Good. Yes we need to reduce our use of carbon based fuels drastically and we should aim for net zero ASAP but whilst we continue to make any use of oil or gas we should use our own.
As pointed out on R4, at least we can now forever ignore bleating from oil companies about windfall taxes obstructing development and investment.
A phrase about a swallow and summer comes to mind. Not nearly enough money is being spent sustaining the infrastructure in the north sea with the result some fields will not be depleted to the extent that they could have been. Windfall taxes hit marginal investment and the fact that this one is proceeding doesn't change that. Anyone wondering about the adverse consequences should have a walk up and down Union Street in Aberdeen. From one of our richer areas it is now close to a disaster zone with closed restaurants and shops with charity shops filling some of the holes. These windfall taxes have hurt Scotland badly.
I went to Aberdeen last year (RSS Conference) and I agree about the dying high street, but everywhere outside London is like that. It would be difficult to tease out what deprivation is caused by govt policy and what caused by online shopping.
I was in Aberdeen in May, and though Union St shps were pretty grim, the restaurants were good and busy. People have money still, just not spending it in smaller chain shops. It is why Wilko went bust.
Might as well just have a sign saying "no running "
I had to cut my speed by half. Speeding on bikes is illegal, unlike the UK.
Where are you?
ETA: And are cyclists obliged to have computers fitted to monitor speed/is it common? I'd be fine in traffic, matching the traffic and assuming it wasn't speeding, but I'd have no idea on an empty road of my speed a that level.
Eliud Kipchoge banned from training on that street then!
Well offtopic, but an open question. For how long do you think you could keep up Kipchoge marathon speed - 5 miles, one mile, half a mile, 100m?
Good luck with the the 100m, he does that in 17s, for two hours straight, on the road. 68s for 400m, one lap of a track, which most club runners can’t do. https://youtube.com/watch?v=41WC1hH8WX0
Good. Yes we need to reduce our use of carbon based fuels drastically and we should aim for net zero ASAP but whilst we continue to make any use of oil or gas we should use our own.
As pointed out on R4, at least we can now forever ignore bleating from oil companies about windfall taxes obstructing development and investment.
A phrase about a swallow and summer comes to mind. Not nearly enough money is being spent sustaining the infrastructure in the north sea with the result some fields will not be depleted to the extent that they could have been. Windfall taxes hit marginal investment and the fact that this one is proceeding doesn't change that. Anyone wondering about the adverse consequences should have a walk up and down Union Street in Aberdeen. From one of our richer areas it is now close to a disaster zone with closed restaurants and shops with charity shops filling some of the holes. These windfall taxes have hurt Scotland badly.
Union St has been in constant decline throughout all the booms and busts of NE oil. It was a basket case when the likes of Sir Ian Wood and Darling were stating that NE oil was running out and of little value, and it continued declining when oil prices bounced back. I'm even old enough to remember when a major oil field west of Shetland was claimed to be a Nat chimera, and yet Brigadoon-like, up it pops..
One wonders if London and the UK are in terminal decline because of the number of peculiar looking sweetie shops in Oxford Street. THough that might even be true.
Union St is an extreme case but aren't the main streets of all cities on a downward trajectory? I go through to Edinburgh reasonably frequently, but it must be 20 years since I used Princes St for anything but a route from station to pub.
Pre-covid, I used it fairly frequently for the bookshop, Clarks shoe shop, and more centrist dad fashion/food hall at M&S, as well as a route to the more boutique shops in the side streets and Rose St, and a convenient place to get the bus home, but covid meant a so far pretty permanent shift to internet and even more home cooking rather than chicken pies from M&S.
Incidentally, private medical care is VAT free too, apart from cosmetic surgery and medicolegal work. Some private hospitals are charitable not for profits too, such as Nuffield Health.
On privat schools, I suspect we all start from our gut instinct and work backards, where gut instinct largely depends on whether we or near family have a positive private school impact or not. I, of course, am immune to this
Would be interesting though to hear from private school attendees who support the Labour plans or non-attendees (without family members benefitting too) who do not.
FWIW, an acquaintance who went to Eton on a scholarship is fully in favour of the plans, but he did not have a good experience and has no intention of sending his kids private (and, as many note, Eton is not the typical private school experience).
ETA: Being a state school pleb, I clearly can't even spell 'private' properly
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which most parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
"The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare."
Just the same with one of my friend's four children. The lad was very small for his size and a bit effeminate* and was bullied horrendously. The schools were aware but didn't sort it (they won't expel) and the parents eventually moved their son to a private day school (which they struggled to afford) to protect him. He has thrived there with no issues.
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 15m MAIL: Labour’s class war begins on Day One #TomorrowsPapersToday
===
"Backlash as parents face school fees hike"
How many Mail readers send their kids to private school???
It is not just the mail going onto the attack
The i as well
Sorry the link didn't work
The Mail tries its best to make it sound like Labour will be charging a new fee for all parents . Not sure the I headline will worry Labour . A backlash from private schools . 93% of children do not go to private schools . They get a subsidy in effect from tax payers whilst state schools are crumbling. Do you want your taxes subsiding rich parennts sending their kids to places like Eton .
That will be the Labour campaign.
It doesn't subsidise rich kids, most of it subsidises scholarships and bursaries for bright pupils who would otherwise have parents unable to pay the fees and who would then have to be taxpayer funded in state schools anyway. It also funds facilities which are often shared with the local community
I’m not saying the policy is good. But is good politics . The general public don’t do detail , forums like this aren’t representative of the general population .
Labours line will be that it’s unfair for the public to be subsidizing private schools with tax breaks . It doesn’t matter if that’s stretching the truth.
In any case - the general public is currently subsidising a very few and highly selected un-rich kids in a very few limited areas,. whereas the VAT moneys go to the wider realm as a whole. So HYUFD's argument is not valid.
Yes it is valid, I am a conservative, I believe in ladders to excellence unlike a lowest common denominator leftwinger like you.
Public cost for private benefit? That's what modern Conservatism is all about. And if you can't tell the difference between centrist dads and lefties out of Citizen Smith then your sense of proportion has long been out of kilter.
He talks about "ladders to excellence" - out of state schools into private schools.
In other words state schools are considered to be shit. Vote Conservative or Fuck Off.
Exactly. He accuses people on the left of "lowest common denominator" thinking, and in the same breath implies that there's going to be no excellence, except in the private sector of education!
He's been found liable for Civil Fraud, and his family have all had their rights to do businesses in NY cancelled. 10 days to appoint receivers for the NY based Trump businesses to dissolve them.
Plus restitution to be extracted on an estimated sum of $250 million.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which most parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
"The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare."
Just the same with one of my friend's four children. The lad was very small for his size and a bit effeminate* and was bullied horrendously. The schools were aware but didn't sort it (they won't expel) and the parents eventually moved their son to a private day school (which they struggled to afford) to protect him. He has thrived there with no issues.
(* to pre-empt DA: no it wasn't Sunak.)
Interested in these anecdotes. Wouldn't one try another state school first? It seems to me that the solution is fixing these issues in state schools, so that those who cannot afford the private option are also protected.
Again, FWIW, my acquaintances negative experience of Eton was largely being bullied by the rich/entitled kids. Again, less of an issue perhaps in your run of the mill private school that is not full of absolute toffs.
ETA: He was a contemporary of Hazza, who was also bullied apparently. But in his case for being a dickhead, rather than for being a pleb.
Really interesting spot on R4 More or less on HS2, infrastructure spending and project delivery in the UK with some Uni bod, (French I think but you can’t seem to get the details online) who’s department study global infrastructure projects and it seems the UK is basically the same as everywhere else, has generally learnt well on mistakes and all pretty much standard for developed world.
They managed to dig into Chinese figures via world bank, as China wouldn’t furnish any figures, and they also are expensive and go over planned cost - only advantage they have is speed of projects due to lack of needing accountability and listening to shareholders.
I was quite surprised as it did feel we were specifically crap at big projects.
As crap as he is, Sunak is the best they have (who has any chance of being leader). A challenge would be from a headbanger candidate like Braverman; the Tories would be sunk for a generation.
On privat schools, I suspect we all start from our gut instinct and work backards, where gut instinct largely depends on whether we or near family have a positive private school impact or not. I, of course, am immune to this
Would be interesting though to hear from private school attendees who support the Labour plans or non-attendees (without family members benefitting too) who do not.
FWIW, an acquaintance who went to Eton on a scholarship is fully in favour of the plans, but he did not have a good experience and has no intention of sending his kids private (and, as many note, Eton is not the typical private school experience).
ETA: Being a state school pleb, I clearly can't even spell 'private' properly
The private school debate is the inverse of the NHS one: we should be making state education better and therefore relatively more attractive to wealthy families. Healthcare is on its way to looking like education.
"Wealth" is the important bit - I know several high earners who would be unable to send their kids to private school because they don't have future inheritances to rely on. On the other hand, you can come across relatively low paid households who do have that family capital to help fund it.
If VAT is imposed on school fees, does it not follow that it should be imposed upon university tuition fees?
Yes.
But, given the funding model, it's all government money anyway - slap 20% on fees then you need to up loans to cover that and the amount you recover probably doesn't change so you stand still. So either leave it alone or divide fees by 1.2, slap on 20% VAT and then ring fence that for university funding, althought the admin costs would probably make that daft.
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 15m MAIL: Labour’s class war begins on Day One #TomorrowsPapersToday
===
"Backlash as parents face school fees hike"
How many Mail readers send their kids to private school???
It is not just the mail going onto the attack
The i as well
Sorry the link didn't work
The Mail tries its best to make it sound like Labour will be charging a new fee for all parents . Not sure the I headline will worry Labour . A backlash from private schools . 93% of children do not go to private schools . They get a subsidy in effect from tax payers whilst state schools are crumbling. Do you want your taxes subsiding rich parennts sending their kids to places like Eton .
That will be the Labour campaign.
Of course, the exact opposite is true.
Every parent who sends their child to private school is effectively paying double - they are paying all the tax for a state school place, but not taking it up, thereby donating the resources they would have used so they are available for everyone else instead. Meanwhile, they expand the level of investment going into the education sector overall, funding the training of more teachers, experimenting with new education styles, more resources and facilities, rather than spend it on property and consumption. Which is where they money would otherwise go. And private schools are charitable endeavours that don't generate profit or return to investors but invest in an educational mission overall.
This is why governments of all stripes have recognised this in the tax system for decades - because it's in the public interest. They are a net good.
