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. PlacidCasual

    Soldato

    Joined: May 13, 2003

    Posts: 6,285

    Labour introduced tuition fees in 1999 or 2000 something like that.

    edit actually I’ll have to check that might have been late Major.

    Edit edit: nope 1998 Labour.
     
  2. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 23,311

    Location: Cornwall

    Ah the standard Tory retort.

    Nobody in this entire thread has said they want to lower standards in schools. Try again.
     
  3. D.P.

    Caporegime

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 30,737


    Of course you could apply to the US. Provide one single reason why it doesn't scale?

    I'll provide you 3 reasons why it would eb even easier to achive in the US:
    1) Economies of scale
    2) Superlinearity of population
    3) The US has a higher GDP per capita than Finland.




    You strangely see to think every country has the same pot of money for social services regardless of population size or GDP
     
  4. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    It doesn't matter what you want, it matters what the consequences of the actions taken is likely to be.

    The likely result of attacking private schools on overall education attainment isn't likely to be positive, that's the point.
     
  5. Irish_Tom

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 12,486

    By itself you’re right — as part of wider educational reforms it could be.
     
  6. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 67,913

    That said though bigger countries tend to have a different spread of needs where and how much they spend money and economies of scale works for some things but you also have factors like with increased numbers complexity can increase non-linearly causing things like bludgeoning and expensive administration, etc. the US has huge issues trying to scale a system over the whole population even without legacy issues due to the states. Although a significant factor here is human nature rather than the logistical side of implementing a system - the more people involved the less people seem to see eye to eye and/or more people who won't work towards the ideal end goal, etc.
     
  7. Trusty

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 12, 2006

    Posts: 11,396

    Location: On A Rocket

    Lol..patriotic disposition, how is pointing out that the whole of British society & culture doesn't need to be overhauled and teared down patriotic disposition...

    I just think you are utterly wrong. That's all.

    ..theres always room for improvement, but that won't happen by tearing down the successful stories, perhaps we should learn from them and copy them rather than tear them down eh.
     
  8. Irish_Tom

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 12,486

    Well you did seem to get very defensive when it was suggested that Britain isn’t perfect… and at no point did I suggest it needs to be torn down — I’m advocating a gradual change, not an overnight shock.

    You’re entitled to your opinion but if you think the status quo is acceptable then we’re never going to agree.

    How do you suggest we ‘copy the success story’ of a divisive system that discriminates based on the parent’s ability to pay, rather than the child’s ability and apply that to the rest of the country?
     
  9. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    The comprehensive system also discriminates on ability to pay rather than ability, it just does it by proxy.

    If you want to talk about bringing academic selection back into wider use, I'm all ears, but usually the same people who whinge about private schools also whinge about academic selection too.
     
  10. Thecaferacer

    Hitman

    Joined: Feb 3, 2019

    Posts: 747

    If you think you can upscale one model education like that across that many individuals with different needs and backgrounds then that's your opinion.

    And no, your last assumption is incorrect. Quite why you assume that is beyond me.
     
  11. Irish_Tom

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 12,486

    I’m not against academic selection in principle but I would prefer a system of continuous assessment throughout primary school, rather than a single 11+ style exam to define the selection.

    I do think there are benefits to a comprehensive system compared to entirely separate schools — so I would advocate a ‘setting’ or ‘streaming’ system within a single school rather than a separate Grammar/Secondary Modern style system.

    However, I accept that this leads to issues with catchment-area house prices and then you end up back at the ‘selection by ability to pay’ problem. I guess the answer to that would come from raising standards of enough schools so that there wasn’t a need to move house to access the better schools.
     
  12. Colonel_Klinck

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 3, 2007

    Posts: 2,454

    Location: London, UK

    Why are they tax exempt anyway? Also why are religious organisations still tax exempt? That needs to end unless they show they spend every penny they get on charitable causes.
     
  13. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 46,747

    Where did I say you did?

    What do you gain from scrapping private schools other than just trashing some good schools and then giving some obvious incentives for more richer parents to move to the catchment areas for good state schools?
     
  14. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    Trade unions are also subject to large amount of tax exemption, and they provide no charitable cause whatsoever.
     
  15. thenewoc

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 9, 2012

    Posts: 5,732

    Location: West Sussex, England

    If anyone's going to medal with the education system, surely abolishing separate faith schools should be first. Better integration won't be achieved by effectively having an apartheid at the education level.
     
  16. NickK

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jan 13, 2003

    Posts: 18,531

    Surely abolishing private schools is like dumbing down the population by pandering to the lowest common denominator?

    I understand the politics of attacking the Erin stronghold of the opposition, but all that will do is make the rich send their kids to international private schools instead.

    Also for those in bad catchment areas that sacrifice to put their kids into a few-paying school that is better than those around - this will be bad news.

    a real example would be ascot. A number of £26k/year schools exist, however the state school is a largest and has the large catchment area from Bracknell - all 3 Bracknell schools were average at best.

    So again.. this will destroy house pricing in catchment areas too.
     
  17. Skidder

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Nov 28, 2007

    Posts: 12,094

    Typical labour envy, hate and ilogical economics. Let's drag everyone down rather than raise people up.

    I have two kids in private school. If labour get their way they have to foot the bill for 2 more pupils (at 6k per year or whatever it is) and then lose £25k plus a year of my after tax income going into the economy.

    It's so illogical it hurts.
     
  18. Irish_Tom

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 12,486

    This is a good watch:



    To summarise some of the conclusions, private schools have:
    • 7% of the pupils
    • 14% of the teachers
    • 16% of the total expenditure
    Which in real-terms equals 300% more spending per pupil than in state education (£3/pp in private education for every £1/pp spent in state education).

    Private schools produce*:
    • 1/3 of MPs
    • 1/3 of FTSE100 CEOs
    • 1/2 of Cabinet Members
    • 1/2 of Senior Civil Servants
    • 3/4 of Judges and Generals

    *The research was from 2016. As the video explains, some of the figures (for instance Cabinet members) have changed slightly since. For instance, when Boris Johnson resigned as Foreign Secretary, it was the first time since 1830 that a Conservative cabinet had not included someone from Eton. In 2014, when Nicky Morgan was appointed Education Secretary, every single Minister in the education department was privately educated.

    For anyone pointing to bursaries and the social mobility they provide for underprivileged pupils, this research found that just 4% of private school turnover goes into bursaries and only 1% of private school pupils attend completely free.

    If we matched the per-pupil spending and pupil:teacher** ratio for our state schools, maybe private schools wouldn't be necessary.

    **With the best teachers.
     
  19. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 46,747

    And if you scrapped them then you'd still get people from a similar background occupying those positions.

    They're not necessary at the moment, they're an expensive alternative that some parents choose to make use of.

    I've still not seen any arguments for why they should be scrapped or what there is to gain from scrapping them? It all seems to be based on the politics of envy and wanting to drag others down.
     
  20. Seearbe

    Gangster

    Joined: Jul 31, 2019

    Posts: 311

    If you consider school fees to be a voluntary tax aimed at a specific service, does the opinion change?