A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right. Btw. Have you eaten a school meal lately? Adding breakfast and tea is probably against the Geneva Convention.
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
The median age of the electorate, taking into account both demography and the propensity of different age cohorts to vote, is now somewhere over 55. Governments will keep on prioritising Granny's needs and wishes over Mum's for the foreseeable future.
No way on God's Earth are increasingly limited funds going to be directed to schools over pensions, and likewise there's virtually no prospect of property being taxed more heavily to provide enough extra cash to cover both demands.
Young people aren't going to procreate if they can't access affordable housing and childcare. Affordable housing and childcare are not political priorities, because few older people are primary carers for children, whereas most older people are already owner-occupiers with low-to-zero mortgage obligations. That's just the reality of living in a gerontocracy. It's not going to change.
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right.
I think implicit in CR's proposals - as reflected in the increase by 30% in education budgets - is that it would involve the recruitment of a lot more teachers and individual teachers not being at school for the whole 12 or 14 hours that would be needed (the 10 hours of 'open' time plus time either side to make it actually work.
What the proposal misses is that many schools already operate this way unofficially anyway by way of necessity. They just don't get the money, credit or support for it.
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right. Btw. Have you eaten a school meal lately? Adding breakfast and tea is probably against the Geneva Convention.
So you think what happens in private schools before 9am and after 3pm isn't education?
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right. Btw. Have you eaten a school meal lately? Adding breakfast and tea is probably against the Geneva Convention.
Casino suggested correctly that the education budget would need to be increased greatly to lengthen the school day and provide all that extra food. Of course, the former isn't going to be covered simply by bludgeoning the existing teachers into working extra hours. It means a lot more teachers.
Anyhow, regardless, it ain't happening. Old people don't eat school food and old people don't need teachers, so neither is a priority.
WAY Off Topic - William Morgan (1774-1826?) Martyr of Anti-Masonry
Inscription, Monument to William Morgan, Batavia, New York:
Sacred to the memory of Wm. Morgan, a native of Virginia, a Capt. in the War of 1812, a respectable citizen of Batavia, and a martyr to the freedom of writing, printing and speaking the truth. He was abducted from near this spot in the year 1826, by Freemasons and murdered for revealing the secrets of their order. The court records of Genesee County and the files of the Batavia Advocate, kept in the Recorders office contain the history of the events that caused the erection of this monument.
Disappearance and presumed murder of Morgan was catalyst for movement culminating in the Anti-Masonic Party, which quickly spread from upper New York State to other states, especially in New England. In addition to holding first national presidential party nominating convention in US history (1832) the party won power in Vermont and other states, and held the balance of power in a few others.
Plus, along with Whig Party which quickly absorbed most of their vote, Anti-Masonic Party was one of the precursors of the Republican Party founded in the 1850s. And still with us today - albeit as new wine in an old bottle, just like the Democratic Party.
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right.
I think implicit in CR's proposals - as reflected in the increase by 30% in education budgets - is that it would involve the recruitment of a lot more teachers and individual teachers not being at school for the whole 12 or 14 hours that would be needed (the 10 hours of 'open' time plus time either side to make it actually work.
What the proposal misses is that many schools already operate this way unofficially anyway by way of necessity. They just don't get the money, credit or support for it.
It's an odd argument since at my private nursery, for example - which does operate these hours - there are a mix of staff working different hours.
Some choose to work 8am to 6pm but many clock off at 3pm and are replaced by those who work the later shift to conclude my daughter's care in "the great lates".
The advocates of grammar schools rarely explain why 75% of pupils should, as a matter of policy, receive an inferior education.
In deprived areas like poor seaside towns or ex industrial towns and cities in the North, the Midlands and Wales often 100% of pupils now receive an inferior education in the comprehensives there. Whereas before even areas like Grimsby, Barnsley or Rotherham, West Bromwich and Hastings had a grammar school pre 1965
As I said, advocates on grammar schools rarely explain why, as a matter of policy, 75% of pupils in a given local authority should be provided with an inferior education.
There is another poster on PB, forget the name, who makes a case that the weakest pupils should receive extraordinary provision in specialised settings - now that could make a profound difference.
As I said advocates of comprehensives rarely explain why in poor and deprived areas 100% of pupils should be provided with an inferior education.
(Plus in some selective areas like Trafford and Bucks the high schools too get perfectly good results)
Whichever way you call it, when there is a Grammar School in the area everyone else has a second rate education. Why should two taxpayers paying identical tax in Stratford upon Avon get two different qualities of school/ education for their children on the basis of a two hour exam at aged 11.
On the inequity of the 11 plus alone the Conservatives should be banished from Government forever.
Actually the Sutton Report into Grammar schools nailed that myth. It showed there was no reduction in results for Comprehensive schools in Grammar school areas compered to those without Grammars.
So yours is absolutely just the politics of envy and the lowest common denominator. Your policy is, in effect, if you can't have everyone getting a better education then no one should get one.
My bias is based on personal experience. I went to both, and I detested the Grammar School experience with avengeance. I despised that each year from aged 14 was split into an A and a B stream and the B stream were entered for CSE exams to keep the O level pass rate numbers up. These people had passed the 11 plus for goodness sake.
From my perspective, irrespective of what your data tells us, it is the one policy which would sway me against a political party, not out of envy but an aversion to selection at 11 (or to please HY, 13).
P.S. I am also an advocate of measuring educational success by means of value added rather than merely A level or GCSE grades
It’s all down to the increasing availability of porn. In the good old days every chap had a weeks worth of sperm sitting in them waiting to go in their Saturday night special. Unfortunately now every chap is going crazy over Stepmoms eight times a day on their phone in the work loos.
Stepmoms’ gain is societies loss. Down with this sort of thing.
Observing the youth of London I couldn’t disagree more. There is a whole generation of people growing up uninterested or even actively hostile to the idea of non-Platonic relations with the opposite sex. computer games and social media interest them more. Same with alcohol: not interested. Gilead is here, people.
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right. Btw. Have you eaten a school meal lately? Adding breakfast and tea is probably against the Geneva Convention.
So you think what happens in private schools before 9am and after 3pm isn't education?
The stories I hear about what goes on in those hours are an education in themselves
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
The median age of the electorate, taking into account both demography and the propensity of different age cohorts to vote, is now somewhere over 55. Governments will keep on prioritising Granny's needs and wishes over Mum's for the foreseeable future.
No way on God's Earth are increasingly limited funds going to be directed to schools over pensions, and likewise there's virtually no prospect of property being taxed more heavily to provide enough extra cash to cover both demands.
Young people aren't going to procreate if they can't access affordable housing and childcare. Affordable housing and childcare are not political priorities, because few older people are primary carers for children, whereas most older people are already owner-occupiers with low-to-zero mortgage obligations. That's just the reality of living in a gerontocracy. It's not going to change.
Oh, I quite agree it's unlikely to change.
I've advocated what I'd like to do and what I think is good policy, not what I think is actually going to happen.
Nevertheless, brave politicians could start to shift the arguments in this direction over a 5-15 year period by starting to make these arguments now.
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right.
I think implicit in CR's proposals - as reflected in the increase by 30% in education budgets - is that it would involve the recruitment of a lot more teachers and individual teachers not being at school for the whole 12 or 14 hours that would be needed (the 10 hours of 'open' time plus time either side to make it actually work.
What the proposal misses is that many schools already operate this way unofficially anyway by way of necessity. They just don't get the money, credit or support for it.
The fundamental problem is we haven't decided what education is for. Is it to pass exams, identifying those best suited for further study? Is it to skill up the population to provide the best workforce for the future? Or is it to keep kids safe and entertained to free up their parents to go out to earn a living? Because at the moment it's trying to do all three, and not doing any of them very well.
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right. Btw. Have you eaten a school meal lately? Adding breakfast and tea is probably against the Geneva Convention.
So you think what happens in private schools before 9am and after 3pm isn't education?
The stories I hear about what goes on in those hours are an education in themselves
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right. Btw. Have you eaten a school meal lately? Adding breakfast and tea is probably against the Geneva Convention.
So you think what happens in private schools before 9am and after 3pm isn't education?
That's where the huge funding gap comes in. 30% wouldn't cut it. Which is why I said I agree to an extent.
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right. Btw. Have you eaten a school meal lately? Adding breakfast and tea is probably against the Geneva Convention.
Casino suggested correctly that the education budget would need to be increased greatly to lengthen the school day and provide all that extra food. Of course, the former isn't going to be covered simply by bludgeoning the existing teachers into working extra hours. It means a lot more teachers.
Anyhow, regardless, it ain't happening. Old people don't eat school food and old people don't need teachers, so neither is a priority.
Young people could start voting, and for a mix of parties at that to drive competition for their votes?
After all, old people are in a minority amongst the electorate at large.
Now that my personal crisis of the last 24 hours is over I can, like Mike, sing the praises of the people working in the NHS. About 1am I got call from my sister to say my Mum was unwell. She had severe pain (she thought) in her chest and had called 111. The first praise is for the 111 operator who realised this was a 999 issue and called an ambulance. The promise was they would arrive within 40 minutes and they were there in just over half that time. They then spent almost an hour stabilising my Mum in the ambulance, realised it was not chest but abdomen and her other symptoms including high blood pressure were a response to the pain not a possible heart issue.
They whisked her off to Kings Mill (this IS a problem as it is the nearest A&E but is a good 35-40 minutes away) where the staff had her checked, stabilised again and up on a pre surgery and assessment ward by 6am. It turns out she had acute pancreatitis caused by gallstones and they are now sorting it all out. Staff from start to finish were first class.
I do knock the NHS a lot and still think that, as an organisation, it serves us poorly compared to other health systems but when the people working in it get it right they deserve great praise.
She has been quite open about having a boob job done privately for cosmetic purposes, as post maternity her breasts became rather droopy.
I don't think anyone expects that sort of surgery to be done on the NHS, except where medically indicated such as breast reconstruction after cancer treatment.
Yeah but under SKSs crackpot scheme expect a lot more saggy boobs self referals
Just what the Dr didnt order for our struggling NHS services
Your solution was to tax everyone i
Which is the funding system we have.
If you prefer an insurance model be upfront about it at a GE
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right.
I think implicit in CR's proposals - as reflected in the increase by 30% in education budgets - is that it would involve the recruitment of a lot more teachers and individual teachers not being at school for the whole 12 or 14 hours that would be needed (the 10 hours of 'open' time plus time either side to make it actually work.
What the proposal misses is that many schools already operate this way unofficially anyway by way of necessity. They just don't get the money, credit or support for it.
It's an odd argument since at my private nursery, for example - which does operate these hours - there are a mix of staff working different hours.
Some choose to work 8am to 6pm but many clock off at 3pm and are replaced by those who work the later shift to conclude my daughter's care in "the great lates".
Which is a fair point. However. We are having severe difficulty staffing from 8:30 to 4:30. Which are the contracted hours. Not 9-3. Nursery is defined as childcare. So it is summat different.
The advocates of grammar schools rarely explain why 75% of pupils should, as a matter of policy, receive an inferior education.
In deprived areas like poor seaside towns or ex industrial towns and cities in the North, the Midlands and Wales often 100% of pupils now receive an inferior education in the comprehensives there. Whereas before even areas like Grimsby, Barnsley or Rotherham, West Bromwich and Hastings had a grammar school pre 1965
As I said, advocates on grammar schools rarely explain why, as a matter of policy, 75% of pupils in a given local authority should be provided with an inferior education.
