1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Labour propose to abolish fee paying schools

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by jsmoke, Nov 23, 2019.

  1. Caracus2k

    Soldato

    Joined: Jan 27, 2009

    Posts: 5,244


    I don't think slapping vat on private schools would be a net gain for the state. Increasing the price via taxation means all you do is push the poorer (relatively) parents out of being able to access these schools and push the children into the public schools. Some private schools would have to close as well.

    Richer parents will just send their kids abroad or hire private tutors.

    And what are you on about with 'markets' we don't have anything like a true market system for education when 93% off of children are educated at state run schools.


    You want to really shake up education and get markets going .... Make all schools private and give parents a voucher for their child's education instead of the current system.
     
  2. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 23,328

    Location: Cornwall

    So to answer my question, you do think the state should spend some money to help middle-class parents send their kids to private schools, rather than placing all the "burden" of education on state schools.

    So presumably you believe private schools can spend that money more effectively?
     
  3. Caracus2k

    Soldato

    Joined: Jan 27, 2009

    Posts: 5,244

    You have it totally the wrong way around.... The stage isn't spending money to help middle class parents send their kids to private schools....

    Rather the state saves money on one hand by not having to cover the costs of educating circa 7% of the children in the UK.

    If you slap vat and other costs on private schooling less children would attend private schools overall and the poorer parents (relatively) now disenfranchised would instead seek other ways to use the money that they would have spent on schooling otherwise.

    Its for from apparent therefore that there is a net gain for the state from the these actions as a whole and plenty of scope for other undesirable consequences like even further increasing the completion for housing in the catchment areas of 'good' state schools.
     
  4. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 23,328

    Location: Cornwall

    Conversely, the more motivated students you remove from state education (and motivated parents), not only do you have fewer people attending state schools but the composition of those schools tends towards the lower achievers, shall we say.

    Because you have filtered off the best students and the best teachers into private education. And you give them tax breaks to further encourage this!

    You know what that leaves - the situation as we have it today. State schools getting worse, funding going down, and outcomes getting worse esp in inner city schools.

    The whole system is designed to maintain and entrench privilege. The Tories are supposed to be the party of aspiration, but linking education to your parents income - how does that do anything but suppress aspiration and prevent social mobility?
     
  5. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    The state system also does that though. Abolishing private schooling won't fix that.
     
  6. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 23,328

    Location: Cornwall

    Despite the thread title, that's not the current Labour proposal in any case. They currently want to remove tax breaks and subsidies, etc, for private schools.

    Like paying them grants to help fund specific courses in some schools, like Latin. A bit weird that we're subsidising private schools to teach Latin when that's not even taught in state schools... But there you are.

    One of the other schemes includes paying bursaries to top civil servants and officers in the military, in order that their children can attend prestigious private schools.

    You've got to hand it to them, those at the top do look out for each other ;)
     
  7. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    Our local state boys grammar still teaches Latin...

    I'm not necessarily opposed to removing any tax breaks or targetted subsidies that don't exist in state education, however.
     
  8. Trusty

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 12, 2006

    Posts: 11,427

    Location: On A Rocket

    You've got to hand it to 50% of the UK's population that don't pay for any schools, teachers, roads, NHS, doctors, police, fire services, but still get to use it with no cost.

    Those at the top seem to be looking out for the everyone it seems.
     
  9. cheesyboy

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 7, 2012

    Posts: 12,371

    Location: Gloucestershire

    What's stopping them doing that now? Nothing, and it is in fact a problem: some PTAs raise a few hundred quid per year, while others raise close to £1million per year.

    But if a problem already exists, that doesn't seem like much of a reason not to make other changes.

    And, frankly, any removal of private schools would require a significant overhaul of state school funding. These sorts of issues would necessarily be considered in the mix.

    As for Labour's previous investment: I visited my old comprehensive last month to check it out for our eldest. I left less than 20 years ago. The school, in those days a hodgepodge of rickety old 'temporary' buildings supplementing a number of 'permanent' but condemned old structures and a handful of new installations, had been completely rebuilt under Labour. The new single building had been thoughtfully designed to integrate older students with younger (in our day, the older years' bases were somewhat intimidating to go near) and was massively better laid out for learning.

    It was actually significantly reassuring that, should our kids not pass their 11+, the backup option was so pleasant (relative to my memories of it, at least). Investment really does make a difference.
     
  10. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 67,931

    You sure that happened under Labour? Most of the schools around here expanded under the previous Tory government (Thatcher era or a little before) to a collection of prefabs and temporary buildings and were then left to rot including under the previous Labour government and for all its ills the renovations of buildings and moving from prefabs/huts to proper buildings has mostly happened under Gove's programs.
     
