So it's class war then...

[heppers75]

FredClogs said:

Here is a link with some facts and some quotes from Labour minister Tristan Hunt (obvious Rupert name is obvious) which give an insight into the real motivation behind this...

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-30181920

There isn't much to argue about really, all seems very sensible.

You have to love the Orwellianesque quotes they use... Mr Hunt will say in a speech at an academy in Walthamstow, east London, that the country needs to be be "equal" if it is to "prosper".

Also the article even points out the dangers raised on here, albeit more dramatically by saying that private education risks becoming the playground of the rootless global super rich.

Also the fact that "Independent schools generate £4.7bn in tax and save the taxpayer a further £4bn, equivalent to building 460 schools, by educating children out of the state school sector. So for those that think the additional money raised is simply more "cash" then there is some food for thought on the impact of any reduction.

Also the analysis piece which rightly points out that if this subsidy was lost maybe a few struggling independent schools would go under but not the ones who are already charging £20k+ a year. From my perspective it is pretty obvious that they would perhaps chuck another £2k on the fees maybe £3k a nice round £1k per term which for the likes of most that are there will not make the blindest bit of difference. Of course the real difference is the reduction in private schools at the lower end of the spectrum that were accessible to those on medium to high average incomes or those willing to enlist family support or living in a smaller house for ten years, forgoing holidays etc and can just manage no longer being able to because those schools at that lower end, some will obviously close and those that don't will go from £12k-£15k per year which was just achievable to nearer that £20k mark or beyond. Thus ultimately reducing social mobility.

[Randomthoughts]

What this demonstrates is that the left have resigned themselves to the fact that they can't drag the bottom towards the middle following the financial crisis they helped to orchestrate, so instead they are setting about dragging the middle down to the bottom, all the while referring to the middle as the top, as anyone with any sense realises that the very wealthiest of the country will still have enough money to pay for their lifestyle.

[FredClogs]

heppers75 said:

FredClogs said:

Here is a link with some facts and some quotes from Labour minister Tristan Hunt (obvious Rupert name is obvious) which give an insight into the real motivation behind this...

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-30181920

There isn't much to argue about really, all seems very sensible.

You have to love the Orwellianesque quotes they use... Mr Hunt will say in a speech at an academy in Walthamstow, east London, that the country needs to be be "equal" if it is to "prosper".

Also the article even points out the dangers raised on here, albeit more dramatically by saying that private education risks becoming the playground of the rootless global super rich.

Also the fact that "Independent schools generate £4.7bn in tax and save the taxpayer a further £4bn, equivalent to building 460 schools, by educating children out of the state school sector. So for those that think the additional money raised is simply more "cash" then there is some food for thought on the impact of any reduction.

Also the analysis piece which rightly points out that if this subsidy was lost maybe a few struggling independent schools would go under but not the ones who are already charging £20k+ a year. From my perspective it is pretty obvious that they would perhaps chuck another £2k on the fees maybe £3k a nice round £1k per term which for the likes of most that are there will not make the blindest bit of difference. Of course the real difference is the reduction in private schools at the lower end of the spectrum that were accessible to those on medium to high average incomes or those willing to enlist family support or living in a smaller house for ten years, forgoing holidays etc and can just manage no longer being able to because those schools at that lower end, some will obviously close and those that don't will go from £12k-£15k per year which was just achievable to nearer that £20k mark or beyond. Thus ultimately reducing social mobility.

They are only threatening to remove the subsidy from schools which don't wish to get involved with their local community and create joint ventures with the local state schools.

There are all sorts of things one could say about the sort of people and schools that wish not to mix with those of the local state sector (I'll save it), but if there is one thing I know about kids it's that they don't give two fks about peoples income, social status and intellectual elitism, kids enjoy being around other kids, growing their imaginations through play and experiencing the rich and diverse world around them. Should people be punished for wanting to build ivory towers in which to enclose their children? No, probably not, they should be pitied, but they shouldn't be subsidised to do it.

[wolves_wanderer]

sidicks said:

But then the same thing should apply to other organisation mascarading as charities which often provide little benefit to the wider community and benefit a niche group.

Oh God please.

[Randomthoughts]

FredClogs said:

if there is one thing I know about kids it's that they don't give two fks about peoples income, social status and intellectual elitism

Then clearly you know absolutely nothing about kids.

Many children spend their lives in schools being bullied because of what they 'have' over their peers, whether it be the better brand of calculator, the fancier pen or a school uniform that isn't tatty. If it isn't that, it's because their parents moved down to the area recently and they have a different accent, or because someone is stupid or more intelligent than everyone else.

[wolves_wanderer]

OllieC said:

wolves_wanderer said:

If Labour hadn't got rid of the assisted places scheme that I and a lot of my friends used, then a lot more "poor" kids could have a chance of social mobility.

The left doesn't want this

Bloody ridiculous isn't it? My old school used to be the single biggest user of the assisted places scheme and was as a consequence pretty well mixed in terms of family backgrounds. Now the only people who could send their kids are the "wealthy", soon to become the "even-more-wealthy" if Labour get their way. An absolute nonsense IMO.

[heppers75]

FredClogs said:

They are only threatening to remove the subsidy from schools which don't wish to get involved with their local community and create joint ventures with the local state schools.

There are all sorts of things one could say about the sort of people and schools that wish not to mix with those of the local state sector (I'll save it), but if there is one thing I know about kids it's that they don't give two fks about peoples income, social status and intellectual elitism, kids enjoy being around other kids, growing their imaginations through play and experiencing the rich and diverse world around them. Should people be punished for wanting to build ivory towers in which to enclose their children? No, probably not, they should be pitied, but they shouldn't be subsidised to do it.

I am assuming (possibly wrongly) that you don't have kids then? I say that as I can say without a shadow of a doubt kids irrespective of their backgrounds and especially as they get towards the 9-10 year old plus mark care hugely about all the things you say they do not. That is an observation across our very broad spectrum of friends as well, at least over half of which have kids in the state system and at varying qualities of school.

Also that last sentence, I would genuinely love you to explain what you believe an "ivory tower" in that context really is and what experience and or evidence you would have to support its existence.

[LucreLout]

heppers75 said:

Thus ultimately reducing social mobility.

Yes, but that is what the left want. Its not what they say they want but it is the inevitable consequence of all of their policies, ergo it is what they want.

People like me, raised as a red or dead labour voter, once educated sufficiently to understand the issues (chiefly that the economy I priority 1, 2, and 3 - for it pays for everything else that you want to do), well, we don't generally vote labour. So the left want to keep aspirational people poor and state dependant, and unable to think critically. More votes in it for them you see. Don't listen to what they say, watch what they do.

[WCZ]

I went to a public school and the level of bullying was insane, is this any different at private schools?

[edh]

iphonedyou said:

heppers75 said:

You do realise that what you are supporting actually increases the disparity between the rich and the poor not decreases right?

I don't think he does. Scary.

heppers75 said:

ETA - Or hang on are you proposing that there is an actual ban on private education?

..well maybe you have hit on something there..

I would like every kid to go to a good local school. I don't see why that's so hard. see Finland.. I believe that if the people who run the country used the state school system, they would make sure they were better for everyone. And yes I include Diane Abbott and any other Labour MP who doesn't use the state system in my criticism.

This isn't an attack on the "middle" - just work out how high up the income scale you need to be to pay tens of thousands in school fees every year.

Anyway, don't worry about sending your kids to local schools in special measures - I'm sure turbobloke said recently they will get preferential treatment over privately educated kids and stand a better chance of landing the best jobs.

[PhilboSE]

FredClogs said:

They are only threatening to remove the subsidy from schools which don't wish to get involved with their local community and create joint ventures with the local state schools.

It's not a subsidy. It's one element of a complex financial equation that enables £4.7Bn of savings for the State education system.

