must have been an earner.
I'm not sure what you mean my 'working class kids above their station'. From what I know of the labour party and its supporters, good quality education for the masses is one of their big things.
The wording might be a bit provocative granted, however there is an undertone to what labour seem to practice and what they certainly preach, you have to admit that.
heppers75 said:
edh said:
heppers75 said:
jogon said:
fblm said:
edh said:
I'd like to see a school system that was so good that parents thought it was ridiculous to spend extra money on private education.
Couldn't agree more! I don't see how placing additional costs on private schools which would inevitably lead to additional costs on the state system acheives this though. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/educat...
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/979/0/london-orato...
My friends kids went to Hinchinbrooke and are now at Hills Road for A'levels.
Both state schools and excellent but there is no way on this Earth they would have been able to do either if their parents had not paid vastly over the odds for their house!
My friend has paid a good £300k more for his house than I have mine, it is smaller, has less land and it is nice but not on a par... His kids got to go to HB though!
Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 25th November 22:17
I'm sure there are parallels to be found all over the country. London challenge closed the attainment gap between rich & poor and significantly improved London schools. No reason why this can't be done elsewhere.
Derek Smith said:
The bursaries are the major way schools conform to the requirement for charity status.
Around 33% of pupils receive some form of financial help with fees, just under 8% are in receipt of means-tested bursaries worth a total of £303m. That's not all though, as 93 per cent of independent schools are sharing facilities with local state schools and community groups and 32 are sponsoring government-funded academies.
Bursaries and assisted fee schemes don't tell the full charitable story.
FredClogs said:
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.
Young people can afford housing, they just need to stop being f
king muppets and deciding that their first house HAS to have four bedrooms and a driveway for six cars near a good location. THIS is the single biggest reason that any moron I've ever come across has been unable to buy. "They're all £200k houses", followed by me highlighting any number of £50k-£75k houses and flats that would be ideal for a 'foot in the door'.People don't HAVE to load themselves with mortgage sized debts to obtain an education. I don't have one. I never had one. If these same f
king muppets stopped going to study 'Meeja' and 'Soshul' to sit and get drunk and never turn up to lectures, they wouldn't come out with massive debts (sometimes unnecessary, I'm aware of a good number of students that worked, claimed the maximum amount they could as a loan for 'living costs' whilst still living under their parent's roof) for a pointless qualification that has given them nothing against their career.Old people are living longer, and many have to do what they're doing now because some nice bloke decided to utterly devastate their pensions. This same bloke who was a figurehead for this wonderful world that you try to paint a picture of. Who ultimately devastated the UK economy.
People will always have different lives, and freakery of biology? f
k me, you really are some kind of loon. Disease, genetic anomalies, all of these things HAVE to change the way someone approaches life.Mental set of scenarios you try to paint.
Randomthoughts said:
FredClogs said:
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.
Young people can afford housing, they just need to stop being fking muppets and deciding that their first house HAS to have four bedrooms and a driveway for six cars near a good location. THIS is the single biggest reason that any moron I've ever come across has been unable to buy. "They're all £200k houses", followed by me highlighting any number of £50k-£75k houses and flats that would be ideal for a 'foot in the door'..
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff