It's an absolute disgrace that Labour should announce a clear policy in its manifesto, win an election, and then implement the policy straight away. What is the world coming to?
I gather there a few regretful Lab voters on PB. Perhaps they as high information voters could clarify what they thought they were voting for, aside from anyone apart from the mob that fcked up the country for the last 14 years.
Like many who voted Labour this year having voted Conservative from 2010-2019 they thought with Starmer they were getting Blair 1997 2, instead they got Brown 2009 2
Pretty sure even the most enthusiastic Starmer backers didn’t think they were getting Blair 2! There was a bit of ‘he’s quite sexy’ and ‘he has a lovely smile’ a while back but that’s melted like snow aff a dyke.
Regardless of your thoughts on the VAT status of private education (and I don't feel particularly strongly either way, in the abstract), the policy is quite evidently not designed to solve a problem, or to genuinely improve education during this Parliament.
Rather, it's quite obviously a piece of political signalling, to keep a particular set of supporters happy.
That's hardly unusual in recent years, and certainly not unique to the UK. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are far less interested in practical solutions to our various problems - if indeed they are even capable of recognising them at all - than they are in drawing ideological lines.
Little wonder that faith in democracy is waning.
Not everywhere.
It seems to have risen substantially in Argentina over the last year.
I wonder why ...?
Because the guy in charge did exactly what he said he was going to do, with large cuts in public spending and getting inflation under control.
I wonder if there’s another large country in that part of the world planning something similar in 2025?
I think you might be a little confused there. US inflation is under 3%, not 200%.
Or are you taking about Russia ?
The policies in Argentina are actually not actually unconventional (mostly). Just dramatic in being applied in a country that has had a weirdly fucked up economy for so long.
Floating exchange rates, cutting spending to vaguely match receipts, deregulating.
Note that Milei specifically rejected tariffs as a generally good thing. Even gave a rather good explanation as to why, in a number of interviews.
Agreed.
The point isn't that they're right wing - it's that he's grasped the nettle (which is going to sting quite a large proportion of the population in the short term) to prevent a complete collapse, and provide half a chance of a decent future.
Efforts to compare Argentina with the US are pretty nonsensical.
I think the next Tory leader once Kemi falls needs to look at what Millei has done in Argentina both in style and substance. We need someone in this country willing to tell hard truths. 1 in 5 people bring employed by the state is not sustainable or affordable, the next Tory leader has got to grasp the nettle and start making the case for reducing the size of the state and spell out the consequences of not doing so very clearly.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
VAT is a no-brainer really. The upset is that their nice exemption has been removed. I get the upset, but we can't afford it any more. As for the "more kids will end up in your pleb schools so there" argument, great! I support comprehensive education.
Just as a matter if interest what is the Lib Dem policy on this, and for that matter the SNP. ?
LibDems opposed the implementation of VAT on private schools.
Reform are also opposed to VAT on private school fees as well as the Tories of course.
I’ve always thought the reason why ThePrince got so widely reviled is because Machiavelli held up a mirror to people, who did not like the truth revealed to them. He understood that human nature is pretty heinous, on the whole.
When it comes to 80% being potential shoplifters, (and a smaller, but still substantial proportion being potential rapists), it is “the dread of punishment”, that keeps people in check, far more than any appeal to their better nature.
I am not sure what this says about me but I found The Prince one of the funniest books I read at University (ie before I discovered Pratchett) . His observations on human nature are profound and remain valid today.
The VAT on school fees policy is another class war filled disaster from this Labour government. It will likely force many smaller private schools to close, reducing parental choice and adding to pressure on state schools.
Business rates on private schools will also reduce the number of scholarships and bursaries they can provide also making them more exclusive
Do you think Britain in 2029 will be in the mood to support parties who prioritise tax cuts for private schools and tax cuts for farmers/landowners over other things?
I'm still with Gamaliel on this one - time will tell, and will tell whether it has been a benefit for society or not. I think we can be clearer about some things.
On point one, the vast majority of schools in the UK (State Schools) do pay business rates, so I can't honestly see much of a problem with that; that could credibly be called closing a loopholes.
The numbers I recall from the proposals were that expectations were of a 10% increase in fees, which compares to the number so far claimed by Private Schools of 14%. That is close to 10% plus 2.6% current inflation. And that pupils leaving so far are in the low thousands, which is not a real capacity threat to the State Sector, or a lot out of 600k in the independent sector.
So I think the campaign may be overplaying their hand. But we'll see.
The Govt will hang tough, and I hope be generous with application to SEN, which arguably *is* where there is a capacity issue in the State Sector.
There is no doubt the campaign against are overplaying their hand. Whoever thought a legal challenge was a good idea needs to be sacked.
But that is the point of the policy anyway, so I suppose that's a success.
Whether it does any real good is a different question.
I don't know.
As I have said, I was at a Headmasters Conference Day School. Their fee increase is 16% to £7279 per term for seniors, which I think includes inflation as that number is Autumn 2024 to Summer 2025 unless inflation is due in Autumn 2025 - so that looks as if they have included the net increase after claims against VAT (I think.
I also have a relative who went from being bullied at State School, who could not deal with it, to several years in Private School, to a State Boarding School with weekly boarding - and the last one finally gave her the independence to make her way in University.
Getting the Statement took years and much attendance from a specialist barrister at meetings at 4 figures a time or more. So I certainly agree that the SEN system is broken and needs a "service".
So having lost two helicopters and crews to Ukranian drone boats a couple of days ago, the Russians are now going one better and shooting down their own helicopters instead!
In more good news, a large batch of 200 Ukranian pilots have completed basic jet training and language courses in the UK. Well done to everyone involved, the new pilots will now go to various countries for F-16 type ratings.
It’s interesting that the F-16s are all being given to newly-trained pilots, rather than more experienced flight officers, as the whole doctrine and methodology for flying them is totally different to how the old Soviet aircraft are operated. It’s both easier and safer to train new pilots from scratch than to try and teach old dogs new tricks.
They do BFT (and language) training in the UK NOT AJT or anything to do with jets. They go to Cazaux in France to fly the ex French/Belgian Alphas for that. Let's hope they remember their spin recovery drills because the Alpha loves a spin.
They can't realistically take one of the remaining seasoned Flanker/Fulcrum/Fencer/Frogfoot drivers out of a gun squadron for a full year when there is a war on so ab initios make the most sense for F-16.
Blue-on-blue losses have been significant on both sides. The Ukrainians have had 30 fixed wing shootdowns, 9 of which they did themselves. According to Airforces Monthly who generally try to paint the most optimistic picture possible for Ukraine.
There is an old saying that if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
And that saying reflects the fact that education is, in 1066 terms, a good thing. We need more of it. Will this policy help produce that? In theory, the answer is "yes" because those 6,500 additional teachers would benefit more students than the select few who go to private schools, whether on a fee paying or bursary basis.
But there are so many problems with that theory. As @ydoethur points out in most subjects there is a shortage of teachers so there are no more to be had. It is possible that wage increases might increase supply somewhat but this government has already gone too far in trying to solve problems by spending all the available cash on wages.
Secondly, if the result is that some kids come out of the private sector then the full cost of their education has to come out of the pot. Educating a child costs the local authority roughly £5k a year, a lot more for SEND children. So, if the consequence of the policy is that it would take 340k kids to transfer to exhaust the money. Given that 556k children currently go to private schools this seems wildly pessimistic but it is not as simple as that. Firstly, the distribution of those children will be extremely lumpy, depending on where schools close. Secondly, if even 100k transfer then something like 20% of the £1,7bn will be lost.
Thirdly, lets look at the reverse. If 100k of those children end up in state schools that is going to cost local authorities something like £500m.
Finally, the sad truth is that too many of our state schools are simply dysfunctional. Having more children attending those schools instead of (generally) better private educational establishments, particularly children who need a lot of help, is going to result in a less well educated workforce going forward.
This is a stupid policy based on jealousy and prejudice. The number of people adversely affected by it are not likely to be politically significant but it will diminish our total spend on education, it will reduce the average quality of that education and it will hurt many vulnerable kids. Stupid.