There is another poster on PB, forget the name, who makes a case that the weakest pupils should receive extraordinary provision in specialised settings - now that could make a profound difference.
As I said advocates of comprehensives rarely explain why in poor and deprived areas 100% of pupils should be provided with an inferior education.
(Plus in some selective areas like Trafford and Bucks the high schools too get perfectly good results)
Whichever way you call it, when there is a Grammar School in the area everyone else has a second rate education. Why should two taxpayers paying identical tax in Stratford upon Avon get two different qualities of school/ education for their children on the basis of a two hour exam at aged 11.
On the inequity of the 11 plus alone the Conservatives should be banished from Government forever.
Actually the Sutton Report into Grammar schools nailed that myth. It showed there was no reduction in results for Comprehensive schools in Grammar school areas compered to those without Grammars.
So yours is absolutely just the politics of envy and the lowest common denominator. Your policy is, in effect, if you can't have everyone getting a better education then no one should get one.
My bias is based on personal experience. I went to both, and I detested the Grammar School experience with avengeance. I despised that each year from aged 14 was split into an A and a B stream and the B stream were entered for CSE exams to keep the O level pass rate numbers up. These people had passed the 11 plus for goodness sake.
From my perspective, irrespective of what your data tells us, it is the one policy which would sway me against a political party, not out of envy but an aversion to selection at 11 (or to please HY, 13).
P.S. I am also an advocate of measuring educational success by means of value added rather than merely A level or GCSE grades
Well I went to a comprehensive and we were also streamed. The difference is that we were streamed into 8 streams and only the top 2 did O levels whilst the other 6 did CSEs or nothing at all. My kids have both been through the Grammar school system and it is miles better than anything I ever experienced.
Lots of my colleagues and contacts are humble bragging about going to Davos this week. You know the thing, “oh Davos, such a pointless elite talking shop, but I might as well schlep along and see what the twats are up to this year”. Except they really want you know they’re off to Davos. It’s like Oxbridge.
I quite fancy a week in the alps being elitist but sadly no invitation.
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
The median age of the electorate, taking into account both demography and the propensity of different age cohorts to vote, is now somewhere over 55. Governments will keep on prioritising Granny's needs and wishes over Mum's for the foreseeable future.
No way on God's Earth are increasingly limited funds going to be directed to schools over pensions, and likewise there's virtually no prospect of property being taxed more heavily to provide enough extra cash to cover both demands.
Young people aren't going to procreate if they can't access affordable housing and childcare. Affordable housing and childcare are not political priorities, because few older people are primary carers for children, whereas most older people are already owner-occupiers with low-to-zero mortgage obligations. That's just the reality of living in a gerontocracy. It's not going to change.
Oh, I quite agree it's unlikely to change.
I've advocated what I'd like to do and what I think is good policy, not what I think is actually going to happen.
Nevertheless, brave politicians could start to shift the arguments in this direction over a 5-15 year period by starting to make these arguments now.
The moment you go after houses, you lose (Theresa May tried; she was "brave" in the Sir Humphrey sense that you suggest, and much good it did her.) And we're stuck with the Triple Lock for the same reason, which is going to end up costing so much that it will bankrupt the country, but which nobody dare even hint at scrapping because the grey vote will flow in a tidal wave to parties that treat the notion with loud mock outrage and promise to keep it.
Things will keep going on as they are, with a permanent programme of austerity, taxes on incomes being ratcheted upwards and most budgets being stripped to fund pensions and healthcare, until there's nothing left to squeeze and the whole house of cards collapses. As to how long this will take and what comes after it, your guess is as good as mine.
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right.
I think implicit in CR's proposals - as reflected in the increase by 30% in education budgets - is that it would involve the recruitment of a lot more teachers and individual teachers not being at school for the whole 12 or 14 hours that would be needed (the 10 hours of 'open' time plus time either side to make it actually work.
What the proposal misses is that many schools already operate this way unofficially anyway by way of necessity. They just don't get the money, credit or support for it.
It's an odd argument since at my private nursery, for example - which does operate these hours - there are a mix of staff working different hours.
Some choose to work 8am to 6pm but many clock off at 3pm and are replaced by those who work the later shift to conclude my daughter's care in "the great lates".
Exactly. I think part of the problem is that so many schools have survived in the last decade on the basis of teachers filling in the gaps in provision out of goodwill (eg covering for colleagues or gaps in specialist teaching) that there is very little trust amongst the profession that this wouldn’t be more of the same.
But resourced sensibly, and used as an opportunity to do something different rather than more of the same, it would be great.
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right.
I think implicit in CR's proposals - as reflected in the increase by 30% in education budgets - is that it would involve the recruitment of a lot more teachers and individual teachers not being at school for the whole 12 or 14 hours that would be needed (the 10 hours of 'open' time plus time either side to make it actually work.
What the proposal misses is that many schools already operate this way unofficially anyway by way of necessity. They just don't get the money, credit or support for it.
It's an odd argument since at my private nursery, for example - which does operate these hours - there are a mix of staff working different hours.
Some choose to work 8am to 6pm but many clock off at 3pm and are replaced by those who work the later shift to conclude my daughter's care in "the great lates".
Which is a fair point. However. We are having severe difficulty staffing from 8:30 to 4:30. Which are the contracted hours. Not 9-3. Nursery is defined as childcare. So it is summat different.
One thing putting VAT on private schools will do is reduce the number of teachers and education staff in circulation.
They will be made redundant as and when the smaller more marginal schools close, and state schools won't be able to take them on.
They will probably get another job and do some private tutoring on top at top whack.
As someone educated at a private school, I struggle to justify their charitable status.
Most charities are intended to benefit the public generally (either explicitly or via saving hedgehogs or whatever), a group recognised as in need of additional support (blind people for instance), or everyone within an area (the people of Bognor etc).
Private school benefit those who pay to benefit. That sits uncomfortably.
To TSE's opening point, he should remember the debate here isn't the existence of private schools. It is charitable and therefore tax status. Lots of businesses provide a benefit to customers and are laudable enough without having charitable status. The tax point isn't even all that impactful as I understand it - it's broadly a VAT point , noting that VAT doesn't really work in the way commonly assumed due to setting input VAT against output VAT.
Allegedly the Germans are saying they cannot renovate / refit stored Leopard 2 tanks for Ukraine in under a year.
A few thoughts: 1) This is bullshit. 2) The war started a year ago. 3) Give them some of the Bundeswehr's current tanks.
Excuses, excuses...
The war is coming to a major climax and the Russians are about to add at least 300,000 more troops. Even badly equipped troops in such numbers can make a difference. It is extremely serious and the total contempt the Russians show for the laws of war and complete indifference to their own casualties could still get them some kind of victory.
A few elderly Challenger IIs will not be enough to stem the tide.
If Russia wins, then the war will spread further West, and if the GOP gets back in Washington then NATO could still fall. Its what Putin is counting on. People need to understand the scale of evil in Moscow and the complete corruption of anyone who is influenced by these monsters.
The Russian army is contemptible, but it is also lethal. This emergency is getting worse, not better and the northern tier NATO states are deeply concerned about the continuing failure to get Turkish approval for the NATO expansion. The Ukrainian army has probably lost a third of the casualties of the Russian, but the death toll of Russians is horrendous: maybe over 7,000 in the past two weeks and 120,000 since the war began. Ukraine is also bleeding, and the civilian casualties are growing at a horrendous rate.
We are getting close to the hour of doom, and the Russians must not win, or the peace of the whole world will fall.
The advocates of grammar schools rarely explain why 75% of pupils should, as a matter of policy, receive an inferior education.
In deprived areas like poor seaside towns or ex industrial towns and cities in the North, the Midlands and Wales often 100% of pupils now receive an inferior education in the comprehensives there. Whereas before even areas like Grimsby, Barnsley or Rotherham, West Bromwich and Hastings had a grammar school pre 1965
As I said, advocates on grammar schools rarely explain why, as a matter of policy, 75% of pupils in a given local authority should be provided with an inferior education.
There is another poster on PB, forget the name, who makes a case that the weakest pupils should receive extraordinary provision in specialised settings - now that could make a profound difference.
As I said advocates of comprehensives rarely explain why in poor and deprived areas 100% of pupils should be provided with an inferior education.
(Plus in some selective areas like Trafford and Bucks the high schools too get perfectly good results)
Whichever way you call it, when there is a Grammar School in the area everyone else has a second rate education. Why should two taxpayers paying identical tax in Stratford upon Avon get two different qualities of school/ education for their children on the basis of a two hour exam at aged 11.
On the inequity of the 11 plus alone the Conservatives should be banished from Government forever.
Actually the Sutton Report into Grammar schools nailed that myth. It showed there was no reduction in results for Comprehensive schools in Grammar school areas compered to those without Grammars.
So yours is absolutely just the politics of envy and the lowest common denominator. Your policy is, in effect, if you can't have everyone getting a better education then no one should get one.
My bias is based on personal experience. I went to both, and I detested the Grammar School experience with avengeance. I despised that each year from aged 14 was split into an A and a B stream and the B stream were entered for CSE exams to keep the O level pass rate numbers up. These people had passed the 11 plus for goodness sake.
From my perspective, irrespective of what your data tells us, it is the one policy which would sway me against a political party, not out of envy but an aversion to selection at 11 (or to please HY, 13).
P.S. I am also an advocate of measuring educational success by means of value added rather than merely A level or GCSE grades
Well I went to a comprehensive and we were also streamed. The difference is that we were streamed into 8 streams and only the top 2 did O levels whilst the other 6 did CSEs or nothing at all. My kids have both been through the Grammar school system and it is miles better than anything I ever experienced.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
I went to a Comprehensive school in a good catchment area in North Worcestershire. All subjects were streamed. Like you, top 2 did O level Universal education cannot work without streaming. It was fantastic. My children also went to an excellent Comprehensive, the Catholic comp in Barry.
I hated the Grammar School I went to aged 14. It didn't help that I had a thick Birmingham accent in gentile Herefordshire, which meant I was regarded by teachers and posh kids alike as some ill-educated urban peasant.
Only the A stream did O levels, the B stream at Grammar School did predominantly CSEs. The secondary school only did CSEs.
The advocates of grammar schools rarely explain why 75% of pupils should, as a matter of policy, receive an inferior education.
In deprived areas like poor seaside towns or ex industrial towns and cities in the North, the Midlands and Wales often 100% of pupils now receive an inferior education in the comprehensives there. Whereas before even areas like Grimsby, Barnsley or Rotherham, West Bromwich and Hastings had a grammar school pre 1965
As I said, advocates on grammar schools rarely explain why, as a matter of policy, 75% of pupils in a given local authority should be provided with an inferior education.
There is another poster on PB, forget the name, who makes a case that the weakest pupils should receive extraordinary provision in specialised settings - now that could make a profound difference.
As I said advocates of comprehensives rarely explain why in poor and deprived areas 100% of pupils should be provided with an inferior education.
(Plus in some selective areas like Trafford and Bucks the high schools too get perfectly good results)
Whichever way you call it, when there is a Grammar School in the area everyone else has a second rate education. Why should two taxpayers paying identical tax in Stratford upon Avon get two different qualities of school/ education for their children on the basis of a two hour exam at aged 11.
On the inequity of the 11 plus alone the Conservatives should be banished from Government forever.
Actually the Sutton Report into Grammar schools nailed that myth. It showed there was no reduction in results for Comprehensive schools in Grammar school areas compered to those without Grammars.
So yours is absolutely just the politics of envy and the lowest common denominator. Your policy is, in effect, if you can't have everyone getting a better education then no one should get one.
My bias is based on personal experience. I went to both, and I detested the Grammar School experience with avengeance. I despised that each year from aged 14 was split into an A and a B stream and the B stream were entered for CSE exams to keep the O level pass rate numbers up. These people had passed the 11 plus for goodness sake.
From my perspective, irrespective of what your data tells us, it is the one policy which would sway me against a political party, not out of envy but an aversion to selection at 11 (or to please HY, 13).
P.S. I am also an advocate of measuring educational success by means of value added rather than merely A level or GCSE grades
Well I went to a comprehensive and we were also streamed. The difference is that we were streamed into 8 streams and only the top 2 did O levels whilst the other 6 did CSEs or nothing at all. My kids have both been through the Grammar school system and it is miles better than anything I ever experienced.
But there is a basic problem comparing your comprehensive experience of a generation ago with a recent grammar experience. Your anecdote about some classes taking no exams at all would be almost unheard of today.
I know there is a fair interest in football on here and does anyone share my amazement that Chelsea's latest signing has been given an 8 year contract and Chelsea intend offering 7 year or more contracts
To me this is incomprehensible when you see how many new club signings flop
The question must be, are Chelsea threatening the future financial viability of their club, especially as they are unlikely to qualify for the Champions league this year ?
This VAT on private schools issue is one where there is unlikely agreement on an internet forum. Lots of passion on both sides of the argument. So one to duck out of I think. I am glad of the policy.
Allegedly the Germans are saying they cannot renovate / refit stored Leopard 2 tanks for Ukraine in under a year.
A few thoughts: 1) This is bullshit. 2) The war started a year ago. 3) Give them some of the Bundeswehr's current tanks.
Excuses, excuses...
The war is coming to a major climax and the Russians are about to add at least 300,000 more troops. Even badly equipped troops in such numbers can make a difference. It is extremely serious and the total contempt the Russians show for the laws of war and complete indifference to their own casualties could still get them some kind of victory.
A few elderly Challenger IIs will not be enough to stem the tide.
If Russia wins, then the war will spread further West, and if the GOP gets back in Washington then NATO could still fall. Its what Putin is counting on. People need to understand the scale of evil in Moscow and the complete corruption of anyone who is influenced by these monsters.
The Russian army is contemptible, but it is also lethal. This emergency is getting worse, not better and the northern tier NATO states are deeply concerned about the continuing failure to get Turkish approval for the NATO expansion. The Ukrainian army has probably lost a third of the casualties of the Russian, but the death toll of Russians is horrendous: maybe over 7,000 in the past two weeks and 120,000 since the war began. Ukraine is also bleeding, and the civilian casualties are growing at a horrendous rate.
We are getting close to the hour of doom, and the Russians must not win, or the peace of the whole world will fall.
Its that serious.
What I find weird is at - at some level - how the Russians seem to like it.
The idea that Comprehensives routinely don't stream or set is a myth that is taking a very long time to die. I know our resident punster knows of examples, but I've personally never come across one. Even my SEN school runs baseline assessments to put kids into one of officially three (in practice four) streams. And moves kids about. There is also group and individual work within the streams for different abilities in particular subjects. Weirdly, the latter is ferociously opposed by Kemi Badenoch, who strongly advocates whole class teaching. A form of in class Comprehensive education.
This VAT on private schools issue is one where there is unlikely agreement on an internet forum. Lots of passion on both sides of the argument. So one to duck out of I think. I am glad of the policy.
Unlike the many, many issues where internet forums are dispassionate and tend towards consensus.
Allegedly the Germans are saying they cannot renovate / refit stored Leopard 2 tanks for Ukraine in under a year.
A few thoughts: 1) This is bullshit. 2) The war started a year ago. 3) Give them some of the Bundeswehr's current tanks.
Excuses, excuses...
The war is coming to a major climax and the Russians are about to add at least 300,000 more troops. Even badly equipped troops in such numbers can make a difference. It is extremely serious and the total contempt the Russians show for the laws of war and complete indifference to their own casualties could still get them some kind of victory.
A few elderly Challenger IIs will not be enough to stem the tide.
If Russia wins, then the war will spread further West, and if the GOP gets back in Washington then NATO could still fall. Its what Putin is counting on. People need to understand the scale of evil in Moscow and the complete corruption of anyone who is influenced by these monsters.
The Russian army is contemptible, but it is also lethal. This emergency is getting worse, not better and the northern tier NATO states are deeply concerned about the continuing failure to get Turkish approval for the NATO expansion. The Ukrainian army has probably lost a third of the casualties of the Russian, but the death toll of Russians is horrendous: maybe over 7,000 in the past two weeks and 120,000 since the war began. Ukraine is also bleeding, and the civilian casualties are growing at a horrendous rate.
We are getting close to the hour of doom, and the Russians must not win, or the peace of the whole world will fall.
Its that serious.
Agree. It's existential. The failure of countries like Germany to step up to the plate must be making many Americans wonder why they are spending billions on supporting a far away country like Ukraine.
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right.
I think implicit in CR's proposals - as reflected in the increase by 30% in education budgets - is that it would involve the recruitment of a lot more teachers and individual teachers not being at school for the whole 12 or 14 hours that would be needed (the 10 hours of 'open' time plus time either side to make it actually work.
What the proposal misses is that many schools already operate this way unofficially anyway by way of necessity. They just don't get the money, credit or support for it.
It's an odd argument since at my private nursery, for example - which does operate these hours - there are a mix of staff working different hours.
Some choose to work 8am to 6pm but many clock off at 3pm and are replaced by those who work the later shift to conclude my daughter's care in "the great lates".
Which is a fair point. However. We are having severe difficulty staffing from 8:30 to 4:30. Which are the contracted hours. Not 9-3. Nursery is defined as childcare. So it is summat different.
One thing putting VAT on private schools will do is reduce the number of teachers and education staff in circulation.
They will be made redundant as and when the smaller more marginal schools close, and state schools won't be able to take them on.
They will probably get another job and do some private tutoring on top at top whack.
Why won’t state schools take them on? We’d bite off someone’s hand if they could offer us some decent maths teachers at the moment. Plus it would save us cash on supply (when we can get it).
This VAT on private schools issue is one where there is unlikely agreement on an internet forum. Lots of passion on both sides of the argument. So one to duck out of I think. I am glad of the policy.
Unlike the many, many issues where internet forums are dispassionate and tend towards consensus.
True, but there is something about private schools that really winds certain people up.
In 1829 (same year Andy Jackson entered the White House) the Anti-Masons of Vermont, elected their candidate to Congress . . . but not until the EIGHTH separate ballot, or "trial" in contemporary usage.
Note that Vermont law at that time, required a winning candidate elected to US H1ouse to receive a majority of all votes cast. IF no candidate got 50% plus one vote, then a new election was called.
In VT05 in 1828, first election was on September 2, 1828; the 8th was November 2, 1829.
At that time, members of US House elected in late 1828, did not begin their terms in office until December 1829, so the member from 5th of Vermont didn't miss anything (assuming they didn't get stuck in a snow drift on their way to DC).
Yes. They’ve discovered the secret to new world use of old world varieties: find an obscure grape that suits your terroir and make of your own. Tannât isn’t even the main grape of Gascony, that’s Malbec.
Allegedly the Germans are saying they cannot renovate / refit stored Leopard 2 tanks for Ukraine in under a year.
A few thoughts: 1) This is bullshit. 2) The war started a year ago. 3) Give them some of the Bundeswehr's current tanks.
Excuses, excuses...
The war is coming to a major climax and the Russians are about to add at least 300,000 more troops. Even badly equipped troops in such numbers can make a difference. It is extremely serious and the total contempt the Russians show for the laws of war and complete indifference to their own casualties could still get them some kind of victory.
A few elderly Challenger IIs will not be enough to stem the tide.
If Russia wins, then the war will spread further West, and if the GOP gets back in Washington then NATO could still fall. Its what Putin is counting on. People need to understand the scale of evil in Moscow and the complete corruption of anyone who is influenced by these monsters.
The Russian army is contemptible, but it is also lethal. This emergency is getting worse, not better and the northern tier NATO states are deeply concerned about the continuing failure to get Turkish approval for the NATO expansion. The Ukrainian army has probably lost a third of the casualties of the Russian, but the death toll of Russians is horrendous: maybe over 7,000 in the past two weeks and 120,000 since the war began. Ukraine is also bleeding, and the civilian casualties are growing at a horrendous rate.
We are getting close to the hour of doom, and the Russians must not win, or the peace of the whole world will fall.
Its that serious.
How bleak. This is the most worried you have appeared on here in a very long time.
Allegedly the Germans are saying they cannot renovate / refit stored Leopard 2 tanks for Ukraine in under a year.
A few thoughts: 1) This is bullshit. 2) The war started a year ago. 3) Give them some of the Bundeswehr's current tanks.
Excuses, excuses...
The war is coming to a major climax and the Russians are about to add at least 300,000 more troops. Even badly equipped troops in such numbers can make a difference. It is extremely serious and the total contempt the Russians show for the laws of war and complete indifference to their own casualties could still get them some kind of victory.
A few elderly Challenger IIs will not be enough to stem the tide.
If Russia wins, then the war will spread further West, and if the GOP gets back in Washington then NATO could still fall. Its what Putin is counting on. People need to understand the scale of evil in Moscow and the complete corruption of anyone who is influenced by these monsters.
The Russian army is contemptible, but it is also lethal. This emergency is getting worse, not better and the northern tier NATO states are deeply concerned about the continuing failure to get Turkish approval for the NATO expansion. The Ukrainian army has probably lost a third of the casualties of the Russian, but the death toll of Russians is horrendous: maybe over 7,000 in the past two weeks and 120,000 since the war began. Ukraine is also bleeding, and the civilian casualties are growing at a horrendous rate.
We are getting close to the hour of doom, and the Russians must not win, or the peace of the whole world will fall.
Its that serious.
What I find weird is at - at some level - how the Russians seem to like it.
Folk memories of Stalingrad, siege of Leningrad, Crimea, etc. Must be in the psyche or something.
Sadly the lesson of Syria, Afghanistan, and the survival of regimes like Iran, Myanmar, N Korea, reinforces the lesson that absolute, unrelenting brutality, is the key to success.
Allegedly the Germans are saying they cannot renovate / refit stored Leopard 2 tanks for Ukraine in under a year.
A few thoughts: 1) This is bullshit. 2) The war started a year ago. 3) Give them some of the Bundeswehr's current tanks.
Excuses, excuses...
This is an interesting thread on how widespread certain erroneous beliefs are in Germany. Just a couple of days ago, the main news channel claimed that the Fukushima accident killed 18,500 people, apparently attributing the death toll from the tsunami to the nuclear accident.
The problem is that it seems that due to decades of the post of German Defense Minister being the safe space for morons, the fish has rotted from the head.
I can solve the problem of Leopard availability.
If the tanks aren’t available, in running condition in 1 month then all the official cars for politicians and civil servants in the defense ministry will be sent instead. With no replacements.
Allegedly the Germans are saying they cannot renovate / refit stored Leopard 2 tanks for Ukraine in under a year.
A few thoughts: 1) This is bullshit. 2) The war started a year ago. 3) Give them some of the Bundeswehr's current tanks.
Excuses, excuses...
The war is coming to a major climax and the Russians are about to add at least 300,000 more troops. Even badly equipped troops in such numbers can make a difference. It is extremely serious and the total contempt the Russians show for the laws of war and complete indifference to their own casualties could still get them some kind of victory.
A few elderly Challenger IIs will not be enough to stem the tide.
If Russia wins, then the war will spread further West, and if the GOP gets back in Washington then NATO could still fall. Its what Putin is counting on. People need to understand the scale of evil in Moscow and the complete corruption of anyone who is influenced by these monsters.
The Russian army is contemptible, but it is also lethal. This emergency is getting worse, not better and the northern tier NATO states are deeply concerned about the continuing failure to get Turkish approval for the NATO expansion. The Ukrainian army has probably lost a third of the casualties of the Russian, but the death toll of Russians is horrendous: maybe over 7,000 in the past two weeks and 120,000 since the war began. Ukraine is also bleeding, and the civilian casualties are growing at a horrendous rate.
We are getting close to the hour of doom, and the Russians must not win, or the peace of the whole world will fall.
Its that serious.
How bleak. This is the most worried you have appeared on here in a very long time.
Indeed. It does feel like there is a possibility of people thinking it is hopeless if the Russians cannot be soundly defeated in the next year, when the truth does seem to be that they can absord horrendous losses and keep going.
I can't be bothered to comment on the private schools/grammar schools etc. debates again.
Though I would just point out that virtually nobody on PB is remotely interested in non-A-level further education and training, which is pursued by around 60% of each cohort. Obviously the lack of interest or comment reflects the PB cohort and their educational and economic status. But anybody looking for a real scandal would look at the systematic under-funding of vocational provision (and teachers' salaries) in further education colleges over the last 10 years (work-based apprenticeships are not so bad, though the quality of these range from brilliant to woeful).
So, how about discussing, if spending can't be increased, re-directing some of the A-level funding to left-behind students and teachers? Sod private schools and grammar schools - what about the rest?
Yes. They’ve discovered the secret to new world use of old world varieties: find an obscure grape that suits your terroir and make of your own. Tannât isn’t even the main grape of Gascony, that’s Malbec.
England hadn’t yet woken up to the fact our superstar grape is Pinot Meunier, but it’ll come.
EDIT: in case any of you think I’m being twatty putting accents on the grape varieties, that’s just iPhone autocomplete.
Not questioning your knowledge, but surely England as a whole cannot have a single terroir? Surely different climate, soil types, height etc must play a part?
If these posho schools can’t get by without an outrageous and immoral bung from the taxpayer, then let them sink
Starmer and Labour are right on this
NB: I went to a bog standard comp
I wonder if @DerekMcDecadent had a similar experience, maybe in Scotland?
I’ll have you know I spent a delightful few years at a minor public school in Dorset. Delicious decadence. @Leon couldn’t be more wrong here.
Sherborne? I had you down as a Fettes man
Canford. The outrageous and immoral taxpayer bung was nothing compared to the outrageous and immoral bung Saddam Hussein gave us in the form of stolen Assyrian friezes we found on the wall of our tuck shop. Bought us a new theatre, they did.
It is odd, especially given that the rail strikers are the unpopular ones. On the other hand, rail strikes probably do a lot to hurt the real economy. That gives rail unions power which they are happy to use ruthlessly.
Acknowledging that reality is the smart thing for the government to do, but they will look weak after the preceding rhetoric.
Next stop: the headteachers and more militant teachers union... Results for their strike ballots tomorrow.
Allegedly the Germans are saying they cannot renovate / refit stored Leopard 2 tanks for Ukraine in under a year.
A few thoughts: 1) This is bullshit. 2) The war started a year ago. 3) Give them some of the Bundeswehr's current tanks.
Excuses, excuses...
The war is coming to a major climax and the Russians are about to add at least 300,000 more troops. Even badly equipped troops in such numbers can make a difference. It is extremely serious and the total contempt the Russians show for the laws of war and complete indifference to their own casualties could still get them some kind of victory.
A few elderly Challenger IIs will not be enough to stem the tide.
If Russia wins, then the war will spread further West, and if the GOP gets back in Washington then NATO could still fall. Its what Putin is counting on. People need to understand the scale of evil in Moscow and the complete corruption of anyone who is influenced by these monsters.
The Russian army is contemptible, but it is also lethal. This emergency is getting worse, not better and the northern tier NATO states are deeply concerned about the continuing failure to get Turkish approval for the NATO expansion. The Ukrainian army has probably lost a third of the casualties of the Russian, but the death toll of Russians is horrendous: maybe over 7,000 in the past two weeks and 120,000 since the war began. Ukraine is also bleeding, and the civilian casualties are growing at a horrendous rate.
We are getting close to the hour of doom, and the Russians must not win, or the peace of the whole world will fall.
Its that serious.
How bleak. This is the most worried you have appeared on here in a very long time.
Another gloomy take:
Putin's Spring 2023 offensive will likely come from all directions - North, East, and South, a repeat of Feb 2022 invasion but with lessons learned & hundreds of thousands more troops. It will be bloody. Time is running out for the West to act decisively. Too little too late.
The advocates of grammar schools rarely explain why 75% of pupils should, as a matter of policy, receive an inferior education.
In deprived areas like poor seaside towns or ex industrial towns and cities in the North, the Midlands and Wales often 100% of pupils now receive an inferior education in the comprehensives there. Whereas before even areas like Grimsby, Barnsley or Rotherham, West Bromwich and Hastings had a grammar school pre 1965
As I said, advocates on grammar schools rarely explain why, as a matter of policy, 75% of pupils in a given local authority should be provided with an inferior education.
There is another poster on PB, forget the name, who makes a case that the weakest pupils should receive extraordinary provision in specialised settings - now that could make a profound difference.
As I said advocates of comprehensives rarely explain why in poor and deprived areas 100% of pupils should be provided with an inferior education.
(Plus in some selective areas like Trafford and Bucks the high schools too get perfectly good results)
Whichever way you call it, when there is a Grammar School in the area everyone else has a second rate education. Why should two taxpayers paying identical tax in Stratford upon Avon get two different qualities of school/ education for their children on the basis of a two hour exam at aged 11.
On the inequity of the 11 plus alone the Conservatives should be banished from Government forever.
Actually the Sutton Report into Grammar schools nailed that myth. It showed there was no reduction in results for Comprehensive schools in Grammar school areas compered to those without Grammars.
So yours is absolutely just the politics of envy and the lowest common denominator. Your policy is, in effect, if you can't have everyone getting a better education then no one should get one.
My bias is based on personal experience. I went to both, and I detested the Grammar School experience with avengeance. I despised that each year from aged 14 was split into an A and a B stream and the B stream were entered for CSE exams to keep the O level pass rate numbers up. These people had passed the 11 plus for goodness sake.
From my perspective, irrespective of what your data tells us, it is the one policy which would sway me against a political party, not out of envy but an aversion to selection at 11 (or to please HY, 13).
P.S. I am also an advocate of measuring educational success by means of value added rather than merely A level or GCSE grades
Well I went to a comprehensive and we were also streamed. The difference is that we were streamed into 8 streams and only the top 2 did O levels whilst the other 6 did CSEs or nothing at all. My kids have both been through the Grammar school system and it is miles better than anything I ever experienced.
In some respects, schools in general are miles better than they were. I had a thoroughly miserable time at grammar school despite being academically able. My son attended the same school and has had a wonderful time there. The ethos of the school has changed completely since my day and it is now a much more welcoming environment.
Yes. They’ve discovered the secret to new world use of old world varieties: find an obscure grape that suits your terroir and make of your own. Tannât isn’t even the main grape of Gascony, that’s Malbec.
Not in same league as Weed, but still well-deserving of mention, honorable or otherwise
"Boozer was named after his father, who first made the name Young Boozer famous as a football star for the University of Alabama. Young Jacob Boozer, Jr. is a member of the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame and the Alabama Business Hall of Fame. His father was named after his father, the mayor of Samson, Alabama from 1916 to 1919"
And HIS father, was named after the man who first brought the boll weevil to 'Bama?
I can't be bothered to comment on the private schools/grammar schools etc. debates again.
Though I would just point out that virtually nobody on PB is remotely interested in non-A-level further education and training, which is pursued by around 60% of each cohort. Obviously the lack of interest or comment reflects the PB cohort and their educational and economic status. But anybody looking for a real scandal would look at the systematic under-funding of vocational provision (and teachers' salaries) in further education colleges over the last 10 years (work-based apprenticeships are not so bad, though the quality of these range from brilliant to woeful).
So, how about discussing, if spending can't be increased, re-directing some of the A-level funding to left-behind students and teachers? Sod private schools and grammar schools - what about the rest?
There's been an almost total disappearance of self-funded "learning for fun" for adults too. Night School of days gone by. For those in work with ambition to "improve" themselves.
Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.
But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.
I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.
Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
Not sure where grammar schools come into this. They are state run and, like all state schools, therefore VAT exempt.
Private schools do not cost the state money, they save it.
Between £5k and £7k per pupil. This is significantly more than the waived VAT would be, roughly twice as much. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools shows a basic innumeracy.
I accept that there are social costs in that we end up with a relatively small and privileged elite who get a proper education in circumstances conducive to learning which gives them an unfair advantage in life. I agree that the ideal would be that state schools were so good than no one was willing to pay . But they aren't and there is absolutely no focus on making them so. To do that you would need to take on the teachers unions and no one is brave enough to do that.
Two responses to that post:
1. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools does not show 'a basic innumeracy'... unless, and this is important, you assume that more than 30% of private pupils will no longer attend private school but will switch to state schools. Now you may think that's the case, Labour clearly don't (nor do I). But in any event there is no innumeracy on Labour's part.
2. I'm interested in your view that it is the teachers unions, not average spend per pupil (£6.5k state, £15k private), that prevents state schools being as good as private ones. Do you have any evidence for that?
When comparing the spend per pupil, it is worth remembering that in the purely academic spend, the difference is a lot lower.
Fair enough but just to be clear, what do you consider as non-academic* spend?
(*That'll be non-academic spend currently benefiting from the education VAT exemption presumably.)
Boarding costs, better sports facilities, extra curricula activities etc
Classifying some stuff would get into an existential debate over the nature of education. But….
At one daughters school, the bottom of the swimming pool can be raised and lowered. I think we can all agree that is not academically vital.
This VAT on private schools issue is one where there is unlikely agreement on an internet forum. Lots of passion on both sides of the argument. So one to duck out of I think. I am glad of the policy.
Unlike the many, many issues where internet forums are dispassionate and tend towards consensus.
True, but there is something about private schools that really winds certain people up.
People take it very personally due to their own history and choices. See also Inheritance Tax.
Ultimately, tax is about raising a sufficient amount to fund what needs funding spread across a variety of sources. There are few "nice" taxes, aside perhaps from some sin taxes which, if they are working, raise very little. So you're left creaming off a little from everything. But people can take it terribly personally.
There seems to be a reasonable amount of evidence for this fertility shift, worldwide. Even without biological triggers world population should start shrinking by mid century. The metaverse and wider virtualisation of human relations may accelerate that timescale.
Catastrophists tend to assume the human race will disappear in a huge nuclear fireball, or a runaway climate change furnace, antibiotic-resistant superbug or Terminator-2 style robot Armageddon, but what if the empire of the humans goes the way of the Holy Roman Empire or indeed the British Empire, not with a bang but a whimper?
The two prime candidates for this demise are fertility and a slow replacement of human genetic replication by digital memetic replication.
Thing is nobody will mind because it won’t hurt.
I've sometimes wondered if it's just some innate 'f*ck me, there's a lot of us in this cramped space' epigenetics going in. I assume not, but it's an idea I like to play with.
I'm 31 next month and surprisingly few of my friends and acquaintances have children. I think the main reasons are cost of living and moving away from "home" and thus losing the option of grandparental childcare (related to cost of living point).
@rcs1000 brings it up a lot, but I really think the French option of gifting your personal allowance to your partner would really help.
We tried that Labour tried to rebrand it the "married man's tax allowance".
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right. Btw. Have you eaten a school meal lately? Adding breakfast and tea is probably against the Geneva Convention.
If you look at the data from breakfast clubs it’s one of the most impactful ways of improving educational outcomes. Kids with good nutrition concentrate better and learn more
I can't be bothered to comment on the private schools/grammar schools etc. debates again.
Though I would just point out that virtually nobody on PB is remotely interested in non-A-level further education and training, which is pursued by around 60% of each cohort. Obviously the lack of interest or comment reflects the PB cohort and their educational and economic status. But anybody looking for a real scandal would look at the systematic under-funding of vocational provision (and teachers' salaries) in further education colleges over the last 10 years (work-based apprenticeships are not so bad, though the quality of these range from brilliant to woeful).
So, how about discussing, if spending can't be increased, re-directing some of the A-level funding to left-behind students and teachers? Sod private schools and grammar schools - what about the rest?
Indeed. Post 16 education is a scandal we turn a blind eye to.
When funding is based on certification, certificates are issued irrespective of completion criteria, and on a industrial scale. My wife was head of key skills. She would only allow certification when a corresponding file was available (existed) she was every year under pressure to put more names through. When she left the completion rate improved from just shy of 90% to 100%. I was asked to sign off candidates who had not completed at a technical college in the West Midlands. I declined, so the candidates, days before expiry, were reallocated to more amenable assessors.
PB experts (well one in particular) often suggest university education should once again be confined to the elite 5% and the rest should be educated by "modern" (joke) apprenticeships.
This VAT on private schools issue is one where there is unlikely agreement on an internet forum. Lots of passion on both sides of the argument. So one to duck out of I think. I am glad of the policy.
Unlike the many, many issues where internet forums are dispassionate and tend towards consensus.
True, but there is something about private schools that really winds certain people up.
People take it very personally due to their own history and choices. See also Inheritance Tax.
Ultimately, tax is about raising a sufficient amount to fund what needs funding spread across a variety of sources. There are few "nice" taxes, aside perhaps from some sin taxes which, if they are working, raise very little. So you're left creaming off a little from everything. But people can take it terribly personally.
Just a reminder this is not about a 'sin tax' on private education, it's about removing a tax exemption.
Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.
But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.
I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.
Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
Not sure where grammar schools come into this. They are state run and, like all state schools, therefore VAT exempt.
Private schools do not cost the state money, they save it.
Between £5k and £7k per pupil. This is significantly more than the waived VAT would be, roughly twice as much. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools shows a basic innumeracy.
I accept that there are social costs in that we end up with a relatively small and privileged elite who get a proper education in circumstances conducive to learning which gives them an unfair advantage in life. I agree that the ideal would be that state schools were so good than no one was willing to pay . But they aren't and there is absolutely no focus on making them so. To do that you would need to take on the teachers unions and no one is brave enough to do that.
Two responses to that post:
1. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools does not show 'a basic innumeracy'... unless, and this is important, you assume that more than 30% of private pupils will no longer attend private school but will switch to state schools. Now you may think that's the case, Labour clearly don't (nor do I). But in any event there is no innumeracy on Labour's part.
2. I'm interested in your view that it is the teachers unions, not average spend per pupil (£6.5k state, £15k private), that prevents state schools being as good as private ones. Do you have any evidence for that?
When comparing the spend per pupil, it is worth remembering that in the purely academic spend, the difference is a lot lower.
Fair enough but just to be clear, what do you consider as non-academic* spend?
(*That'll be non-academic spend currently benefiting from the education VAT exemption presumably.)
Boarding costs, better sports facilities, extra curricula activities etc
Classifying some stuff would get into an existential debate over the nature of education. But….
At one daughters school, the bottom of the swimming pool can be raised and lowered. I think we can all agree that is not academically vital.
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right. Btw. Have you eaten a school meal lately? Adding breakfast and tea is probably against the Geneva Convention.
If you look at the data from breakfast clubs it’s one of the most impactful ways of improving educational outcomes. Kids with good nutrition concentrate better and learn more
The deal has to be that the parents go out to work tho. Here, in my part of Scotland, we have non-working parents on benefits, who simply park their kids in the free nursery and head to the nearest caff for a bacon roll. Meanwhile other parents working shifts outside the 9-4 span have a nightmare trying to find childcare provision.
It is a little frustrating that every time we discuss education on here it becomes about grammar schools and private schools. Grammars aren't coming back. And the vast majority can't afford private. So how will we improve the education of 80%?
What makes you think Labour's actually interested in that?
Seriously, what makes you think they are not? Do you think there is some secret cynical plan to keep education down?
I am sure they really are interested in improving education for the 80%, as to be fair, are the Tories. The issue is that neither have much idea how to effect the improvement.
Sadly, debating education on here is almost as pointless as debating Brexit.
I posted a summary of the entirely reasonable and interesting TEC report on education here the other week (one endorsed by several previous PMs, lauded by both parties, and cheered by all previous education secretaries).
I got a lot of ranting and ad-hominem for my trouble.
I think education pushes some visceral class buttons for the British, and makes them hysterical.
I did see that that set ydoethur off on one for some reason; it all seemed sensible to me but I am not an educator.
Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.
But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.
I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.
Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
Not sure where grammar schools come into this. They are state run and, like all state schools, therefore VAT exempt.
Private schools do not cost the state money, they save it.
Between £5k and £7k per pupil. This is significantly more than the waived VAT would be, roughly twice as much. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools shows a basic innumeracy.
I accept that there are social costs in that we end up with a relatively small and privileged elite who get a proper education in circumstances conducive to learning which gives them an unfair advantage in life. I agree that the ideal would be that state schools were so good than no one was willing to pay . But they aren't and there is absolutely no focus on making them so. To do that you would need to take on the teachers unions and no one is brave enough to do that.
Two responses to that post:
1. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools does not show 'a basic innumeracy'... unless, and this is important, you assume that more than 30% of private pupils will no longer attend private school but will switch to state schools. Now you may think that's the case, Labour clearly don't (nor do I). But in any event there is no innumeracy on Labour's part.
2. I'm interested in your view that it is the teachers unions, not average spend per pupil (£6.5k state, £15k private), that prevents state schools being as good as private ones. Do you have any evidence for that?
When comparing the spend per pupil, it is worth remembering that in the purely academic spend, the difference is a lot lower.
Fair enough but just to be clear, what do you consider as non-academic* spend?
(*That'll be non-academic spend currently benefiting from the education VAT exemption presumably.)
Boarding costs, better sports facilities, extra curricula activities etc
Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.
But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.
I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.
Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
Not sure where grammar schools come into this. They are state run and, like all state schools, therefore VAT exempt.
Private schools do not cost the state money, they save it.
Between £5k and £7k per pupil. This is significantly more than the waived VAT would be, roughly twice as much. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools shows a basic innumeracy.
I accept that there are social costs in that we end up with a relatively small and privileged elite who get a proper education in circumstances conducive to learning which gives them an unfair advantage in life. I agree that the ideal would be that state schools were so good than no one was willing to pay . But they aren't and there is absolutely no focus on making them so. To do that you would need to take on the teachers unions and no one is brave enough to do that.
Two responses to that post:
1. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools does not show 'a basic innumeracy'... unless, and this is important, you assume that more than 30% of private pupils will no longer attend private school but will switch to state schools. Now you may think that's the case, Labour clearly don't (nor do I). But in any event there is no innumeracy on Labour's part.
2. I'm interested in your view that it is the teachers unions, not average spend per pupil (£6.5k state, £15k private), that prevents state schools being as good as private ones. Do you have any evidence for that?
When comparing the spend per pupil, it is worth remembering that in the purely academic spend, the difference is a lot lower.
Fair enough but just to be clear, what do you consider as non-academic* spend?
(*That'll be non-academic spend currently benefiting from the education VAT exemption presumably.)
Boarding costs, better sports facilities, extra curricula activities etc
Classifying some stuff would get into an existential debate over the nature of education. But….
At one daughters school, the bottom of the swimming pool can be raised and lowered. I think we can all agree that is not academically vital.
Yet still VAT exempt
It depends, in a different life I used to work in disability children's care and the pool we used to take the kids to had this functionality and it was at a local private school that had a facility sharing deal with the council. Without being able to raise the floor of the pool and make it the same shallow depth for the whole pool those kids would have had nowhere to swim as the other pools in the area were standard with variable depth.
To my mind the private school spending money on it was worthwhile as it allowed disabled kids the chance to swim safely and it should absolutely be VAT exempt.
I'm 31 next month and surprisingly few of my friends and acquaintances have children. I think the main reasons are cost of living and moving away from "home" and thus losing the option of grandparental childcare (related to cost of living point).
@rcs1000 brings it up a lot, but I really think the French option of gifting your personal allowance to your partner would really help.
We tried that Labour tried to rebrand it the "married man's tax allowance".
I'm 31 next month and surprisingly few of my friends and acquaintances have children. I think the main reasons are cost of living and moving away from "home" and thus losing the option of grandparental childcare (related to cost of living point).
@rcs1000 brings it up a lot, but I really think the French option of gifting your personal allowance to your partner would really help.
We tried that Labour tried to rebrand it the "married man's tax allowance".
Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.
But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.
I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.
Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
Not sure where grammar schools come into this. They are state run and, like all state schools, therefore VAT exempt.
Private schools do not cost the state money, they save it.
Between £5k and £7k per pupil. This is significantly more than the waived VAT would be, roughly twice as much. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools shows a basic innumeracy.
I accept that there are social costs in that we end up with a relatively small and privileged elite who get a proper education in circumstances conducive to learning which gives them an unfair advantage in life. I agree that the ideal would be that state schools were so good than no one was willing to pay . But they aren't and there is absolutely no focus on making them so. To do that you would need to take on the teachers unions and no one is brave enough to do that.
Two responses to that post:
1. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools does not show 'a basic innumeracy'... unless, and this is important, you assume that more than 30% of private pupils will no longer attend private school but will switch to state schools. Now you may think that's the case, Labour clearly don't (nor do I). But in any event there is no innumeracy on Labour's part.
2. I'm interested in your view that it is the teachers unions, not average spend per pupil (£6.5k state, £15k private), that prevents state schools being as good as private ones. Do you have any evidence for that?
When comparing the spend per pupil, it is worth remembering that in the purely academic spend, the difference is a lot lower.
Fair enough but just to be clear, what do you consider as non-academic* spend?
(*That'll be non-academic spend currently benefiting from the education VAT exemption presumably.)
Boarding costs, better sports facilities, extra curricula activities etc
Classifying some stuff would get into an existential debate over the nature of education. But….