But you can focus on a single factor within that equation if you like. After all, it's what Ed wants you to do. It sounds good for the simpletons.

[XM5ER]

FredClogs said:

Here is a link with some facts and some quotes from Labour minister Tristan Hunt (obvious Rupert name is obvious) which give an insight into the real motivation behind this...

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-30181920

There isn't much to argue about really, all seems very sensible.

Hilarious, there is so much misdirection in that piece, staring with "social mobility" and ending with pictures of public schoolboys from the 1980s wearing ludicrous headgear.

The reason private school kids achieve better results and get into better universities is because they work their arses off and consequently expect to have to work hard.

The vast majority of social mobility happens over two generations, the first makes enough cash to move to a nice area and either get their kids into a decent state school or send their kids to good private school. Since the destruction of the grammar school system, single generation social mobility is less of the norm.

[turbobloke]

heppers75 said:

FredClogs said:

Here is a link with some facts and some quotes from Labour minister Tristan Hunt (obvious Rupert name is obvious) which give an insight into the real motivation behind this...

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-30181920

There isn't much to argue about really, all seems very sensible.

You have to love the Orwellianesque quotes they use... Mr Hunt will say in a speech at an academy in Walthamstow, east London, that the country needs to be be "equal" if it is to "prosper".

Reasoning by assertion so dogma nothing more. Equal is as always undefined and as for prospering under Labour, this (below) is more likely.

heppers75 said:

Also the article even points out the dangers raised on here, albeit more dramatically by saying that private education risks becoming the playground of the rootless global super rich.

As long as our own nationals can't get anything that costs a bit more than boggo comp we're in clover.

heppers75 said:

Also the fact that "Independent schools generate £4.7bn in tax and save the taxpayer a further £4bn, equivalent to building 460 schools, by educating children out of the state school sector.

From what's been written it will hit about 7% of (probably smaller) independent schools not giving freebies to the locals - pointless populist Labour myopia.

heppers75 said:

Also the analysis piece which rightly points out that if this subsidy was lost maybe a few struggling independent schools would go under but not the ones who are already charging £20k+ a year. From my perspective it is pretty obvious that they would perhaps chuck another £2k on the fees maybe £3k a nice round £1k per term which for the likes of most that are there will not make the blindest bit of difference.

If it ever happens. But then it's fair!!!!!!!!!! Bash the rich, nice diversion for the sheeple, then on to the inevitable Labour screw-up.

heppers75 said:

Thus ultimately reducing social mobility.

One of Labour's key achievements has been putting the brakes on social mobility, so par for the course.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews...

[Dog Star]

I, along with my two sisters, were educated privately in a Manchester area grammar school from the 70s to late 80s. My parents - along with many who sent their kids there - sacrificed a lot to pay for it (3 kids at the same time is expensive!).

Even back then the politics of envy was alive and kicking with GMPTE; I remember when all kids at private schools had our concessionary bus fares and passes withdrawn - we all had to pay full adult fares to get to and from school. Totally typical of the nasty, sniping politics of envy symptomatic of the left. Probably coloured my impression of them for life. They make out that they're all lovey and cuddly - "ooh, you've taken the benefits from those poor spackers" etc - but they will do something not to fix something that's broken, but just because they're spiteful, envious s.

[Randomthoughts]

edh said:

This isn't an attack on the "middle" - just work out how high up the income scale you need to be to pay tens of thousands in school fees every year.

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.

[heppers75]

edh said:

iphonedyou said:

heppers75 said:

You do realise that what you are supporting actually increases the disparity between the rich and the poor not decreases right?

I don't think he does. Scary.

heppers75 said:

ETA - Or hang on are you proposing that there is an actual ban on private education?

..well maybe you have hit on something there..

I would like every kid to go to a good local school. I don't see why that's so hard. see Finland.. I believe that if the people who run the country used the state school system, they would make sure they were better for everyone. And yes I include Diane Abbott and any other Labour MP who doesn't use the state system in my criticism.