  11. cheesyboy

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 7, 2012

    Posts: 12,371

    Location: Gloucestershire

    Is there evidence thst abolishing private schools wouldn't do anything to improve state schools, then?

    I don't see, intuitively, how you could argue that state schools would be worse if higher income people had to have their kids educated in comprehensives. What would be the mechanism for that?!
     
  12. Thecaferacer

    Hitman

    Joined: Feb 3, 2019

    Posts: 747

    I was about to say the same thing. Lots of brand spanking new schools built by Academy trusts, albeit I'm not a fan of Goves plans and the wholesale giveaway of council land to private firms.
     
  13. cheesyboy

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 7, 2012

    Posts: 12,371

    Location: Gloucestershire

    Labour committed to rebuilding all secondary schools in Britain. This one was completed in 2009 - I know this because I bumped into my former art teacher and 6th form tutor whilst surfing, the day my wife had come up positive on the pregnancy test for our first, and he was talking about the new building :D

    The place had utterly fallen to ruins through the Thatcher years. No joke: the largest block, a three story building, was supposed to be evacuated in high winds due to its lack of structural integrity! And the old maths block was sliding down the hill into the cavity of the old, and improperly filled in, swimming pool (which dated back to the school's history as a boys' Grammar). Place was a mess when I was there in the 90s.

    If the school building program has been continued (I'd not heard that it was), then it's very much a continuation of Labour policy, not a Tory initiative
     
  14. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    I'm not the one advocating change, so the evidential burden to demonstrate the benefit of the change doesn't lie with me.

    The problem is you are thinking about the schools, not the educational outcome of the pupils.

    What is more important, high performance or less system variance?
     
  15. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 23,328

    Location: Cornwall

    I don't think it's a good thing that 50% are paying no tax. Neither do I think it's a good thing that the state will be topping up the wages of most of those. No, indeed that speaks to me of employers in this country being given free reign to pay their employees less than the amount actually necessary to live. Should I thank the top earners for that? Many of them will be the employers paying borderline poverty wages (that the state has to top-up).

    Also it doesn't follow that because something is "free", then people should be grateful regardless of the quality of the "free" thing.

    Especially when the "free" thing is also mandatory. Let's be honest - for some the quality of the state schooling provided is so bad they'd rather home school their kids (but this isn't possible for most, so they have no choice but to send their kids to a state school).
     
  16. cheesyboy

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 7, 2012

    Posts: 12,371

    Location: Gloucestershire

    So you believe the state school system would be worse if wealthy people were to have to send their kids there? But you don't believe you need to explain that belief because it's not the current state of the world?

    That's a pretty absurd form of debate.
     
  17. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 23,328

    Location: Cornwall

    That's quite deceptive.

    He is thinking about the educational outcome of state educated pupils. You're saying that the educational outcomes of middle-class pupils must be worse if they could not go to private schools.

    That in itself is telling. You recognise the state schools are performing badly compared to private schools.

    The idea is to raise the standard of the state schools, not to keep it where it is and force middle-class pupils to suffer an inferior education.
     
  18. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,352

    That has nothing to do with private education. It has everything to do with reduced funding. Adding 7% more students wouldn't really help that either...

    Our current state school system already does that. Have you seen what being in a good school's catchment area can do to house prices?

    I am finding this thread quite interesting as there seem to be a lot of people commenting on the current education system that seem to have incredibly odd views about it.
     
  19. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 23,328

    Location: Cornwall

    So you wouldn't say that the more middle-class parents use private schools diminishes the urgency of increasing the standard of state schools? Esp if a lot of those middle class parents are voting Tory...

    Funding choices don't arise in a vacuum. If the Tories think increasing taxes to pay for better state school funding won't win them middle-class votes, then maybe they have less incentive to do so...
    This whole debate is about trying to avoid having pockets of excellence in a sea of crap. That's not a good thing.

    It's about raising standards. Corralling middle-class pupils into private schools just creates more of a two-lane system. Pockets of excellence and crap for the rest.

    Allowing it gives future governments less and less incentive to improve state schools, since by then only the worst off will be using them.
     
  20. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 20,352

    The vast majority of middle class parents send their kids to state schools. There is absolutely no evidence that the existence of the independent school sector has any negative impact on school funding.
    Closing independent schools isnt going to a positive impact on educational outcomes. It will make things worse off short term and probably no better long term. Increasing school funding will make a difference (smaller class sizes, larger curriculum choice being the main benefits). There is no mass exodus to the independent school sector. I am not entirely sure where you are getting that idea from.