At one daughters school, the bottom of the swimming pool can be raised and lowered. I think we can all agree that is not academically vital.
Yet still VAT exempt
It depends, in a different life I used to work in disability children's care and the pool we used to take the kids to had this functionality and it was at a local private school that had a facility sharing deal with the council. Without being able to raise the floor of the pool and make it the same shallow depth for the whole pool those kids would have had nowhere to swim as the other pools in the area were standard with variable depth.
To my mind the private school spending money on it was worthwhile as it allowed disabled kids the chance to swim safely and it should absolutely be VAT exempt.
The school I was talking about uses the pool for 3 other state schools. They also provide time from their sports coaches for teaching swimming.
Apparently the kids find the bottom of he floor of the pool moving awesome and love seeing it in action.
A truly progressive (and, by progressive, I mean the UK making progress as a country overall; nothing more) education policy would involve extending the school day so it covered 8am-6pm each day. This would allow:
(1) One or both parents to work full-time, raising their family income & mildly boosting the economy overall (2) Improve gender equality, as at the moment it's largely women who are forced to take part-time work to pick up their kids at 3pm, thus lowering their salaries and creating the perception of a structural gender gap (3) Allow breakfast, lunch and (afternoon/ high) tea to be provided to all children (4) Allow structured non-academic education activity to take place as part of the core curriculum, including design & technology, outdoor pursuits, arts, music, debating, and drama.
However, to do this would probably involve increasing the state education budget by c.30% and taking on the teaching unions (as @DavidL says) to adjust working patterns to shift.
I have regularly advocated for less spending on pensions and the NHS and more investment in education instead.
This is where I would spend it, and I'd introduce vouchers on top - so ordinary parents could exercise choice.
I agree with this to an extent. But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy. Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right. Btw. Have you eaten a school meal lately? Adding breakfast and tea is probably against the Geneva Convention.
If you look at the data from breakfast clubs it’s one of the most impactful ways of improving educational outcomes. Kids with good nutrition concentrate better and learn more
The deal has to be that the parents go out to work tho. Here, in my part of Scotland, we have non-working parents on benefits, who simply park their kids in the free nursery and head to the nearest caff for a bacon roll. Meanwhile other parents working shifts outside the 9-4 span have a nightmare trying to find childcare provision.
Then include a reform to the benefits system so that we don’t literally and exactly penalise people for working. By removing benefits nearly as fast as they earn money.
Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.
But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.
I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.
Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
Not sure where grammar schools come into this. They are state run and, like all state schools, therefore VAT exempt.
Private schools do not cost the state money, they save it.
Between £5k and £7k per pupil. This is significantly more than the waived VAT would be, roughly twice as much. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools shows a basic innumeracy.
I accept that there are social costs in that we end up with a relatively small and privileged elite who get a proper education in circumstances conducive to learning which gives them an unfair advantage in life. I agree that the ideal would be that state schools were so good than no one was willing to pay . But they aren't and there is absolutely no focus on making them so. To do that you would need to take on the teachers unions and no one is brave enough to do that.
Two responses to that post:
1. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools does not show 'a basic innumeracy'... unless, and this is important, you assume that more than 30% of private pupils will no longer attend private school but will switch to state schools. Now you may think that's the case, Labour clearly don't (nor do I). But in any event there is no innumeracy on Labour's part.
2. I'm interested in your view that it is the teachers unions, not average spend per pupil (£6.5k state, £15k private), that prevents state schools being as good as private ones. Do you have any evidence for that?
When comparing the spend per pupil, it is worth remembering that in the purely academic spend, the difference is a lot lower.
Fair enough but just to be clear, what do you consider as non-academic* spend?
(*That'll be non-academic spend currently benefiting from the education VAT exemption presumably.)
Boarding costs, better sports facilities, extra curricula activities etc
Classifying some stuff would get into an existential debate over the nature of education. But….
At one daughters school, the bottom of the swimming pool can be raised and lowered. I think we can all agree that is not academically vital.
Yet still VAT exempt
It depends, in a different life I used to work in disability children's care and the pool we used to take the kids to had this functionality and it was at a local private school that had a facility sharing deal with the council. Without being able to raise the floor of the pool and make it the same shallow depth for the whole pool those kids would have had nowhere to swim as the other pools in the area were standard with variable depth.
To my mind the private school spending money on it was worthwhile as it allowed disabled kids the chance to swim safely and it should absolutely be VAT exempt.
The school I was talking about uses the pool for 3 other state schools. They also provide time from their sports coaches for teaching swimming.
Apparently the kids find the bottom of he floor of the pool moving awesome and love seeing it in action.
I’m surprised elfin safety regulations permit that
Support vs oppose for groups “going on strike over pay” • Net support Nurses 68-28% Paramedics 66-29% Teachers 50-44% Royal Mail staff 47-45% • Net oppose Border control staff 40-46% Train drivers and workers 40-51% Civil servants 36-52%
Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.
But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.
I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.
Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
Not sure where grammar schools come into this. They are state run and, like all state schools, therefore VAT exempt.
Private schools do not cost the state money, they save it.
Between £5k and £7k per pupil. This is significantly more than the waived VAT would be, roughly twice as much. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools shows a basic innumeracy.
I accept that there are social costs in that we end up with a relatively small and privileged elite who get a proper education in circumstances conducive to learning which gives them an unfair advantage in life. I agree that the ideal would be that state schools were so good than no one was willing to pay . But they aren't and there is absolutely no focus on making them so. To do that you would need to take on the teachers unions and no one is brave enough to do that.
Two responses to that post:
1. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools does not show 'a basic innumeracy'... unless, and this is important, you assume that more than 30% of private pupils will no longer attend private school but will switch to state schools. Now you may think that's the case, Labour clearly don't (nor do I). But in any event there is no innumeracy on Labour's part.
2. I'm interested in your view that it is the teachers unions, not average spend per pupil (£6.5k state, £15k private), that prevents state schools being as good as private ones. Do you have any evidence for that?
When comparing the spend per pupil, it is worth remembering that in the purely academic spend, the difference is a lot lower.
Fair enough but just to be clear, what do you consider as non-academic* spend?
(*That'll be non-academic spend currently benefiting from the education VAT exemption presumably.)
Boarding costs, better sports facilities, extra curricula activities etc
Classifying some stuff would get into an existential debate over the nature of education. But….
At one daughters school, the bottom of the swimming pool can be raised and lowered. I think we can all agree that is not academically vital.
Yet still VAT exempt
It depends, in a different life I used to work in disability children's care and the pool we used to take the kids to had this functionality and it was at a local private school that had a facility sharing deal with the council. Without being able to raise the floor of the pool and make it the same shallow depth for the whole pool those kids would have had nowhere to swim as the other pools in the area were standard with variable depth.
To my mind the private school spending money on it was worthwhile as it allowed disabled kids the chance to swim safely and it should absolutely be VAT exempt.
Yes, yes, of course. But equipment for disability is VAT exempt anyway so the school should never have needed to pay VAT on it regardless.
I mean we're arguing around the edges here. My initial point of contention with DavidL was that his assumption that removing the VAT exemption on school fees would cost the Exchequer is flawed. I stand by that.
Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.
But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.
I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.
Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
Not sure where grammar schools come into this. They are state run and, like all state schools, therefore VAT exempt.
Private schools do not cost the state money, they save it.
Between £5k and £7k per pupil. This is significantly more than the waived VAT would be, roughly twice as much. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools shows a basic innumeracy.
I accept that there are social costs in that we end up with a relatively small and privileged elite who get a proper education in circumstances conducive to learning which gives them an unfair advantage in life. I agree that the ideal would be that state schools were so good than no one was willing to pay . But they aren't and there is absolutely no focus on making them so. To do that you would need to take on the teachers unions and no one is brave enough to do that.
Two responses to that post:
1. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools does not show 'a basic innumeracy'... unless, and this is important, you assume that more than 30% of private pupils will no longer attend private school but will switch to state schools. Now you may think that's the case, Labour clearly don't (nor do I). But in any event there is no innumeracy on Labour's part.
2. I'm interested in your view that it is the teachers unions, not average spend per pupil (£6.5k state, £15k private), that prevents state schools being as good as private ones. Do you have any evidence for that?
When comparing the spend per pupil, it is worth remembering that in the purely academic spend, the difference is a lot lower.
Fair enough but just to be clear, what do you consider as non-academic* spend?
(*That'll be non-academic spend currently benefiting from the education VAT exemption presumably.)
Boarding costs, better sports facilities, extra curricula activities etc
Classifying some stuff would get into an existential debate over the nature of education. But….
At one daughters school, the bottom of the swimming pool can be raised and lowered. I think we can all agree that is not academically vital.
Yet still VAT exempt
It depends, in a different life I used to work in disability children's care and the pool we used to take the kids to had this functionality and it was at a local private school that had a facility sharing deal with the council. Without being able to raise the floor of the pool and make it the same shallow depth for the whole pool those kids would have had nowhere to swim as the other pools in the area were standard with variable depth.
To my mind the private school spending money on it was worthwhile as it allowed disabled kids the chance to swim safely and it should absolutely be VAT exempt.
The school I was talking about uses the pool for 3 other state schools. They also provide time from their sports coaches for teaching swimming.
Apparently the kids find the bottom of he floor of the pool moving awesome and love seeing it in action.
I’m surprised elfin safety regulations permit that
Support vs oppose for groups “going on strike over pay” • Net support Nurses 68-28% Paramedics 66-29% Teachers 50-44% Royal Mail staff 47-45% • Net oppose Border control staff 40-46% Train drivers and workers 40-51% Civil servants 36-52%
The Tories have got this so wrong.
Well, yes, but it also just seems to be another way of saying which professions people do and don't like - civil servants work for the government, so even if they had the most cause to strike I doubt the public would support it as much as they do with nurses.
Support vs oppose for groups “going on strike over pay” • Net support Nurses 68-28% Paramedics 66-29% Teachers 50-44% Royal Mail staff 47-45% • Net oppose Border control staff 40-46% Train drivers and workers 40-51% Civil servants 36-52%
The Tories have got this so wrong.
It depends how much you are affected by it. Easy to support if you are fit and healthy.
Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.
But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.
I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.
Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
Not sure where grammar schools come into this. They are state run and, like all state schools, therefore VAT exempt.
Private schools do not cost the state money, they save it.
Between £5k and £7k per pupil. This is significantly more than the waived VAT would be, roughly twice as much. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools shows a basic innumeracy.
I accept that there are social costs in that we end up with a relatively small and privileged elite who get a proper education in circumstances conducive to learning which gives them an unfair advantage in life. I agree that the ideal would be that state schools were so good than no one was willing to pay . But they aren't and there is absolutely no focus on making them so. To do that you would need to take on the teachers unions and no one is brave enough to do that.
Two responses to that post:
1. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools does not show 'a basic innumeracy'... unless, and this is important, you assume that more than 30% of private pupils will no longer attend private school but will switch to state schools. Now you may think that's the case, Labour clearly don't (nor do I). But in any event there is no innumeracy on Labour's part.
2. I'm interested in your view that it is the teachers unions, not average spend per pupil (£6.5k state, £15k private), that prevents state schools being as good as private ones. Do you have any evidence for that?
When comparing the spend per pupil, it is worth remembering that in the purely academic spend, the difference is a lot lower.
Fair enough but just to be clear, what do you consider as non-academic* spend?