This isn't an attack on the "middle" - just work out how high up the income scale you need to be to pay tens of thousands in school fees every year.

Anyway, don't worry about sending your kids to local schools in special measures - I'm sure turbobloke said recently they will get preferential treatment over privately educated kids and stand a better chance of landing the best jobs.

The UK would, could and should not ever do that - we would fail miserably and be even further down the global pecking order than we already are in education terms.

You do not have to be that high at all, as another poster pointed out £26k a year gross income is more than is needed for a single child at an average private school. So a couple on a combined income of £60k a year. Whilst a fair way above average it is hardly "rich" wouldn't you agree? In fact it is decidedly 'middle' surely?

[JagLover]

OllieC said:

wolves_wanderer said:

If Labour hadn't got rid of the assisted places scheme that I and a lot of my friends used, then a lot more "poor" kids could have a chance of social mobility.

The left doesn't want this

Of course they don't.

There was no mention in the interview I listened to of the many ways private schools already justify their charitable status. Whether that be by offering bursaries or providing facilities to local community groups, including schools. Only of a large scale diversion of private sector resources away from educating their own pupils and being provided to the state sector. All accompanied by rhetoric about how unfair it is that private school pupils do so well.

The harsh truth is that the reason why the left cannot stand private schools is that while they were busy destroying state education the private sector maintained standards and the massive outperformance of the pupils they educate shows the damage inflicted by left wing policies on state education. Back in the 50s and 60s many state grammars outperformed the private sector now, with a few exceptions, the only way to get the best education is to pay for it.

[FredClogs]

heppers75 said:

FredClogs said:

They are only threatening to remove the subsidy from schools which don't wish to get involved with their local community and create joint ventures with the local state schools.

There are all sorts of things one could say about the sort of people and schools that wish not to mix with those of the local state sector (I'll save it), but if there is one thing I know about kids it's that they don't give two fks about peoples income, social status and intellectual elitism, kids enjoy being around other kids, growing their imaginations through play and experiencing the rich and diverse world around them. Should people be punished for wanting to build ivory towers in which to enclose their children? No, probably not, they should be pitied, but they shouldn't be subsidised to do it.

I am assuming (possibly wrongly) that you don't have kids then? I say that as I can say without a shadow of a doubt kids irrespective of their backgrounds and especially as they get towards the 9-10 year old plus mark care hugely about all the things you say they do not. That is an observation across our very broad spectrum of friends as well, at least over half of which have kids in the state system and at varying qualities of school.

Also that last sentence, I would genuinely love you to explain what you believe an "ivory tower" in that context really is and what experience and or evidence you would have to support its existence.

I have 3 kids, they're young but I will encourage them to mix with people of all types and teach them that success in life is not measured by what you can buy but what you can experience. I will teach them that by denigrating people based on their material wealth they not also loose a potential friend but they loose a little but of their own humanity. I will teach them to "know thy self"

Independent schools which refuse to play sport, do art projects, get involved in drama production with the local state sector have, in my opinion, already chosen to remove themselves from civil society, that's an ivory tower, I don't see why I should subsidise the construction of yours and I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by building one.

[JagLover]

FredClogs said:

Independent schools which refuse to play sport, do art projects, get involved in drama production with the local state sector have, in my opinion, already chosen to remove themselves from civil society, that's an ivory tower, I don't see why I should subsidise the construction of yours and I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by building one.

and if they offer means tested bursaries?

1/3 of poor children getting into Oxford or Cambridge were educated at a private school.

[sidicks]

FredClogs said:

Independent schools which refuse to play sport, do art projects, get involved in drama production with the local state sector have, in my opinion, already chosen to remove themselves from civil society, that's an ivory tower, I don't see why I should subsidise the construction of yours and I don't think you're doing yourself any favours by building one.

But it's been explained on a number of occasions that you're not subsidising anyone - there is a net benefit to the tune of £4.7bn, apparently...