It won't be Eton, Harrow or Winchester hit by these changes. It will be the smaller more marginal private schools where two parents working full-time - doctors, accountants, pilots, solicitors, and small businessmen - work hard to be able to afford the fees are forced to pull their kids out, with the school closing and the community assets lost. The state system won't gain a bean from it except an additional burden and the education sector overall will shrink. We'll all be poorer for it.
It's a disgrace of a policy based on prejudice. It deserves to fail, as all bad policies should.
This is spot on. (Even if Casino thinks I’m a “Leftie”.)
The big name public schools will sail on regardless. The ones that will be hit will be the small ones with the specialisms in autism support or music or whatever, where the parents have scrimped and saved to send their kids because they’ve been failed by the state system.
If your position is “well improve the state system so it caters for those kids” that’s an honest position to take… and also I have a bridge to sell you. You have a look at the EHCP backlog for any given local authority and tell me how long that’s going to take.
Really it’s not that fricking hard (and here is where Casino will conclude I am in fact a Leftie). Tax wealth, rather than taxing people when they choose to spend that wealth on good things like education. A couple of pence on income tax for the super-rich would dwarf anything raised by VAT on school fees.
But Starmer won’t do that. It’s tokenism rather than genuine redistribution, at the expense of kids’ education.
What a load of shite. This is closing a tax loophole on a tax that is levied on pretty much everything else.
If VAT on private school fees already existed nobody would be campaigning to remove it.
There are huge swathes of the UK economy which are exempt from VAT.
Start with £250bn sales of food. - that's retail consumer sales, What about purchases of food by businesses - no idea on that. Add in segments of the clothing market - children incl. school uniforms. Then all businesses turning over less than £85k a year (approx figure). Reduced VAT on energy bills at 5%. (Energy bills = £50bn to £100bn a year at present) Medicines and medical devices, including I think Motability cars (Motability do £4bn of business a year). Then there's a whole bundle of non-VAT or reduced rate VAT exemptions for charities. Financial services.
And it goes on...
No precise idea on the total, but it looks to me as if perhaps 15-20% of GDP is VAT exempt.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which most parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
"The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare."
Just the same with one of my friend's four children. The lad was very small for his size and a bit effeminate* and was bullied horrendously. The schools were aware but didn't sort it (they won't expel) and the parents eventually moved their son to a private day school (which they struggled to afford) to protect him. He has thrived there with no issues.
(* to pre-empt DA: no it wasn't Sunak.)
Interested in these anecdotes. Wouldn't one try another state school first? It seems to me that the solution is fixing these issues in state schools, so that those who cannot afford the private option are also protected.
Again, FWIW, my acquaintances negative experience of Eton was largely being bullied by the rich/entitled kids. Again, less of an issue perhaps in your run of the mill private school that is not full of absolute toffs.
ETA: He was a contemporary of Hazza, who was also bullied apparently. But in his case for being a dickhead, rather than for being a pleb.
Plenty of bullying, drug use and rampant eating disorders at the major private schools round me. A couple of suicides and teachers leaving abruptly after inappropriate relationships too.
Private schools are not immune to the visscitudes of teenage life.
FPT: Earlier, I mentioned that aircraft might be a better choice than rail for carrying people, even on the HS2 route. But my example was not the best for my argument. In today's New York Times, there is an article describing electric "air taxis", which have wings, but can take off and land vertically, like a helicopter. One firm making them, Joby, just delivered one to the Air Force, which will be testing it at Edwards. Their aircraft can travel at up to 200 mph, quietly, and has a range of 100 miles. https://www.jobyaviation.com/
(Gardenwalker may find an example at their site of interest.)
For some time I have suspected that part of the reason that so many support rail transit is that they want to get other people off their roads. Especially poor people. But, if this aircraft option becomes important, it could get some of the wealthy off the roads and, in some places, off rail transit, possibly making both roads and rails more usable for the poor and middle class.
(I am referring to an article by Niraj Chokshi in a print copy of the newspaper, so no link, but I assume most of you can find the article, one way or another.)
Flying definitely isn't the best option for travelling between London and Birmingham, or London and Manchester. It's only 2 hours by train for the latter journey, even before HS2.
It used to be, if you got the 7am that had you in Euston for 9 back in the Virgin days. Very civilised. The best you'll get now is 2:10-2:15, but that's if the train is running on time, which it usually isn't, and not cancelled, which it often is. I do this journey a lot.
It's also ludicrously expensive for peak-time* travel.
*peak-time being 'whenever the feck we decide to gouge you for money because you have no alternative'.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which most parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
"The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare."
Just the same with one of my friend's four children. The lad was very small for his size and a bit effeminate* and was bullied horrendously. The schools were aware but didn't sort it (they won't expel) and the parents eventually moved their son to a private day school (which they struggled to afford) to protect him. He has thrived there with no issues.
(* to pre-empt DA: no it wasn't Sunak.)
Interested in these anecdotes. Wouldn't one try another state school first? It seems to me that the solution is fixing these issues in state schools, so that those who cannot afford the private option are also protected.
Again, FWIW, my acquaintances negative experience of Eton was largely being bullied by the rich/entitled kids. Again, less of an issue perhaps in your run of the mill private school that is not full of absolute toffs.
ETA: He was a contemporary of Hazza, who was also bullied apparently. But in his case for being a dickhead, rather than for being a pleb.
"Wouldn't one try another state school first?"
AIUI, the problem was not just the school: the parents escalated to whatever the overall authority is, and they backed the school, making it very hard for the parents to change school. Besides, why would you trust an organisation that had already let you down?
Eliud Kipchoge banned from training on that street then!
Well offtopic, but an open question. For how long do you think you could keep up Kipchoge marathon speed - 5 miles, one mile, half a mile, 100m?
Good luck with the the 100m, he does that in 17s, for two hours straight, on the road. 68s for 400m, one lap of a track, which most club runners can’t do. https://youtube.com/watch?v=41WC1hH8WX0
He goes faster than the max setting on most treadmills......it is about my max speed, maybe 50m, definitely not 100m.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which most parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
"The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare."
Just the same with one of my friend's four children. The lad was very small for his size and a bit effeminate* and was bullied horrendously. The schools were aware but didn't sort it (they won't expel) and the parents eventually moved their son to a private day school (which they struggled to afford) to protect him. He has thrived there with no issues.
(* to pre-empt DA: no it wasn't Sunak.)
Interested in these anecdotes. Wouldn't one try another state school first? It seems to me that the solution is fixing these issues in state schools, so that those who cannot afford the private option are also protected.
Again, FWIW, my acquaintances negative experience of Eton was largely being bullied by the rich/entitled kids. Again, less of an issue perhaps in your run of the mill private school that is not full of absolute toffs.
ETA: He was a contemporary of Hazza, who was also bullied apparently. But in his case for being a dickhead, rather than for being a pleb.
Plenty of bullying, drug use and rampant eating disorders at the major private schools round me. A couple of suicides and teachers leaving abruptly after inappropriate relationships too.
Private schools are not immune to the visscitudes of teenage life.
When I was at uni the private school kids all did way more drugs than the state school kids.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The problem I have is - what is all this moaning about choice, at least in England? The benevolent Tories have opened gazillions of academies, free schools, grammars, etc. After a decade and m ore there should be no reason to complain. Effectively lots of private schools for free on the public tab.
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 15m MAIL: Labour’s class war begins on Day One #TomorrowsPapersToday
===
"Backlash as parents face school fees hike"
How many Mail readers send their kids to private school???
It is not just the mail going onto the attack
The i as well
Sorry the link didn't work
The Mail tries its best to make it sound like Labour will be charging a new fee for all parents . Not sure the I headline will worry Labour . A backlash from private schools . 93% of children do not go to private schools . They get a subsidy in effect from tax payers whilst state schools are crumbling. Do you want your taxes subsiding rich parennts sending their kids to places like Eton .
That will be the Labour campaign.
Of course, the exact opposite is true.
Every parent who sends their child to private school is effectively paying double - they are paying all the tax for a state school place, but not taking it up, thereby donating the resources they would have used so they are available for everyone else instead. Meanwhile, they expand the level of investment going into the education sector overall, funding the training of more teachers, experimenting with new education styles, more resources and facilities, rather than spend it on property and consumption. Which is where they money would otherwise go. And private schools are charitable endeavours that don't generate profit or return to investors but invest in an educational mission overall.
This is why governments of all stripes have recognised this in the tax system for decades - because it's in the public interest. They are a net good.
It won't be Eton, Harrow or Winchester hit by these changes. It will be the smaller more marginal private schools where two parents working full-time - doctors, accountants, pilots, solicitors, and small businessmen - work hard to be able to afford the fees are forced to pull their kids out, with the school closing and the community assets lost. The state system won't gain a bean from it except an additional burden and the education sector overall will shrink. We'll all be poorer for it.
It's a disgrace of a policy based on prejudice. It deserves to fail, as all bad policies should.
This is spot on. (Even if Casino thinks I’m a “Leftie”.)
The big name public schools will sail on regardless. The ones that will be hit will be the small ones with the specialisms in autism support or music or whatever, where the parents have scrimped and saved to send their kids because they’ve been failed by the state system.
If your position is “well improve the state system so it caters for those kids” that’s an honest position to take… and also I have a bridge to sell you. You have a look at the EHCP backlog for any given local authority and tell me how long that’s going to take.
Really it’s not that fricking hard (and here is where Casino will conclude I am in fact a Leftie). Tax wealth, rather than taxing people when they choose to spend that wealth on good things like education. A couple of pence on income tax for the super-rich would dwarf anything raised by VAT on school fees.
But Starmer won’t do that. It’s tokenism rather than genuine redistribution, at the expense of kids’ education.
What a load of shite. This is closing a tax loophole on a tax that is levied on pretty much everything else.
If VAT on private school fees already existed nobody would be campaigning to remove it.
There are huge swathes of the UK economy which are exempt from VAT.
Start with £250bn sales of food. - that's retail consumer sales, What about purchases of food by businesses - no idea on that. Add in segments of the clothing market - children incl. school uniforms. Then all businesses turning over less than £85k a year (approx figure). Reduced VAT on energy bills at 5%. (Energy bills = £50bn to £100bn a year at present) Medicines and medical devices, including I think Motability cars (Motability do £4bn of business a year). Then there's a whole bundle of non-VAT or reduced rate VAT exemptions for charities. Financial services.
And it goes on...
No precise idea on the total, but it looks to me as if perhaps 15-20% of GDP is VAT exempt.
BiB: Depends what you mean but this is actually a problem with VAT for the hospitality sector, not a 'loophole' or exemption.
VAT is supposed to be Value Added, so businesses can reclaim their input VAT. Which is effectively just netting off input against output VAT unless you're an exporter.
However there's no VAT on fresh food, but there is VAT on most prepared hot food (except some notorious reason pasties it seems).
Most businesses therefore only charge VAT on their own value add, because they're netting off the VAT on their inputs. Hospitality businesses however end up charging VAT on the entire supply chain, because they charge VAT but they have nothing to net off.
So if you compare the cost of eg food ingredients in the supermarket, or a frozen pizza in the supermarket - that's 0-rated, but if you go to a restaurant or a takeaway and get one, 20% of is immediately added as VAT. And the business won't be reclaiming 20% off the cost of their raw ingredients, since it was never levied in the first place.
Also, can someone tell me how much of a charity's income needs to go towards charitable efforts; how much income they can spend on salaries and overheads, and who checks this?
And can that please be expanded to all charities. Many of the larger charities, those that advertise on TV (although mostly at reduced rates), have massive overheads, large offices, and plenty of executives on six-figure salaries.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which most parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
"The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare."
Just the same with one of my friend's four children. The lad was very small for his size and a bit effeminate* and was bullied horrendously. The schools were aware but didn't sort it (they won't expel) and the parents eventually moved their son to a private day school (which they struggled to afford) to protect him. He has thrived there with no issues.
(* to pre-empt DA: no it wasn't Sunak.)
Interested in these anecdotes. Wouldn't one try another state school first? It seems to me that the solution is fixing these issues in state schools, so that those who cannot afford the private option are also protected.
Good question.
I think it has to do with:
1 - One state school having been unable to assert effective behaviour management, why would you put your child at risk in another one?
2 - There may be difficulties with in-year transfers between State Schools. I admit I do not know the ins and outs of this - not having my own children.
3 - Size of many state schools.
4 - Possibility of stronger parental input. The ability of a small independent school to offer individualised service, which can be effectively influenced.
Eliud Kipchoge banned from training on that street then!
Well offtopic, but an open question. For how long do you think you could keep up Kipchoge marathon speed - 5 miles, one mile, half a mile, 100m?
Good luck with the the 100m, he does that in 17s, for two hours straight, on the road. 68s for 400m, one lap of a track, which most club runners can’t do. https://youtube.com/watch?v=41WC1hH8WX0
He goes faster than the max setting on most treadmills......it is about my max speed, maybe 50m, definitely not 100m.
Yes, it’s a totally bonkers speed to comprehend - 21km/h, sprint speed for an average fit man, kept up for two hours straight.
I'm off for a long weekend in Istanbul (first visit).
Any tips?
The public trams and ferries are easy and cheap to use. The public ferry to cross from the railway station to the Asian side is as good as any cruise, and the neighbourhood by the terminal on the Asian side has a wonderful hipster boutique shopping and dining vibe, great for a browse.
Also, can someone tell me how much of a charity's income needs to go towards charitable efforts; how much income they can spend on salaries and overheads, and who checks this?
And can that please be expanded to all charities. Many of the larger charities, those that advertise on TV (although mostly at reduced rates), have massive overheads, large offices, and plenty of executives on six-figure salaries.
But they don't generally allocate their services of the basis of recipients' ability to pay for those services, but rather on need.
If I was to set up an education charity, providing schools, I'd be looking to target it at the areas where all the local schools are shit and no one can afford to pay. Not to the parents (like myself) who live in areas where all the local state schools are actually very good and going private, at a bottom end private school, would potentially be a viable option finance-wise.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which most parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
"The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare."
Just the same with one of my friend's four children. The lad was very small for his size and a bit effeminate* and was bullied horrendously. The schools were aware but didn't sort it (they won't expel) and the parents eventually moved their son to a private day school (which they struggled to afford) to protect him. He has thrived there with no issues.
(* to pre-empt DA: no it wasn't Sunak.)
Interested in these anecdotes. Wouldn't one try another state school first? It seems to me that the solution is fixing these issues in state schools, so that those who cannot afford the private option are also protected.
Again, FWIW, my acquaintances negative experience of Eton was largely being bullied by the rich/entitled kids. Again, less of an issue perhaps in your run of the mill private school that is not full of absolute toffs.
ETA: He was a contemporary of Hazza, who was also bullied apparently. But in his case for being a dickhead, rather than for being a pleb.
Plenty of bullying, drug use and rampant eating disorders at the major private schools round me. A couple of suicides and teachers leaving abruptly after inappropriate relationships too.
Private schools are not immune to the visscitudes of teenage life.
When I was at uni the private school kids all did way more drugs than the state school kids.
My lad reports the same after his first year at Oxford.
I'm off for a long weekend in Istanbul (first visit).
Any tips?
The public trams and ferries are easy and cheap to use. The public ferry to cross from the railway station to the Asian side is as good as any cruise, and the neighbourhood by the terminal on the Asian side has a wonderful hipster boutique shopping and dining vibe, great for a browse.
Is that the Karakoy area? If so, we have a guided tour arranged for there inc ferry crossing from where we are staying in the old town.
Also, can someone tell me how much of a charity's income needs to go towards charitable efforts; how much income they can spend on salaries and overheads, and who checks this?
And can that please be expanded to all charities. Many of the larger charities, those that advertise on TV (although mostly at reduced rates), have massive overheads, large offices, and plenty of executives on six-figure salaries.
But they don't generally allocate their services of the basis of recipients' ability to pay for those services, but rather on need.
If I was to set up an education charity, providing schools, I'd be looking to target it at the areas where all the local schools are shit and no one can afford to pay. Not to the parents (like myself) who live in areas where all the local state schools are actually very good and going private, at a bottom end private school, would potentially be a viable option finance-wise.
That's funny, I was just in an Age Concern shop over the weekend where we picked up some second hand books for my kids - and they weren't doling them out, they were very much allocating who could leave with the stock based upon the recipients ability to pay for those services.
Most large charities fundraise in no small part based on ability to pay.
The ones paying (myself buying a book, parents of pupils who are paying) aren't the ones receiving the charity, the ones who are receiving the charity is others.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which most parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
"The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare."
Just the same with one of my friend's four children. The lad was very small for his size and a bit effeminate* and was bullied horrendously. The schools were aware but didn't sort it (they won't expel) and the parents eventually moved their son to a private day school (which they struggled to afford) to protect him. He has thrived there with no issues.
(* to pre-empt DA: no it wasn't Sunak.)
Interested in these anecdotes. Wouldn't one try another state school first? It seems to me that the solution is fixing these issues in state schools, so that those who cannot afford the private option are also protected.
Again, FWIW, my acquaintances negative experience of Eton was largely being bullied by the rich/entitled kids. Again, less of an issue perhaps in your run of the mill private school that is not full of absolute toffs.
ETA: He was a contemporary of Hazza, who was also bullied apparently. But in his case for being a dickhead, rather than for being a pleb.
"Wouldn't one try another state school first?"
AIUI, the problem was not just the school: the parents escalated to whatever the overall authority is, and they backed the school, making it very hard for the parents to change school. Besides, why would you trust an organisation that had already let you down?
There are good and bad state schools. In my local area, there is one secondary school that has a bad reputation for bullying, but another that has an extremely good reputation for dealing quickly and decisively with it. Obviously everyone wants their kids to go to the latter, but its reputation has driven up house prices around it and only the rich can afford to live within its catchment area.
I'm off for a long weekend in Istanbul (first visit).
Any tips?
The public trams and ferries are easy and cheap to use. The public ferry to cross from the railway station to the Asian side is as good as any cruise, and the neighbourhood by the terminal on the Asian side has a wonderful hipster boutique shopping and dining vibe, great for a browse.
Is that the Karakoy area? If so, we have a guided tour arranged for there inc ferry crossing from where we are staying in the old town.
No, Karakoy is on the European side, it is the area around Haydarpasa that I have in mind.
It was all quite safe and relaxed to wander round. We avoided the political areas as it was the week before their elections when we were there and riot police out, but didn't see any trouble.
The one place not mentioned specifically in that thread, but perhaps the single best visit of the trip, is the Basilica Cistern. Take the guided tour from the agents waiting outside.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
Shouldn't charities be run for the public benefit? Maybe private schools benefit the children who go to them (debatable) in that they try to give an even bigger head start to children who are mostly already privileged. And there are quite large costs to society in general, so I'm not convinced they offer any public benefit on balance, so I don't think they should generally qualify as charities, though might in some cases.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which most parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
"The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare."
Just the same with one of my friend's four children. The lad was very small for his size and a bit effeminate* and was bullied horrendously. The schools were aware but didn't sort it (they won't expel) and the parents eventually moved their son to a private day school (which they struggled to afford) to protect him. He has thrived there with no issues.
(* to pre-empt DA: no it wasn't Sunak.)
Interested in these anecdotes. Wouldn't one try another state school first? It seems to me that the solution is fixing these issues in state schools, so that those who cannot afford the private option are also protected.
Good question.
I think it has to do with:
1 - One state school having been unable to assert effective behaviour management, why would you put your child at risk in another one?
2 - There may be difficulties with in-year transfers between State Schools. I admit I do not know the ins and outs of this - not having my own children.
3 - Size of many state schools.
4 - Possibility of stronger parental input. The ability of a small independent school to offer individualised service, which can be effectively influenced.
Thanks for the reply and good points.
On 1, state schools vary massively on this. It might be that all the local schools appear lacking in this regard, of course, but I'm not sure how you judge that easily. Sometimes the bullying might be down to one arsehole starting it off, not present at any new school.
On 2, I know someone who did this (was for practical reasons, rather than being disatisfied with a school - divorce changed the logistics of school drop off and childcare) and it wasn't difficult, although it did of course depend on free places at the new school - anecdote, of course, there may be widespread problems that didn't apply here
On 3, this is surely a different issue. Size is not relevant to bullying if the school is well run
On 4, also a different issue?
3 and 4 relevant is you think that lower pupils per staff member help with bullying for example, which could be the case - better oversight of what's happening? Although I'm not convinced. I guess your independent school might be more willing to expel offenders too, although that would also depend on their finances.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which most parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
"The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare."
Just the same with one of my friend's four children. The lad was very small for his size and a bit effeminate* and was bullied horrendously. The schools were aware but didn't sort it (they won't expel) and the parents eventually moved their son to a private day school (which they struggled to afford) to protect him. He has thrived there with no issues.
(* to pre-empt DA: no it wasn't Sunak.)
Interested in these anecdotes. Wouldn't one try another state school first? It seems to me that the solution is fixing these issues in state schools, so that those who cannot afford the private option are also protected.
Again, FWIW, my acquaintances negative experience of Eton was largely being bullied by the rich/entitled kids. Again, less of an issue perhaps in your run of the mill private school that is not full of absolute toffs.
ETA: He was a contemporary of Hazza, who was also bullied apparently. But in his case for being a dickhead, rather than for being a pleb.
"Wouldn't one try another state school first?"
AIUI, the problem was not just the school: the parents escalated to whatever the overall authority is, and they backed the school, making it very hard for the parents to change school. Besides, why would you trust an organisation that had already let you down?
There are good and bad state schools. In my local area, there is one secondary school that has a bad reputation for bullying, but another that has an extremely good reputation for dealing quickly and decisively with it. Obviously everyone wants their kids to go to the latter, but its reputation has driven up house prices around it and only the rich can afford to live within its catchment area.
That's very similar to the situation I'm in, though thankfully my kids have a place in the good school even though I need to drive quarter of an hour to get there, while a five minute walk would take us to the bad school.
The other problem with reputations like that is they become self-fulling prophecies.
Parents who care passionately about their kids education will do what they can to ensure their kids can go to the good school, if they're able to. Which means the house price effect you said, or being prepared to drive past bad schools to get to good ones if you're fortunate enough to have a place etc
Parents who don't give a damn won't though. Parents who view schools as no more than glorified daycare, or who don't think bullying is a problem, or don't care about education in general will see no issue with being in the bad school.
Which means that the bad school will attract even more bad parents and thus bad pupils, and the good school will attract even more good parents and thus good pupils.
And both have the same funding.
Breaking that loop is difficult, since it starts at home.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which most parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
"The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare."
Just the same with one of my friend's four children. The lad was very small for his size and a bit effeminate* and was bullied horrendously. The schools were aware but didn't sort it (they won't expel) and the parents eventually moved their son to a private day school (which they struggled to afford) to protect him. He has thrived there with no issues.
(* to pre-empt DA: no it wasn't Sunak.)
Interested in these anecdotes. Wouldn't one try another state school first? It seems to me that the solution is fixing these issues in state schools, so that those who cannot afford the private option are also protected.
Again, FWIW, my acquaintances negative experience of Eton was largely being bullied by the rich/entitled kids. Again, less of an issue perhaps in your run of the mill private school that is not full of absolute toffs.
ETA: He was a contemporary of Hazza, who was also bullied apparently. But in his case for being a dickhead, rather than for being a pleb.
Plenty of bullying, drug use and rampant eating disorders at the major private schools round me. A couple of suicides and teachers leaving abruptly after inappropriate relationships too.
Private schools are not immune to the visscitudes of teenage life.
When I was at uni the private school kids all did way more drugs than the state school kids.
I am sure that we all remember the "Everyone's Invited" expose of sexual misbehaviour and rape culture started a few years ago by girls at some well known private schools.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
Shouldn't charities be run for the public benefit? Maybe private schools benefit the children who go to them (debatable) in that they try to give an even bigger head start to children who are mostly already privileged. And there are quite large costs to society in general, so I'm not convinced they offer any public benefit on balance, so I don't think they should generally qualify as charities, though might in some cases.
Charities must be run for public benefit, not private profit.
That means for the benefit of a section of a public. Almost no charity is run to benefit the public in general.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which most parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
"The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare."
Just the same with one of my friend's four children. The lad was very small for his size and a bit effeminate* and was bullied horrendously. The schools were aware but didn't sort it (they won't expel) and the parents eventually moved their son to a private day school (which they struggled to afford) to protect him. He has thrived there with no issues.
(* to pre-empt DA: no it wasn't Sunak.)
Interested in these anecdotes. Wouldn't one try another state school first? It seems to me that the solution is fixing these issues in state schools, so that those who cannot afford the private option are also protected.
Again, FWIW, my acquaintances negative experience of Eton was largely being bullied by the rich/entitled kids. Again, less of an issue perhaps in your run of the mill private school that is not full of absolute toffs.
ETA: He was a contemporary of Hazza, who was also bullied apparently. But in his case for being a dickhead, rather than for being a pleb.
Plenty of bullying, drug use and rampant eating disorders at the major private schools round me. A couple of suicides and teachers leaving abruptly after inappropriate relationships too.
Private schools are not immune to the visscitudes of teenage life.
When I was at uni the private school kids all did way more drugs than the state school kids.
That's only because they have the disposable income to afford them
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which most parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
"The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare."
Just the same with one of my friend's four children. The lad was very small for his size and a bit effeminate* and was bullied horrendously. The schools were aware but didn't sort it (they won't expel) and the parents eventually moved their son to a private day school (which they struggled to afford) to protect him. He has thrived there with no issues.
(* to pre-empt DA: no it wasn't Sunak.)
Interested in these anecdotes. Wouldn't one try another state school first? It seems to me that the solution is fixing these issues in state schools, so that those who cannot afford the private option are also protected.
Again, FWIW, my acquaintances negative experience of Eton was largely being bullied by the rich/entitled kids. Again, less of an issue perhaps in your run of the mill private school that is not full of absolute toffs.
ETA: He was a contemporary of Hazza, who was also bullied apparently. But in his case for being a dickhead, rather than for being a pleb.
"Wouldn't one try another state school first?"
AIUI, the problem was not just the school: the parents escalated to whatever the overall authority is, and they backed the school, making it very hard for the parents to change school. Besides, why would you trust an organisation that had already let you down?
There are good and bad state schools. In my local area, there is one secondary school that has a bad reputation for bullying, but another that has an extremely good reputation for dealing quickly and decisively with it. Obviously everyone wants their kids to go to the latter, but its reputation has driven up house prices around it and only the rich can afford to live within its catchment area.
That's very similar to the situation I'm in, though thankfully my kids have a place in the good school even though I need to drive quarter of an hour to get there, while a five minute walk would take us to the bad school.
The other problem with reputations like that is they become self-fulling prophecies.
Parents who care passionately about their kids education will do what they can to ensure their kids can go to the good school, if they're able to. Which means the house price effect you said, or being prepared to drive past bad schools to get to good ones if you're fortunate enough to have a place etc
Parents who don't give a damn won't though. Parents who view schools as no more than glorified daycare, or who don't think bullying is a problem, or don't care about education in general will see no issue with being in the bad school.
Which means that the bad school will attract even more bad parents and thus bad pupils, and the good school will attract even more good parents and thus good pupils.
And both have the same funding.
Breaking that loop is difficult, since it starts at home.
Yes, that's exactly the case - it is a vicious circle.
Also, can someone tell me how much of a charity's income needs to go towards charitable efforts; how much income they can spend on salaries and overheads, and who checks this?
And can that please be expanded to all charities. Many of the larger charities, those that advertise on TV (although mostly at reduced rates), have massive overheads, large offices, and plenty of executives on six-figure salaries.
But they don't generally allocate their services of the basis of recipients' ability to pay for those services, but rather on need.
If I was to set up an education charity, providing schools, I'd be looking to target it at the areas where all the local schools are shit and no one can afford to pay. Not to the parents (like myself) who live in areas where all the local state schools are actually very good and going private, at a bottom end private school, would potentially be a viable option finance-wise.
That's funny, I was just in an Age Concern shop over the weekend where we picked up some second hand books for my kids - and they weren't doling them out, they were very much allocating who could leave with the stock based upon the recipients ability to pay for those services.
Most large charities fundraise in no small part based on ability to pay.
The ones paying (myself buying a book, parents of pupils who are paying) aren't the ones receiving the charity, the ones who are receiving the charity is others.
Do the teachers donate their services, enabling the charities to sell them VAT free? (flippant, of course)
(I learned some things from that link, hadn't realised that charities collect VAT on sales where they substantially alter donated items or, indeed, use raw materials that are bought in - but in the latter case they can claim the VAT on supplies so it's neutral except for the value added.)
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
Shouldn't charities be run for the public benefit? Maybe private schools benefit the children who go to them (debatable) in that they try to give an even bigger head start to children who are mostly already privileged. And there are quite large costs to society in general, so I'm not convinced they offer any public benefit on balance, so I don't think they should generally qualify as charities, though might in some cases.
Almost all charities fundraise through means that can benefit their donors in one way or another, since that's the most effective way to fundraise.
Are you going to levy VAT on tomobolas? Or charity auctions? Or charity competitions? Or charity shops (and business rates which they're exempt from too)?
Yes fee-paying donors to the the private school charities get their kids educated along side those who are not fee paying, but does that make what the charity is doing any less charitable?
Its not a for-profit business, its still a charity, even if its not one you like. How do you define a charity that excludes schools?
Also, can someone tell me how much of a charity's income needs to go towards charitable efforts; how much income they can spend on salaries and overheads, and who checks this?
And can that please be expanded to all charities. Many of the larger charities, those that advertise on TV (although mostly at reduced rates), have massive overheads, large offices, and plenty of executives on six-figure salaries.
But they don't generally allocate their services of the basis of recipients' ability to pay for those services, but rather on need.
If I was to set up an education charity, providing schools, I'd be looking to target it at the areas where all the local schools are shit and no one can afford to pay. Not to the parents (like myself) who live in areas where all the local state schools are actually very good and going private, at a bottom end private school, would potentially be a viable option finance-wise.
That's funny, I was just in an Age Concern shop over the weekend where we picked up some second hand books for my kids - and they weren't doling them out, they were very much allocating who could leave with the stock based upon the recipients ability to pay for those services.
Most large charities fundraise in no small part based on ability to pay.
The ones paying (myself buying a book, parents of pupils who are paying) aren't the ones receiving the charity, the ones who are receiving the charity is others.
Do the teachers donate their services, enabling the charities to sell them VAT free? (flippant, of course)
(I learned some things from that link, hadn't realised that charities collect VAT on sales where they substantially alter donated items or, indeed, use raw materials that are bought in - but in the latter case they can claim the VAT on supplies so it's neutral except for the value added.)
I know you're being flippant but I'm pretty certain the staff at charity shops are paid.
[They had an advert on the door saying staff wanted and what the pay rates are, which is a bit of a clue]
On private schools, there is of course also a logic on removing tax breaks for e.g. sports clubs that charge mandatory membership fees etc, so I accept it's not an entirely straightforward issue.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
The core function of the sector is to provide a kind of 'gated community' in education for people with money. This is fine or not (depending on your politics) but it's hardly a charitable activity.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
Shouldn't charities be run for the public benefit? Maybe private schools benefit the children who go to them (debatable) in that they try to give an even bigger head start to children who are mostly already privileged. And there are quite large costs to society in general, so I'm not convinced they offer any public benefit on balance, so I don't think they should generally qualify as charities, though might in some cases.
Charities must be run for public benefit, not private profit.
That means for the benefit of a section of a public. Almost no charity is run to benefit the public in general.
A bridge club in Hitchin can be a charity.
Not to mention that private schools invest heavily in providing benefit to the wider community, in terms of opening up facilities at weekends and holidays, of providing scholarships, of partnering with local state schools on various projects and initiatives, plus the direct economic benefits of exports and money spent by the kids in the local economy.
To all the Twitterati going on about not being happy until Eton gets shut down - all that would happen is that Eton USA, Eton Singapore, and Eton Dubai, would be opened up almost immediately.
Also, can someone tell me how much of a charity's income needs to go towards charitable efforts; how much income they can spend on salaries and overheads, and who checks this?
And can that please be expanded to all charities. Many of the larger charities, those that advertise on TV (although mostly at reduced rates), have massive overheads, large offices, and plenty of executives on six-figure salaries.
But they don't generally allocate their services of the basis of recipients' ability to pay for those services, but rather on need.
If I was to set up an education charity, providing schools, I'd be looking to target it at the areas where all the local schools are shit and no one can afford to pay. Not to the parents (like myself) who live in areas where all the local state schools are actually very good and going private, at a bottom end private school, would potentially be a viable option finance-wise.
That's funny, I was just in an Age Concern shop over the weekend where we picked up some second hand books for my kids - and they weren't doling them out, they were very much allocating who could leave with the stock based upon the recipients ability to pay for those services.
Most large charities fundraise in no small part based on ability to pay.
The ones paying (myself buying a book, parents of pupils who are paying) aren't the ones receiving the charity, the ones who are receiving the charity is others.
Do the teachers donate their services, enabling the charities to sell them VAT free? (flippant, of course)
(I learned some things from that link, hadn't realised that charities collect VAT on sales where they substantially alter donated items or, indeed, use raw materials that are bought in - but in the latter case they can claim the VAT on supplies so it's neutral except for the value added.)
I know you're being flippant but I'm pretty certain the staff at charity shops are paid.
[They had an advert on the door saying staff wanted and what the pay rates are, which is a bit of a clue]
Often not, at the smaller ones at least. Not sure about the big organisations.
Eliud Kipchoge banned from training on that street then!
Well offtopic, but an open question. For how long do you think you could keep up Kipchoge marathon speed - 5 miles, one mile, half a mile, 100m?
Good luck with the the 100m, he does that in 17s, for two hours straight, on the road. 68s for 400m, one lap of a track, which most club runners can’t do. https://youtube.com/watch?v=41WC1hH8WX0
I could keep up fine - on a bicycle.
I’d struggle. The elite athletes in the Great North Run do it faster than I could cycle,it. Even allowing for all the stop start that would hamper me not them.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
The core function of the sector is to provide a kind of 'gated community' in education for people with money. This is fine or not (depending on your politics) but it's hardly a charitable activity.
What's the core function of charity shops?
The sector offers free education to many pupils and other charitable services based on the funds they raise. How is that not charity?
If that money were being paid out in dividends to shareholders it would be a business. If its going to charitable services its a charity. That's a pretty clear definition to me.
I see that some folk are demanding that we maximise our reliance on oil from Russia and Saudi Arabia, rather than develop reserves in UK waters.
Given the meagre size of our remaining reserves, it would make more sense to save them for when they are really needed rather than squandering them now and leaving us completely reliant on Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
The core function of the sector is to provide a kind of 'gated community' in education for people with money. This is fine or not (depending on your politics) but it's hardly a charitable activity.
What's the core function of charity shops?
The sector offers free education to many pupils and other charitable services based on the funds they raise. How is that not charity?
If that money were being paid out in dividends to shareholders it would be a business. If its going to charitable services its a charity. That's a pretty clear definition to me.
Yes, that is how the Nuffield Trust runs its hospitals and gyms while retaining charitable status.
My church has a good income from renting out rooms for private use, from mum and toddler groups to yoga classes, and 12 step groups. This is both to contribute to the costs of our buildings, but also to support positive community groups.
I see that some folk are demanding that we maximise our reliance on oil from Russia and Saudi Arabia, rather than develop reserves in UK waters.
Given the meagre size of our remaining reserves, it would make more sense to save them for when they are really needed rather than squandering them now and leaving us completely reliant on Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future.
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 15m MAIL: Labour’s class war begins on Day One #TomorrowsPapersToday
===
"Backlash as parents face school fees hike"
How many Mail readers send their kids to private school???
It is not just the mail going onto the attack
The i as well
Sorry the link didn't work
The Mail tries its best to make it sound like Labour will be charging a new fee for all parents . Not sure the I headline will worry Labour . A backlash from private schools . 93% of children do not go to private schools . They get a subsidy in effect from tax payers whilst state schools are crumbling. Do you want your taxes subsiding rich parennts sending their kids to places like Eton .
That will be the Labour campaign.
Of course, the exact opposite is true.
Every parent who sends their child to private school is effectively paying double - they are paying all the tax for a state school place, but not taking it up, thereby donating the resources they would have used so they are available for everyone else instead. Meanwhile, they expand the level of investment going into the education sector overall, funding the training of more teachers, experimenting with new education styles, more resources and facilities, rather than spend it on property and consumption. Which is where they money would otherwise go. And private schools are charitable endeavours that don't generate profit or return to investors but invest in an educational mission overall.
This is why governments of all stripes have recognised this in the tax system for decades - because it's in the public interest. They are a net good.
It won't be Eton, Harrow or Winchester hit by these changes. It will be the smaller more marginal private schools where two parents working full-time - doctors, accountants, pilots, solicitors, and small businessmen - work hard to be able to afford the fees are forced to pull their kids out, with the school closing and the community assets lost. The state system won't gain a bean from it except an additional burden and the education sector overall will shrink. We'll all be poorer for it.
It's a disgrace of a policy based on prejudice. It deserves to fail, as all bad policies should.
This is spot on. (Even if Casino thinks I’m a “Leftie”.)
The big name public schools will sail on regardless. The ones that will be hit will be the small ones with the specialisms in autism support or music or whatever, where the parents have scrimped and saved to send their kids because they’ve been failed by the state system.
If your position is “well improve the state system so it caters for those kids” that’s an honest position to take… and also I have a bridge to sell you. You have a look at the EHCP backlog for any given local authority and tell me how long that’s going to take.
Really it’s not that fricking hard (and here is where Casino will conclude I am in fact a Leftie). Tax wealth, rather than taxing people when they choose to spend that wealth on good things like education. A couple of pence on income tax for the super-rich would dwarf anything raised by VAT on school fees.
But Starmer won’t do that. It’s tokenism rather than genuine redistribution, at the expense of kids’ education.
What a load of shite. This is closing a tax loophole on a tax that is levied on pretty much everything else.
If VAT on private school fees already existed nobody would be campaigning to remove it.
This is middle class crybabyism
I do hope that VAT will be applied to all private tutoring - and other private educational facilities only accessible to those with money - as well. If only so that we can hear the wails from those parents sending their children to state schools but using private tutors to help them get on.
BTW for those agitating for private education to be abolished, Article 2 of the Protocol to the ECHR waves hello. So if you want this to happen you'll be hoping Ms Braverman gets her way. Or perhaps not .....
I see that some folk are demanding that we maximise our reliance on oil from Russia and Saudi Arabia, rather than develop reserves in UK waters.
Doing the work of Putin and MBS.
US polling has already noticed that ‘gas’ is heading back up again. I’ve said it 100 times, but the West needs to get MBS and Putin back to their willy-waving contest from a couple of years ago.
Tell the Saudis they can have a dozen new F-35s for free, if they pump oil like crazy until Putin is starved of foreign currency to fight his stupid war.
The US economy could be about to hit a perfect storm. https://youtube.com/watch?v=bAn4JShKiD0 <<— The rational and reasonable Breaking Points, not Zerohedge.
I see that some folk are demanding that we maximise our reliance on oil from Russia and Saudi Arabia, rather than develop reserves in UK waters.
Given the meagre size of our remaining reserves, it would make more sense to save them for when they are really needed rather than squandering them now and leaving us completely reliant on Russia and Saudi Arabia in the future.
Which is a different argument to the "leave it in the ground" crowd.
Presumably fans of football clubs owned by the Middle East are in the "leave it in the ground" camp.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which most parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
"The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare."
Just the same with one of my friend's four children. The lad was very small for his size and a bit effeminate* and was bullied horrendously. The schools were aware but didn't sort it (they won't expel) and the parents eventually moved their son to a private day school (which they struggled to afford) to protect him. He has thrived there with no issues.
(* to pre-empt DA: no it wasn't Sunak.)
Interested in these anecdotes. Wouldn't one try another state school first? It seems to me that the solution is fixing these issues in state schools, so that those who cannot afford the private option are also protected.
Again, FWIW, my acquaintances negative experience of Eton was largely being bullied by the rich/entitled kids. Again, less of an issue perhaps in your run of the mill private school that is not full of absolute toffs.
ETA: He was a contemporary of Hazza, who was also bullied apparently. But in his case for being a dickhead, rather than for being a pleb.
Plenty of bullying, drug use and rampant eating disorders at the major private schools round me. A couple of suicides and teachers leaving abruptly after inappropriate relationships too.
Private schools are not immune to the visscitudes of teenage life.
My wife was a TA in a private school. Drugs, sex scandals, fighting, fraud, theft...and that was just the teachers!
I'm off for a long weekend in Istanbul (first visit).
Any tips?
The public trams and ferries are easy and cheap to use. The public ferry to cross from the railway station to the Asian side is as good as any cruise, and the neighbourhood by the terminal on the Asian side has a wonderful hipster boutique shopping and dining vibe, great for a browse.
Is that the Karakoy area? If so, we have a guided tour arranged for there inc ferry crossing from where we are staying in the old town.
No, Karakoy is on the European side, it is the area around Haydarpasa that I have in mind.
It was all quite safe and relaxed to wander round. We avoided the political areas as it was the week before their elections when we were there and riot police out, but didn't see any trouble.
Sorry - I got mixed up - the tour is to Kadıköy (Not Karakoy) which I think IS on the Asian side.
As I have said before, I think Public Schools should retain their charitable status, but be required to do more for it, like taking kids off the care conveyor belt and welcoming them to Mallory Towers.
As I have said before, I think Public Schools should retain their charitable status, but be required to do more for it, like taking kids off the care conveyor belt and welcoming them to Mallory Towers.
There are stories of that happening, but agree there should be more of them.