(*That'll be non-academic spend currently benefiting from the education VAT exemption presumably.)
Boarding costs, better sports facilities, extra curricula activities etc
Classifying some stuff would get into an existential debate over the nature of education. But….
At one daughters school, the bottom of the swimming pool can be raised and lowered. I think we can all agree that is not academically vital.
Yet still VAT exempt
It depends, in a different life I used to work in disability children's care and the pool we used to take the kids to had this functionality and it was at a local private school that had a facility sharing deal with the council. Without being able to raise the floor of the pool and make it the same shallow depth for the whole pool those kids would have had nowhere to swim as the other pools in the area were standard with variable depth.
To my mind the private school spending money on it was worthwhile as it allowed disabled kids the chance to swim safely and it should absolutely be VAT exempt.
The school I was talking about uses the pool for 3 other state schools. They also provide time from their sports coaches for teaching swimming.
Apparently the kids find the bottom of he floor of the pool moving awesome and love seeing it in action.
I’m surprised elfin safety regulations permit that
There is a glassed in viewing area with seating for an audience for races etc. The kids wait there until the pool is ready, if they are moving the bottom.
Support vs oppose for groups “going on strike over pay” • Net support Nurses 68-28% Paramedics 66-29% Teachers 50-44% Royal Mail staff 47-45% • Net oppose Border control staff 40-46% Train drivers and workers 40-51% Civil servants 36-52%
The Tories have got this so wrong.
It depends how much you are affected by it. Easy to support if you are fit and healthy.
The older I get, the more I want to see nurses and paramedics properly rewarded.
Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.
But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.
I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.
Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
Not sure where grammar schools come into this. They are state run and, like all state schools, therefore VAT exempt.
Private schools do not cost the state money, they save it.
Between £5k and £7k per pupil. This is significantly more than the waived VAT would be, roughly twice as much. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools shows a basic innumeracy.
I accept that there are social costs in that we end up with a relatively small and privileged elite who get a proper education in circumstances conducive to learning which gives them an unfair advantage in life. I agree that the ideal would be that state schools were so good than no one was willing to pay . But they aren't and there is absolutely no focus on making them so. To do that you would need to take on the teachers unions and no one is brave enough to do that.
Two responses to that post:
1. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools does not show 'a basic innumeracy'... unless, and this is important, you assume that more than 30% of private pupils will no longer attend private school but will switch to state schools. Now you may think that's the case, Labour clearly don't (nor do I). But in any event there is no innumeracy on Labour's part.
2. I'm interested in your view that it is the teachers unions, not average spend per pupil (£6.5k state, £15k private), that prevents state schools being as good as private ones. Do you have any evidence for that?
When comparing the spend per pupil, it is worth remembering that in the purely academic spend, the difference is a lot lower.
Fair enough but just to be clear, what do you consider as non-academic* spend?
(*That'll be non-academic spend currently benefiting from the education VAT exemption presumably.)
Boarding costs, better sports facilities, extra curricula activities etc
Classifying some stuff would get into an existential debate over the nature of education. But….
At one daughters school, the bottom of the swimming pool can be raised and lowered. I think we can all agree that is not academically vital.
Yet still VAT exempt
It depends, in a different life I used to work in disability children's care and the pool we used to take the kids to had this functionality and it was at a local private school that had a facility sharing deal with the council. Without being able to raise the floor of the pool and make it the same shallow depth for the whole pool those kids would have had nowhere to swim as the other pools in the area were standard with variable depth.
To my mind the private school spending money on it was worthwhile as it allowed disabled kids the chance to swim safely and it should absolutely be VAT exempt.
Yes, yes, of course. But equipment for disability is VAT exempt anyway so the school should never have needed to pay VAT on it regardless.
I mean we're arguing around the edges here. My initial point of contention with DavidL was that his assumption that removing the VAT exemption on school fees would cost the Exchequer is flawed. I stand by that.
But my point is that the private school may not have bothered with the extra expense of building that in without the overall VAT exemption they get and the need to engage with the local community and prove their ongoing charitable value. Actually it's almost a certainty that they wouldn't have bothered and that they wouldn't offer their pool to the council for free for disabled kids to use.
Everything has a downside, you are glossing over them and pretending there aren't. It might make you feel righteous and morally superior to people to send their kids to private schools yet damaging them will create a lot of other losers, but I guess who cares if the disabled kids don't have a pool to swim in during the summer.
Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.
But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.
I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.
Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
Not sure where grammar schools come into this. They are state run and, like all state schools, therefore VAT exempt.
Private schools do not cost the state money, they save it.
Between £5k and £7k per pupil. This is significantly more than the waived VAT would be, roughly twice as much. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools shows a basic innumeracy.
I accept that there are social costs in that we end up with a relatively small and privileged elite who get a proper education in circumstances conducive to learning which gives them an unfair advantage in life. I agree that the ideal would be that state schools were so good than no one was willing to pay . But they aren't and there is absolutely no focus on making them so. To do that you would need to take on the teachers unions and no one is brave enough to do that.
Two responses to that post:
1. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools does not show 'a basic innumeracy'... unless, and this is important, you assume that more than 30% of private pupils will no longer attend private school but will switch to state schools. Now you may think that's the case, Labour clearly don't (nor do I). But in any event there is no innumeracy on Labour's part.
2. I'm interested in your view that it is the teachers unions, not average spend per pupil (£6.5k state, £15k private), that prevents state schools being as good as private ones. Do you have any evidence for that?
When comparing the spend per pupil, it is worth remembering that in the purely academic spend, the difference is a lot lower.
Fair enough but just to be clear, what do you consider as non-academic* spend?
(*That'll be non-academic spend currently benefiting from the education VAT exemption presumably.)
Boarding costs, better sports facilities, extra curricula activities etc
Classifying some stuff would get into an existential debate over the nature of education. But….
At one daughters school, the bottom of the swimming pool can be raised and lowered. I think we can all agree that is not academically vital.
Yet still VAT exempt
It depends, in a different life I used to work in disability children's care and the pool we used to take the kids to had this functionality and it was at a local private school that had a facility sharing deal with the council. Without being able to raise the floor of the pool and make it the same shallow depth for the whole pool those kids would have had nowhere to swim as the other pools in the area were standard with variable depth.
To my mind the private school spending money on it was worthwhile as it allowed disabled kids the chance to swim safely and it should absolutely be VAT exempt.
The school I was talking about uses the pool for 3 other state schools. They also provide time from their sports coaches for teaching swimming.
Apparently the kids find the bottom of he floor of the pool moving awesome and love seeing it in action.
I’m surprised elfin safety regulations permit that
I'm surprised they permit swimming.
Real health and safety is rigorously observed - life guards, teachers per x pupils of age y.
The bullshit kind of “BlockFuhrer with a clipboard” doesn’t seem to be a problem with this.
Education is a good thing and people should be encouraged to spend money on it. Money spent on private schools means savings for local authorities. The most extreme I know is Edinburgh where nearly 1/3rd of secondary pupils go to private schools. If several of those schools close I am not sure that the local authority could cope.
But this is all about the politics of envy. And there is never a rational answer to that.
I can't speak for the rest of the left wing wokerati but my motivation is not the politics of envy. I could afford to pay for private education for my children but I chose not to on a point of principle. I believe selective education either by money or by 11 plus exam deprives the majority of resource, either by money shovelled into Grammar Schools to the detriment of the rest, or by an exemption on VAT. I don't want my taxes to benefit a grammar school elite at the expense of everyone else, and while I don't want to deprive you of the liberty to spend your money on a private education for your children, pay the VAT on it.
Make universal education fantastic for all, and measure it on added value, not just on GCSE A* passes.
Not sure where grammar schools come into this. They are state run and, like all state schools, therefore VAT exempt.
Private schools do not cost the state money, they save it.
Between £5k and £7k per pupil. This is significantly more than the waived VAT would be, roughly twice as much. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools shows a basic innumeracy.
I accept that there are social costs in that we end up with a relatively small and privileged elite who get a proper education in circumstances conducive to learning which gives them an unfair advantage in life. I agree that the ideal would be that state schools were so good than no one was willing to pay . But they aren't and there is absolutely no focus on making them so. To do that you would need to take on the teachers unions and no one is brave enough to do that.
Two responses to that post:
1. Labour claiming that this policy will produce more money for state schools does not show 'a basic innumeracy'... unless, and this is important, you assume that more than 30% of private pupils will no longer attend private school but will switch to state schools. Now you may think that's the case, Labour clearly don't (nor do I). But in any event there is no innumeracy on Labour's part.
2. I'm interested in your view that it is the teachers unions, not average spend per pupil (£6.5k state, £15k private), that prevents state schools being as good as private ones. Do you have any evidence for that?
When comparing the spend per pupil, it is worth remembering that in the purely academic spend, the difference is a lot lower.
Fair enough but just to be clear, what do you consider as non-academic* spend?
(*That'll be non-academic spend currently benefiting from the education VAT exemption presumably.)
Boarding costs, better sports facilities, extra curricula activities etc
Classifying some stuff would get into an existential debate over the nature of education. But….
At one daughters school, the bottom of the swimming pool can be raised and lowered. I think we can all agree that is not academically vital.
Yet still VAT exempt
It depends, in a different life I used to work in disability children's care and the pool we used to take the kids to had this functionality and it was at a local private school that had a facility sharing deal with the council. Without being able to raise the floor of the pool and make it the same shallow depth for the whole pool those kids would have had nowhere to swim as the other pools in the area were standard with variable depth.
To my mind the private school spending money on it was worthwhile as it allowed disabled kids the chance to swim safely and it should absolutely be VAT exempt.
Yes, yes, of course. But equipment for disability is VAT exempt anyway so the school should never have needed to pay VAT on it regardless.
I mean we're arguing around the edges here. My initial point of contention with DavidL was that his assumption that removing the VAT exemption on school fees would cost the Exchequer is flawed. I stand by that.
But my point is that the private school may not have bothered with the extra expense of building that in without the overall VAT exemption they get and the need to engage with the local community and prove their ongoing charitable value. Actually it's almost a certainty that they wouldn't have bothered and that they wouldn't offer their pool to the council for free for disabled kids to use.
Everything has a downside, you are glossing over them and pretending there aren't. It might make you feel righteous and morally superior to people to send their kids to private schools yet damaging them will create a lot of other losers, but I guess who cares if the disabled kids don't have a pool to swim in during the summer.
I may be a bit of a dreamer, but kids swimming lessons shouldn't be reliant on the largesse of a convenient nearby private school.
Comments
But that isn't an education policy. That's a childcare policy.
Teachers are already fleeing because of burn out. So add more hours. That'll make it right.
Btw.
Have you eaten a school meal lately? Adding breakfast and tea is probably against the Geneva Convention.
No way on God's Earth are increasingly limited funds going to be directed to schools over pensions, and likewise there's virtually no prospect of property being taxed more heavily to provide enough extra cash to cover both demands.
Young people aren't going to procreate if they can't access affordable housing and childcare. Affordable housing and childcare are not political priorities, because few older people are primary carers for children, whereas most older people are already owner-occupiers with low-to-zero mortgage obligations. That's just the reality of living in a gerontocracy. It's not going to change.
Weak and weird Sunak
What the proposal misses is that many schools already operate this way unofficially anyway by way of necessity. They just don't get the money, credit or support for it.
Anyhow, regardless, it ain't happening. Old people don't eat school food and old people don't need teachers, so neither is a priority.
Inscription, Monument to William Morgan, Batavia, New York:
Sacred to the memory of Wm. Morgan, a native of Virginia, a Capt. in the War of 1812, a respectable citizen of Batavia, and a martyr to the freedom of writing, printing and speaking the truth. He was abducted from near this spot in the year 1826, by Freemasons and murdered for revealing the secrets of their order. The court records of Genesee County and the files of the Batavia Advocate, kept in the Recorders office contain the history of the events that caused the erection of this monument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morgan_(anti-Mason)
Disappearance and presumed murder of Morgan was catalyst for movement culminating in the Anti-Masonic Party, which quickly spread from upper New York State to other states, especially in New England. In addition to holding first national presidential party nominating convention in US history (1832) the party won power in Vermont and other states, and held the balance of power in a few others.
Plus, along with Whig Party which quickly absorbed most of their vote, Anti-Masonic Party was one of the precursors of the Republican Party founded in the 1850s. And still with us today - albeit as new wine in an old bottle, just like the Democratic Party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Masonic_Party
Some choose to work 8am to 6pm but many clock off at 3pm and are replaced by those who work the later shift to conclude my daughter's care in "the great lates".
From my perspective, irrespective of what your data tells us, it is the one policy which would sway me against a political party, not out of envy but an aversion to selection at 11 (or to please HY, 13).
P.S. I am also an advocate of measuring educational success by means of value added rather than merely A level or GCSE grades
I've advocated what I'd like to do and what I think is good policy, not what I think is actually going to happen.
Nevertheless, brave politicians could start to shift the arguments in this direction over a 5-15 year period by starting to make these arguments now.
Is it to pass exams, identifying those best suited for further study?
Is it to skill up the population to provide the best workforce for the future?
Or is it to keep kids safe and entertained to free up their parents to go out to earn a living?
Because at the moment it's trying to do all three, and not doing any of them very well.
Which is why I said I agree to an extent.
After all, old people are in a minority amongst the electorate at large.
They whisked her off to Kings Mill (this IS a problem as it is the nearest A&E but is a good 35-40 minutes away) where the staff had her checked, stabilised again and up on a pre surgery and assessment ward by 6am. It turns out she had acute pancreatitis caused by gallstones and they are now sorting it all out. Staff from start to finish were first class.
I do knock the NHS a lot and still think that, as an organisation, it serves us poorly compared to other health systems but when the people working in it get it right they deserve great praise.
If you prefer an insurance model be upfront about it at a GE
However. We are having severe difficulty staffing from 8:30 to 4:30.
Which are the contracted hours. Not 9-3.
Nursery is defined as childcare. So it is summat different.
I quite fancy a week in the alps being elitist but sadly no invitation.
Who among other accomplishments, was blessed with one of the greatest names for a political hack ever!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurlow_Weed
Things will keep going on as they are, with a permanent programme of austerity, taxes on incomes being ratcheted upwards and most budgets being stripped to fund pensions and healthcare, until there's nothing left to squeeze and the whole house of cards collapses. As to how long this will take and what comes after it, your guess is as good as mine.
But resourced sensibly, and used as an opportunity to do something different rather than more of the same, it would be great.
They will be made redundant as and when the smaller more marginal schools close, and state schools won't be able to take them on.
They will probably get another job and do some private tutoring on top at top whack.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Boozer
Most charities are intended to benefit the public generally (either explicitly or via saving hedgehogs or whatever), a group recognised as in need of additional support (blind people for instance), or everyone within an area (the people of Bognor etc).
Private school benefit those who pay to benefit. That sits uncomfortably.
To TSE's opening point, he should remember the debate here isn't the existence of private schools. It is charitable and therefore tax status. Lots of businesses provide a benefit to customers and are laudable enough without having charitable status. The tax point isn't even all that impactful as I understand it - it's broadly a VAT point , noting that VAT doesn't really work in the way commonly assumed due to setting input VAT against output VAT.
I'm having my first bottle now: Garzón Reserva Tannat 2020
I'm told that Tannat, a native of Gascony, is known as the national grape in Uruguay
It's excellent, and I'd love to compare it to a similarly priced Gascony Tannat (£16.60 a bottle according to this and well worth it according to me https://www.vinvm.co.uk/bodega-garzon-reserva-tannat-2020 )
A few elderly Challenger IIs will not be enough to stem the tide.
If Russia wins, then the war will spread further West, and if the GOP gets back in Washington then NATO could still fall. Its what Putin is counting on. People need to understand the scale of evil in Moscow and the complete corruption of anyone who is influenced by these monsters.
The Russian army is contemptible, but it is also lethal. This emergency is getting worse, not better and the northern tier NATO states are deeply concerned about the continuing failure to get Turkish approval for the NATO expansion. The Ukrainian army has probably lost a third of the casualties of the Russian, but the death toll of Russians is horrendous: maybe over 7,000 in the past two weeks and 120,000 since the war began. Ukraine is also bleeding, and the civilian casualties are growing at a horrendous rate.
We are getting close to the hour of doom, and the Russians must not win, or the peace of the whole world will fall.
Its that serious.
I went to a Comprehensive school in a good catchment area in North Worcestershire. All subjects were streamed. Like you, top 2 did O level Universal education cannot work without streaming. It was fantastic. My children also went to an excellent Comprehensive, the Catholic comp in Barry.
I hated the Grammar School I went to aged 14. It didn't help that I had a thick Birmingham accent in gentile Herefordshire, which meant I was regarded by teachers and posh kids alike as some ill-educated urban peasant.
Only the A stream did O levels, the B stream at Grammar School did predominantly CSEs. The secondary school only did CSEs.
To me this is incomprehensible when you see how many new club signings flop
The question must be, are Chelsea threatening the future financial viability of their club, especially as they are unlikely to qualify for the Champions league this year ?
I think @Dura_Ace was onto something with that.
Even my SEN school runs baseline assessments to put kids into one of officially three (in practice four) streams.
And moves kids about.
There is also group and individual work within the streams for different abilities in particular subjects.
Weirdly, the latter is ferociously opposed by Kemi Badenoch, who strongly advocates whole class teaching.
A form of in class Comprehensive education.
In 1829 (same year Andy Jackson entered the White House) the Anti-Masons of Vermont, elected their candidate to Congress . . . but not until the EIGHTH separate ballot, or "trial" in contemporary usage.
Note that Vermont law at that time, required a winning candidate elected to US H1ouse to receive a majority of all votes cast. IF no candidate got 50% plus one vote, then a new election was called.
In VT05 in 1828, first election was on September 2, 1828; the 8th was November 2, 1829.
At that time, members of US House elected in late 1828, did not begin their terms in office until December 1829, so the member from 5th of Vermont didn't miss anything (assuming they didn't get stuck in a snow drift on their way to DC).
Uruguay: Tannât
Argentina: Malbec
S Africa: Chenin Blanc
Hunter Valley: Sémillon
NZ: Sauvignon Blanc
England hadn’t yet woken up to the fact our superstar grape is Pinot Meunier, but it’ll come.
EDIT: in case any of you think I’m being twatty putting accents on the grape varieties, that’s just iPhone autocomplete.
https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1614181726091358214
Sadly the lesson of Syria, Afghanistan, and the survival of regimes like Iran, Myanmar, N Korea, reinforces the lesson that absolute, unrelenting brutality, is the key to success.
I can solve the problem of Leopard availability.
If the tanks aren’t available, in running condition in 1 month then all the official cars for politicians and civil servants in the defense ministry will be sent instead. With no replacements.
However, do have a Uruguayan flag hanging up in my kitchen. So I got THAT going for me.
Though I would just point out that virtually nobody on PB is remotely interested in non-A-level further education and training, which is pursued by around 60% of each cohort. Obviously the lack of interest or comment reflects the PB cohort and their educational and economic status. But anybody looking for a real scandal would look at the systematic under-funding of vocational provision (and teachers' salaries) in further education colleges over the last 10 years (work-based apprenticeships are not so bad, though the quality of these range from brilliant to woeful).
So, how about discussing, if spending can't be increased, re-directing some of the A-level funding to left-behind students and teachers? Sod private schools and grammar schools - what about the rest?
Three universal truths about any government system in crisis:
1) Its bureaucracy, like any other, has problems and inefficiencies.
2) Fixing them is never as simple, quick or cheap as politicians promise.
3) They aren't the cause of the crisis, and fixing them won't solve it.
https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1614598874575814656?cxt=HHwWgICy3ebHmugsAAAA
Acknowledging that reality is the smart thing for the government to do, but they will look weak after the preceding
rhetoric.
Next stop: the headteachers and more militant teachers union... Results for their strike ballots tomorrow.
Putin's Spring 2023 offensive will likely come from all directions - North, East, and South, a repeat of Feb 2022 invasion but with lessons learned & hundreds of thousands more troops. It will be bloody. Time is running out for the West to act decisively. Too little too late.
https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/1614711789891235841
"Boozer was named after his father, who first made the name Young Boozer famous as a football star for the University of Alabama. Young Jacob Boozer, Jr. is a member of the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame and the Alabama Business Hall of Fame. His father was named after his father, the mayor of Samson, Alabama from 1916 to 1919"
And HIS father, was named after the man who first brought the boll weevil to 'Bama?
For those in work with ambition to "improve" themselves.
At one daughters school, the bottom of the swimming pool can be raised and lowered. I think we can all agree that is not academically vital.
Ultimately, tax is about raising a sufficient amount to fund what needs funding spread across a variety of sources. There are few "nice" taxes, aside perhaps from some sin taxes which, if they are working, raise very little. So you're left creaming off a little from everything. But people can take it terribly personally.
When funding is based on certification, certificates are issued irrespective of completion criteria, and on a industrial scale. My wife was head of key skills. She would only allow certification when a corresponding file was available (existed) she was every year under pressure to put more names through. When she left the completion rate improved from just shy of 90% to 100%. I was asked to sign off candidates who had not completed at a technical college in the West Midlands. I declined, so the candidates, days before expiry, were reallocated to more amenable assessors.
PB experts (well one in particular) often suggest university education should once again be confined to the elite 5% and the rest should be educated by "modern" (joke) apprenticeships.
https://www.schoolguide.co.uk/blog/how-much-does-private-school-cost
To my mind the private school spending money on it was worthwhile as it allowed disabled kids the chance to swim safely and it should absolutely be VAT exempt.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/15/neil-parish-considering-offering-to-stand-for-election-again-as-a-tory
"A former MP who quit after admitting watching pornography in the Commons said he was thinking of standing again at the next general election."
Apparently the kids find the bottom of he floor of the pool moving awesome and love seeing it in action.
• Net support
Nurses 68-28%
Paramedics 66-29%
Teachers 50-44%
Royal Mail staff 47-45%
• Net oppose
Border control staff 40-46%
Train drivers and workers 40-51%
Civil servants 36-52%
The Tories have got this so wrong.
I mean we're arguing around the edges here. My initial point of contention with DavidL was that his assumption that removing the VAT exemption on school fees would cost the Exchequer is flawed. I stand by that.
Everything has a downside, you are glossing over them and pretending there aren't. It might make you feel righteous and morally superior to people to send their kids to private schools yet damaging them will create a lot of other losers, but I guess who cares if the disabled kids don't have a pool to swim in during the summer.
The bullshit kind of “BlockFuhrer with a clipboard” doesn’t seem to be a problem with this.