What’s euphemistically called ‘care’ is in reality nothing of the sort, and should be a national scandal. See how many of the abused girls from Rotherham were wards of the State.
Neil Henderson @hendopolis · 15m MAIL: Labour’s class war begins on Day One #TomorrowsPapersToday
===
"Backlash as parents face school fees hike"
How many Mail readers send their kids to private school???
It is not just the mail going onto the attack
The i as well
Sorry the link didn't work
The Mail tries its best to make it sound like Labour will be charging a new fee for all parents . Not sure the I headline will worry Labour . A backlash from private schools . 93% of children do not go to private schools . They get a subsidy in effect from tax payers whilst state schools are crumbling. Do you want your taxes subsiding rich parennts sending their kids to places like Eton .
That will be the Labour campaign.
Of course, the exact opposite is true.
Every parent who sends their child to private school is effectively paying double - they are paying all the tax for a state school place, but not taking it up, thereby donating the resources they would have used so they are available for everyone else instead. Meanwhile, they expand the level of investment going into the education sector overall, funding the training of more teachers, experimenting with new education styles, more resources and facilities, rather than spend it on property and consumption. Which is where they money would otherwise go. And private schools are charitable endeavours that don't generate profit or return to investors but invest in an educational mission overall.
This is why governments of all stripes have recognised this in the tax system for decades - because it's in the public interest. They are a net good.
It won't be Eton, Harrow or Winchester hit by these changes. It will be the smaller more marginal private schools where two parents working full-time - doctors, accountants, pilots, solicitors, and small businessmen - work hard to be able to afford the fees are forced to pull their kids out, with the school closing and the community assets lost. The state system won't gain a bean from it except an additional burden and the education sector overall will shrink. We'll all be poorer for it.
It's a disgrace of a policy based on prejudice. It deserves to fail, as all bad policies should.
This is spot on. (Even if Casino thinks I’m a “Leftie”.)
The big name public schools will sail on regardless. The ones that will be hit will be the small ones with the specialisms in autism support or music or whatever, where the parents have scrimped and saved to send their kids because they’ve been failed by the state system.
If your position is “well improve the state system so it caters for those kids” that’s an honest position to take… and also I have a bridge to sell you. You have a look at the EHCP backlog for any given local authority and tell me how long that’s going to take.
Really it’s not that fricking hard (and here is where Casino will conclude I am in fact a Leftie). Tax wealth, rather than taxing people when they choose to spend that wealth on good things like education. A couple of pence on income tax for the super-rich would dwarf anything raised by VAT on school fees.
But Starmer won’t do that. It’s tokenism rather than genuine redistribution, at the expense of kids’ education.
What a load of shite. This is closing a tax loophole on a tax that is levied on pretty much everything else.
If VAT on private school fees already existed nobody would be campaigning to remove it.
This is middle class crybabyism
I do hope that VAT will be applied to all private tutoring - and other private educational facilities only accessible to those with money - as well. If only so that we can hear the wails from those parents sending their children to state schools but using private tutors to help them get on.
BTW for those agitating for private education to be abolished, Article 2 of the Protocol to the ECHR waves hello. So if you want this to happen you'll be hoping Ms Braverman gets her way. Or perhaps not .....
Actually getting the VAtT on private tutoring would be an accomplishment. Or any tax at all.
To hear a couple of tutors I used, paying them by BACS was an attempt to deny them their human rights.
Abolishing private tutoring (how?) would also probably create a strike by teachers. Half of them are making money on the side doing this…
He's been found liable for Civil Fraud, and his family have all had their rights to do businesses in NY cancelled. 10 days to appoint receivers for the NY based Trump businesses to dissolve them.
Plus restitution to be extracted on an estimated sum of $250 million.
Worse than that, it was handed down as a summary judgement by the judge (who campaigned for election on ‘getting Trump’), with no trial.
You don’t have to like the guy, to think there’s a concerted and co-ordinated effort going on to drown him in legal problems for the next year.
Someone is innocent until proved guilty, however in Trump's case we have seen masses of the evidence (often provided by himself) that leaves very little doubt for most if not all the cases. The only question is why has it taken so long?
Whether the judge is pro or anti Trump if what the BBC report he said in his summing up is true (see below) there is little doubt is there?
"Overvalued Mar-a-Lago by 2,300% in one financial statement
Overvalued his penthouse at Trump Tower in New York by claiming that it was three times its actual size "Absurdly" argued that calculating the area of the penthouse was subjective, ruling "a discrepancy of this order of magnitude, by a real estate developer sizing up his own living space of decades, can only be considered fraud""
I mean I live in a pretty nice house in Surrey, but it is no different to thousands of other houses around here. If I overvalued my house by 2300% it would make it one of the most valuable in the country at about £50,000,000. I think I might have noticed I had got that wrong. I appreciate a business valuations may fluctuate by more, but really. And how do you get the area of a flat wrong by 300%?
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which most parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
"The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare."
Just the same with one of my friend's four children. The lad was very small for his size and a bit effeminate* and was bullied horrendously. The schools were aware but didn't sort it (they won't expel) and the parents eventually moved their son to a private day school (which they struggled to afford) to protect him. He has thrived there with no issues.
(* to pre-empt DA: no it wasn't Sunak.)
Interested in these anecdotes. Wouldn't one try another state school first? It seems to me that the solution is fixing these issues in state schools, so that those who cannot afford the private option are also protected.
Again, FWIW, my acquaintances negative experience of Eton was largely being bullied by the rich/entitled kids. Again, less of an issue perhaps in your run of the mill private school that is not full of absolute toffs.
ETA: He was a contemporary of Hazza, who was also bullied apparently. But in his case for being a dickhead, rather than for being a pleb.
Plenty of bullying, drug use and rampant eating disorders at the major private schools round me. A couple of suicides and teachers leaving abruptly after inappropriate relationships too.
Private schools are not immune to the visscitudes of teenage life.
My wife was a TA in a private school. Drugs, sex scandals, fighting, fraud, theft...and that was just the teachers!
I have noticed that private schools in our patch are quite good at covering these things up. It isn't very good for their business model if these things get out.
On education - another anecdote alert - a friend's child decided on a college, rather than her GCSE school, to do her A Levels. She lasted two days. She said that a good proportion of the students were "furries".
I had no idea what furries are so I looked it up. According to my friend's daughter, students are going to the A Level college because they can get away with indulging their fantasies (identity and appearance) in a way that they would not be allowed to in a school.
She is not one to lie I don't think but can this be true?
As I have said before, I think Public Schools should retain their charitable status, but be required to do more for it, like taking kids off the care conveyor belt and welcoming them to Mallory Towers.
Whilst I broadly agree my concern with the idea of removing kids from the care conveyor belt is what happens to those kids who spend term time boarding with Princes and sons of oligarchs is what do they do during the holidays.
They can’t stay at school so where do they go as I would imagine it would be very hard to find care places just for the holidays, or foster parents who would just take these kids in batches of weeks during the holidays and the extremity of the dual existence without the stable family input during holidays to balance the boarding school life. It might end up doing more psychological damage to them in the long run.
So I think this is clear blue water, isn't it? Delay the green measures and green light fossil fuel extraction.
In that moment of reflection in the voting booth I expect that this will sway a large number of voters towards the Cons. Notwithstanding the broad and deep visceral dislike of the party which will perhaps or otherwise stay their hand.
I have noticed that private schools in our patch are quite good at covering these things up. It isn't very good for their business model if these things get out.
Front page of The Times
Teacher at Rugby School ‘engaged in sexual banter with female pupil’ A housemistress at the prestigious private school faced 19 misconduct allegations
Eliud Kipchoge banned from training on that street then!
Well offtopic, but an open question. For how long do you think you could keep up Kipchoge marathon speed - 5 miles, one mile, half a mile, 100m?
Good luck with the the 100m, he does that in 17s, for two hours straight, on the road. 68s for 400m, one lap of a track, which most club runners can’t do. https://youtube.com/watch?v=41WC1hH8WX0
He goes faster than the max setting on most treadmills......it is about my max speed, maybe 50m, definitely not 100m.
Yes, it’s a totally bonkers speed to comprehend - 21km/h, sprint speed for an average fit man, kept up for two hours straight.
It's not a speed limit.
It's an advised speed limit over a speed hump.
Yellow diamond signs in Australia are warning signs, not regulatory.
Eliud Kipchoge banned from training on that street then!
Well offtopic, but an open question. For how long do you think you could keep up Kipchoge marathon speed - 5 miles, one mile, half a mile, 100m?
Good luck with the the 100m, he does that in 17s, for two hours straight, on the road. 68s for 400m, one lap of a track, which most club runners can’t do. https://youtube.com/watch?v=41WC1hH8WX0
He goes faster than the max setting on most treadmills......it is about my max speed, maybe 50m, definitely not 100m.
Yes, it’s a totally bonkers speed to comprehend - 21km/h, sprint speed for an average fit man, kept up for two hours straight.
It's not a speed limit.
It's an advised speed limit over a speed hump.
Yellow diamond signs in Australia are warning signs, not regulatory.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
The core function of the sector is to provide a kind of 'gated community' in education for people with money. This is fine or not (depending on your politics) but it's hardly a charitable activity.
What's the core function of charity shops?
The sector offers free education to many pupils and other charitable services based on the funds they raise. How is that not charity?
If that money were being paid out in dividends to shareholders it would be a business. If its going to charitable services its a charity. That's a pretty clear definition to me.
Yes, that is how the Nuffield Trust runs its hospitals and gyms while retaining charitable status.
My church has a good income from renting out rooms for private use, from mum and toddler groups to yoga classes, and 12 step groups. This is both to contribute to the costs of our buildings, but also to support positive community groups.
Thing is, I don't really care how tax efficient your system is, if your system is working towards a caste system.
Could equally be argued to be a liberal system. State provides education but doesn't mandate that everyone uses it. I support the private option but am amenable to tax being levied on fees, but 20% would do a lot of damage all round I think.
It's just a machine for generation inequality. I mean, obviously it is. That's why people are willing to pay so much money for it. A liberal system would see parental choice and it being free at the point of use. Oversubscriptions get decided by lottery not by how fat your wallet is. Oversubscribed schools get big government grants to expand.
We have that, which is why my kids go to their good state school I can drive them to rather than the closest state school that has not got such a good reputation.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to get a place in a good school though and for those who are of a middle income (not exceptionally well off, not exceptionally poor) should they be penalised for prioritising their kids education as a Plan B to a state system that has let them down?
Fix the state system is a nice idea, but since the problem begins at home and its bad parenting more than bad funding that leads to rough schools (indeed rough state schools often have a higher funding per pupil than good state schools) then fixing that is not easy.
Plan A should be to get a good free education, why not? But if that fails, should parents be banned from paying for a Plan B?
The exceptionally wealthy will always be able to afford the likes of Eton either way, so that's moot. Its the middle ones we're talking about here.
As I have said before, I think Public Schools should retain their charitable status, but be required to do more for it, like taking kids off the care conveyor belt and welcoming them to Mallory Towers.
And kids who've been permanently excluded from mainstream schools for behavioural problems. If these schools are as great as we are told, and with their ample resources, they should be able to easily reintegrate these pupils into schooling.
As I have said before, I think Public Schools should retain their charitable status, but be required to do more for it, like taking kids off the care conveyor belt and welcoming them to Mallory Towers.
There are stories of that happening, but agree there should be more of them.
Somehow we need a one-nation approach to state and private sector. We need to blur the boundary between the two. Now that may sounds rather Blairite but given where we are and the huge amount of resources in the private sector vs other countries, as well as the export business with the kids of international elites, some sort of fudge may be the only option.
Imagine a world where as a parent you have options all the way from contributing a bit to a largely state education (say by using a private school for some sports or clubs and societies), to attending a private school for free with government funding, to paying a small amount of fees per term for a school supported by direct government grants, all the way through to paying through the nose for Eton. Some will see that as a dystopia but it's pretty similar to how the university sector works, and it's not a million miles from how health or public transport work either.
So I think this is clear blue water, isn't it? Delay the green measures and green light fossil fuel extraction.
In that moment of reflection in the voting booth I expect that this will sway a large number of voters towards the Cons. Notwithstanding the broad and deep visceral dislike of the party which will perhaps or otherwise stay their hand.
Maybe. Not sure. Don't you think the general public always thought it obvious, whoever is in power, that these deadlines would be extended?
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
The core function of the sector is to provide a kind of 'gated community' in education for people with money. This is fine or not (depending on your politics) but it's hardly a charitable activity.
What's the core function of charity shops?
The sector offers free education to many pupils and other charitable services based on the funds they raise. How is that not charity?
If that money were being paid out in dividends to shareholders it would be a business. If its going to charitable services its a charity. That's a pretty clear definition to me.
Private schools do provide some free places, yes, but it's a tiny fraction. It has to be because they need the fee income to operate their gated community. That's the core function. The free places aspect is a sideshow. The core function of charity shops by contrast is to raise money for good works. It isn't to provide an exclusive retail space where monied people can browse and buy things, with a small handful of 'deserving' other folk allowed in if they pass a test on the door.
Eliud Kipchoge banned from training on that street then!
Well offtopic, but an open question. For how long do you think you could keep up Kipchoge marathon speed - 5 miles, one mile, half a mile, 100m?
Good luck with the the 100m, he does that in 17s, for two hours straight, on the road. 68s for 400m, one lap of a track, which most club runners can’t do. https://youtube.com/watch?v=41WC1hH8WX0
He goes faster than the max setting on most treadmills......it is about my max speed, maybe 50m, definitely not 100m.
Yes, it’s a totally bonkers speed to comprehend - 21km/h, sprint speed for an average fit man, kept up for two hours straight.
It's not a speed limit.
It's an advised speed limit over a speed hump.
Yellow diamond signs in Australia are warning signs, not regulatory.
Huh.
Back to 30kph then.
If that's Australia its not just the diamonds, all yellow signs from memory are advisories. From memory, like us, their speed limits are shown in red circles.
As I have said before, I think Public Schools should retain their charitable status, but be required to do more for it, like taking kids off the care conveyor belt and welcoming them to Mallory Towers.
There are stories of that happening, but agree there should be more of them.
Somehow we need a one-nation approach to state and private sector. We need to blur the boundary between the two. Now that may sounds rather Blairite but given where we are and the huge amount of resources in the private sector vs other countries, as well as the export business with the kids of international elites, some sort of fudge may be the only option.
Imagine a world where as a parent you have options all the way from contributing a bit to a largely state education (say by using a private school for some sports or clubs and societies), to attending a private school for free with government funding, to paying a small amount of fees per term for a school supported by direct government grants, all the way through to paying through the nose for Eton. Some will see that as a dystopia but it's pretty similar to how the university sector works, and it's not a million miles from how health or public transport work either.
Education vouchers, a long-standing policy of the free-market think tanks. Let the parents choose the schools, not the other way around. Let the good schools expand, and the bad ones fail.
As I have said before, I think Public Schools should retain their charitable status, but be required to do more for it, like taking kids off the care conveyor belt and welcoming them to Mallory Towers.
And kids who've been permanently excluded from mainstream schools for behavioural problems. If these schools are as great as we are told, and with their ample resources, they should be able to easily reintegrate these pupils into schooling.
I’ve actually witnessed them doing that.
Kid excluded from school ended up at Eton on a scholarship as a result of his rowing.
Incidentally, an acquaintance has taken one of his kids out of a local school and put her into private education because of some rather nasty bullying that the school could not, or refused, to combat.
Not everyone who sends their kids to private school are posh; many parents who send their kids to private school make sacrifices to do so - because they care for their kids.
Exactly my family's experience.
The State School was incapable of addressing, or dealing with, bullying - so my niece had to be pulled out and sent to a local small independent day school to ensure her welfare.
She eventually returned to the State Sector at the next educational stage, but obtaining appropriate aid (ie a Statement) required a couple of years of bureaucratic process including the need to attend meetings with a specialist barrister (at 4 figures a time), private medical reports and all the rest.
Far better to have tolerably affordable alternatives, which many parents can meet by not taking holidays, living in a smaller house etc if they choose to do so.
These are things that the Labour proposals, as far as I can see, have just not bothered thinking about (having read the supporting report) in their enthusiasm to trip over their own feet to pander to Neander.
Not something Mr Starmer should do to raise pin money when he also needs every vote he can get his hands on.
Well said.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
I'd have thought you'd be all in favour of the market. Remove the charity status, let schools charge the full economic rate and the ones delivering value will survive while the others fail, with parents deciding whether the higher fees are justified.
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
The core function of the sector is to provide a kind of 'gated community' in education for people with money. This is fine or not (depending on your politics) but it's hardly a charitable activity.
What's the core function of charity shops?
The sector offers free education to many pupils and other charitable services based on the funds they raise. How is that not charity?
If that money were being paid out in dividends to shareholders it would be a business. If its going to charitable services its a charity. That's a pretty clear definition to me.
Private schools do provide some free places, yes, but it's a tiny fraction. It has to be because they need the fee income to operate their gated community. That's the core function. The free places aspect is a sideshow. The core function of charity shops by contrast is to raise money for good works. It isn't to provide an exclusive retail space where monied people can browse and buy things, with a small handful of 'deserving' other folk allowed in if they pass a test on the door.
Sorry but there's no difference.
On the one hand you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works. On the other you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works.
As I have said before, I think Public Schools should retain their charitable status, but be required to do more for it, like taking kids off the care conveyor belt and welcoming them to Mallory Towers.
And kids who've been permanently excluded from mainstream schools for behavioural problems. If these schools are as great as we are told, and with their ample resources, they should be able to easily reintegrate these pupils into schooling.
I’ve actually witnessed them doing that.
Kid excluded from school ended up at Eton on a scholarship as a result of his rowing.
Now at Yale, IIRC
My old school did the same, as well; at least under the headmaster we had when we started.
Comments
ETA: And are cyclists obliged to have computers fitted to monitor speed/is it common? I'd be fine in traffic, matching the traffic and assuming it wasn't speeding, but I'd have no idea on an empty road of my speed a that level.
Would be interesting though to hear from private school attendees who support the Labour plans or non-attendees (without family members benefitting too) who do not.
FWIW, an acquaintance who went to Eton on a scholarship is fully in favour of the plans, but he did not have a good experience and has no intention of sending his kids private (and, as many note, Eton is not the typical private school experience).
ETA: Being a state school pleb, I clearly can't even spell 'private' properly
Just the same with one of my friend's four children. The lad was very small for his size and a bit effeminate* and was bullied horrendously. The schools were aware but didn't sort it (they won't expel) and the parents eventually moved their son to a private day school (which they struggled to afford) to protect him. He has thrived there with no issues.
(* to pre-empt DA: no it wasn't Sunak.)
You don’t have to like the guy, to think there’s a concerted and co-ordinated effort going on to drown him in legal problems for the next year.
Again, FWIW, my acquaintances negative experience of Eton was largely being bullied by the rich/entitled kids. Again, less of an issue perhaps in your run of the mill private school that is not full of absolute toffs.
ETA: He was a contemporary of Hazza, who was also bullied apparently. But in his case for being a dickhead, rather than for being a pleb.
They managed to dig into Chinese figures via world bank, as China wouldn’t furnish any figures, and they also are expensive and go over planned cost - only advantage they have is speed of projects due to lack of needing accountability and listening to shareholders.
I was quite surprised as it did feel we were specifically crap at big projects.
As crap as he is, Sunak is the best they have (who has any chance of being leader). A challenge would be from a headbanger candidate like Braverman; the Tories would be sunk for a generation.
"Wealth" is the important bit - I know several high earners who would be unable to send their kids to private school because they don't have future inheritances to rely on. On the other hand, you can come across relatively low paid households who do have that family capital to help fund it.
But, given the funding model, it's all government money anyway - slap 20% on fees then you need to up loans to cover that and the amount you recover probably doesn't change so you stand still. So either leave it alone or divide fees by 1.2, slap on 20% VAT and then ring fence that for university funding, althought the admin costs would probably make that daft.
Start with £250bn sales of food. - that's retail consumer sales,
What about purchases of food by businesses - no idea on that.
Add in segments of the clothing market - children incl. school uniforms.
Then all businesses turning over less than £85k a year (approx figure).
Reduced VAT on energy bills at 5%. (Energy bills = £50bn to £100bn a year at present)
Medicines and medical devices, including I think Motability cars (Motability do £4bn of business a year).
Then there's a whole bundle of non-VAT or reduced rate VAT exemptions for charities.
Financial services.
And it goes on...
No precise idea on the total, but it looks to me as if perhaps 15-20% of GDP is VAT exempt.
There is a 'toff-bashing' attitude shown by many of those disliking private schools, but the true toffs will be able to afford increased fees no matter what, its those like you describe who will suffer the most from these proposals.
I count myself very fortunate, my kids have a place in a good primary school. We've moved since they started the school and the schools closest to us do not have such a good reputation, so we're keeping them in their old school and I'm driving them to their school. No fees thankfully, just petrol money, but their education comes first. I could relocate them from their school I drive to, to the one with a rough reputation they could walk to instead, but their education absolutely has to come first and inconveniencing me and costing me petrol money is a price I'm absolutely prepared to pay to ensure they continue to get a good education.
Too many others in the state sector aren't so fortunate. Too many have poor schools and not much they can do about it. "Fix that" is the obvious rallying cry, and yes that should be done, though the biggest difference in school behaviour is often not from funding, or the teachers, its the pupils parents surely and that's not so easy to fix?
For those of middle income, neither poor, nor well off, who find themselves lumbered with a bad school or a school that can't handle their child's needs, an affordable alternative should be available ideally. A Plan B so to speak.
For those who have enough money they don't need to worry about bills, they'll continue to get private education either way.
Private schools are not immune to the visscitudes of teenage life.
It's also ludicrously expensive for peak-time* travel.
*peak-time being 'whenever the feck we decide to gouge you for money because you have no alternative'.
AIUI, the problem was not just the school: the parents escalated to whatever the overall authority is, and they backed the school, making it very hard for the parents to change school. Besides, why would you trust an organisation that had already let you down?
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/sep/27/scrapping-inheritance-tax-would-cost-15bn-a-year-by-2032-says-ifs
What would it cost if rich families spent their kids' inheritances on school fees?
VAT is supposed to be Value Added, so businesses can reclaim their input VAT. Which is effectively just netting off input against output VAT unless you're an exporter.
However there's no VAT on fresh food, but there is VAT on most prepared hot food (except some notorious reason pasties it seems).
Most businesses therefore only charge VAT on their own value add, because they're netting off the VAT on their inputs. Hospitality businesses however end up charging VAT on the entire supply chain, because they charge VAT but they have nothing to net off.
So if you compare the cost of eg food ingredients in the supermarket, or a frozen pizza in the supermarket - that's 0-rated, but if you go to a restaurant or a takeaway and get one, 20% of is immediately added as VAT. And the business won't be reclaiming 20% off the cost of their raw ingredients, since it was never levied in the first place.
Any tips?
The charity status is there because what they're doing is charitable. They literally are charities, they're not businesses paying dividends to shareholders last I checked.
I think it has to do with:
1 - One state school having been unable to assert effective behaviour management, why would you put your child at risk in another one?
2 - There may be difficulties with in-year transfers between State Schools. I admit I do not know the ins and outs of this - not having my own children.
3 - Size of many state schools.
4 - Possibility of stronger parental input. The ability of a small independent school to offer individualised service, which can be effectively influenced.
If I was to set up an education charity, providing schools, I'd be looking to target it at the areas where all the local schools are shit and no one can afford to pay. Not to the parents (like myself) who live in areas where all the local state schools are actually very good and going private, at a bottom end private school, would potentially be a viable option finance-wise.
A few of us gave their thoughts on the place in this thread.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4471819/#Comment_4471819
Most large charities fundraise in no small part based on ability to pay.
The ones paying (myself buying a book, parents of pupils who are paying) aren't the ones receiving the charity, the ones who are receiving the charity is others.
Once you have mastered it you will not look back
Indeed we have an air fryer and an air fryer oven for cooking roasts and our main oven is redundant
As you can cook at lower temperatures and shorter cooking times I always prick the temperature
It was all quite safe and relaxed to wander round. We avoided the political areas as it was the week before their elections when we were there and riot police out, but didn't see any trouble.
https://twitter.com/AvaSantina/status/1706777983241822705
For those with the energy:
https://ofcomlive.my.salesforce-sites.com/formentry/SitesFormCSLEStandardsComplaints
On 1, state schools vary massively on this. It might be that all the local schools appear lacking in this regard, of course, but I'm not sure how you judge that easily. Sometimes the bullying might be down to one arsehole starting it off, not present at any new school.
On 2, I know someone who did this (was for practical reasons, rather than being disatisfied with a school - divorce changed the logistics of school drop off and childcare) and it wasn't difficult, although it did of course depend on free places at the new school - anecdote, of course, there may be widespread problems that didn't apply here
On 3, this is surely a different issue. Size is not relevant to bullying if the school is well run
On 4, also a different issue?
3 and 4 relevant is you think that lower pupils per staff member help with bullying for example, which could be the case - better oversight of what's happening? Although I'm not convinced. I guess your independent school might be more willing to expel offenders too, although that would also depend on their finances.
The other problem with reputations like that is they become self-fulling prophecies.
Parents who care passionately about their kids education will do what they can to ensure their kids can go to the good school, if they're able to. Which means the house price effect you said, or being prepared to drive past bad schools to get to good ones if you're fortunate enough to have a place etc
Parents who don't give a damn won't though. Parents who view schools as no more than glorified daycare, or who don't think bullying is a problem, or don't care about education in general will see no issue with being in the bad school.
Which means that the bad school will attract even more bad parents and thus bad pupils, and the good school will attract even more good parents and thus good pupils.
And both have the same funding.
Breaking that loop is difficult, since it starts at home.
https://www.everyonesinvited.uk/
That means for the benefit of a section of a public. Almost no charity is run to benefit the public in general.
A bridge club in Hitchin can be a charity.
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-charities-manual/vchar7200
Do the teachers donate their services, enabling the charities to sell them VAT free?
(I learned some things from that link, hadn't realised that charities collect VAT on sales where they substantially alter donated items or, indeed, use raw materials that are bought in - but in the latter case they can claim the VAT on supplies so it's neutral except for the value added.)
Are you going to levy VAT on tomobolas? Or charity auctions? Or charity competitions? Or charity shops (and business rates which they're exempt from too)?
Yes fee-paying donors to the the private school charities get their kids educated along side those who are not fee paying, but does that make what the charity is doing any less charitable?
Its not a for-profit business, its still a charity, even if its not one you like. How do you define a charity that excludes schools?
[They had an advert on the door saying staff wanted and what the pay rates are, which is a bit of a clue]
To all the Twitterati going on about not being happy until Eton gets shut down - all that would happen is that Eton USA, Eton Singapore, and Eton Dubai, would be opened up almost immediately.
The sector offers free education to many pupils and other charitable services based on the funds they raise. How is that not charity?
If that money were being paid out in dividends to shareholders it would be a business. If its going to charitable services its a charity. That's a pretty clear definition to me.
My church has a good income from renting out rooms for private use, from mum and toddler groups to yoga classes, and 12 step groups. This is both to contribute to the costs of our buildings, but also to support positive community groups.
BTW for those agitating for private education to be abolished, Article 2 of the Protocol to the ECHR waves hello. So if you want this to happen you'll be hoping Ms Braverman gets her way. Or perhaps not .....
Tell the Saudis they can have a dozen new F-35s for free, if they pump oil like crazy until Putin is starved of foreign currency to fight his stupid war.
The US economy could be about to hit a perfect storm. https://youtube.com/watch?v=bAn4JShKiD0 <<— The rational and reasonable Breaking Points, not Zerohedge.
Presumably fans of football clubs owned by the Middle East are in the "leave it in the ground" camp.
What’s euphemistically called ‘care’ is in reality nothing of the sort, and should be a national scandal. See how many of the abused girls from Rotherham were wards of the State.
To hear a couple of tutors I used, paying them by BACS was an attempt to deny them their human rights.
Abolishing private tutoring (how?) would also probably create a strike by teachers. Half of them are making money on the side doing this…
Whether the judge is pro or anti Trump if what the BBC report he said in his summing up is true (see below) there is little doubt is there?
"Overvalued Mar-a-Lago by 2,300% in one financial statement
Overvalued his penthouse at Trump Tower in New York by claiming that it was three times its actual size
"Absurdly" argued that calculating the area of the penthouse was subjective, ruling "a discrepancy of this order of magnitude, by a real estate developer sizing up his own living space of decades, can only be considered fraud""
I mean I live in a pretty nice house in Surrey, but it is no different to thousands of other houses around here. If I overvalued my house by 2300% it would make it one of the most valuable in the country at about £50,000,000. I think I might have noticed I had got that wrong. I appreciate a business valuations may fluctuate by more, but really. And how do you get the area of a flat wrong by 300%?
I had no idea what furries are so I looked it up. According to my friend's daughter, students are going to the A Level college because they can get away with indulging their fantasies (identity and appearance) in a way that they would not be allowed to in a school.
She is not one to lie I don't think but can this be true?
They can’t stay at school so where do they go as I would imagine it would be very hard to find care places just for the holidays, or foster parents who would just take these kids in batches of weeks during the holidays and the extremity of the dual existence without the stable family input during holidays to balance the boarding school life. It might end up doing more psychological damage to them in the long run.
Unless the oil extracted is going to be used exclusively for a strategic reserve, 100% owned by HMG?
In that moment of reflection in the voting booth I expect that this will sway a large number of voters towards the Cons. Notwithstanding the broad and deep visceral dislike of the party which will perhaps or otherwise stay their hand.
Teacher at Rugby School ‘engaged in sexual banter with female pupil’
A housemistress at the prestigious private school faced 19 misconduct allegations
It's an advised speed limit over a speed hump.
Yellow diamond signs in Australia are warning signs, not regulatory.
Back to 30kph then.
Oxfam Bookshops.
Not everyone is fortunate enough to get a place in a good school though and for those who are of a middle income (not exceptionally well off, not exceptionally poor) should they be penalised for prioritising their kids education as a Plan B to a state system that has let them down?
Fix the state system is a nice idea, but since the problem begins at home and its bad parenting more than bad funding that leads to rough schools (indeed rough state schools often have a higher funding per pupil than good state schools) then fixing that is not easy.
Plan A should be to get a good free education, why not? But if that fails, should parents be banned from paying for a Plan B?
The exceptionally wealthy will always be able to afford the likes of Eton either way, so that's moot. Its the middle ones we're talking about here.
Imagine a world where as a parent you have options all the way from contributing a bit to a largely state education (say by using a private school for some sports or clubs and societies), to attending a private school for free with government funding, to paying a small amount of fees per term for a school supported by direct government grants, all the way through to paying through the nose for Eton. Some will see that as a dystopia but it's pretty similar to how the university sector works, and it's not a million miles from how health or public transport work either.
Chicken breast and broccoli today, with rice. Ghost of George Bush Senior eat your heart out.
https://iea.org.uk/tag/education-vouchers/
Kid excluded from school ended up at Eton on a scholarship as a result of his rowing.
Now at Yale, IIRC
On the one hand you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works. On the other you have a charity that provides services for those who give it money, and uses some of that money to do good works.
They're both exactly the same.