It will improve the distribution of spending on education, with more available for struggling state schools who need the money. In these straitened times we can't afford tax breaks for the privileged. If we are to boost spending on education to benefit the vast majority of children who attend state funded schools then the money has to come from somewhere. There is no magic money tree.
There's another point I saw someone make on Twitter (I think Andrew Neil) that salaries for teachers would need to be raised significantly to attract the proposed new intake to the sector. You could give golden hellos to just the new teachers I suppose, but either way it is probably the case that announcing 6500 new teachers isn't just a case of 6500 starter salaries per year, but other costs on top.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
" It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway."
Cool. I look forward to you lauding the government for increasing VAT on (say) clothing at a time when prices are rising anyway. Or, as perhaps a better analogy, putting VAT on kids clothes when prices are rising.
The fact prices are 'rising anyway' makes the addition of VAT worse, not better.
Double VAT on footwear costing over £300 (With a cpi escalator each year) would be a good idea
The lawyers in the biggest firms are using partnerships to avoid paying lots of tax....
The difference here is, in my understanding, that the bankers would get pension contributions and the lawyers would not. Not that I personally care either way of course.
Pension contributions get marginal rate income tax relief whether paid out of employment or partnership income. There's a slight NI advantage to be had for the former via salary sacrifice.
And the lawyers referred to in that piece are not "using... to avoid": all law firms have traditionally operated as partnerships. They are taxed no differently to the owners of any other unincorporated business.
I like Dan Neidle, but he does talk b****cks sometimes.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
But some who would fail without the coaching end up passing. So their parents have bought them a place at the grammar school.
Then the private after-school tuition carries on, thereby buying the children better grades at GCSE and A-Level.
I have a grand daughter who cannot be placed by the State Sector, they have no vacancies. As a result she is now out of school, 2 years before her GSCE's, ( is it still called that?) Phillipson should be sacked, Labour have lost their left already to Farage and the Greens, so she will not be missed.
I doubt the changes in VAT, in the long run, will make much difference either way, However I agree with the minority of others that it seems unfair in principle that essentials like petrol have VAT charged but a luxury item that only the wealthiest in society can afford does not.
In terms of private education as a whole, I find it's where my principles collide. As a liberal I believe anyone should have the right to educate their children privately if they so wish. At the same time I don't believe it is fair for the wealthiest to entrench advantage on their children, in comparison to bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The only solution I can see is to render private education obsolete by improving state education to the same level. Unfortunately that would require an equivalent level of spending per pupil. More probably; if it is worth spending around £30k p.a. on a bright upper-middle class child at (say) Tonbridge, then a disadvantaged Special Needs child must need double that.
And the comments on this board show how skewed we are to the very wealthiest end of the spectrum. I earn within the top 5% of incomes and I would have needed to double my salary to be able to educate my children privately. Ironically now it's too late I could probably afford to send one of them somewhere now but they are in their 20s!
It's a real logic fail to say that because private school is too expensive for most then let's make it even more expensive so it becomes even more exclusive.
The answer is to broaden and expand choice and access, and this policy is the precise opposite.
What's blinding people to the logic here is good old-fashioned British prejudice against (what they think) is class.
I doubt a slight tightening of access from 7% to say 6.8% of the population makes much difference either way. My argument in support of the change is one of fairness in taxation on services more generally.
The problem with broadening access is one of cost. To make it fair everyone needs to be able to afford to send their children to the best schools, unless a cap is placed on how much schools may charge. State schools are much more cost-effective per pupil than private (I forget now how much a secondary school gets per pupil but it is surprisingly little). For example I just looked up the former Grammar School that would have been the only alternative to the state Grammar School I attended - fees are £8200 per term. Any voucher worth less than that would have been useless to my parents.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
In my view this is very simple. If private school fees were already subject to VAT, would we be discussing a VAT exemption at this time?
The answer is obviously not.
Probably not. However there is a reasonable argument that tax policy can be used to help steer people away from bad stuff and towards good stuff. More money spent on education is a good thing, so whilst I couldn't imagine it being top of any politicians list, it certainly wouldn't be an unregarded idea.
I think this tax change is more about social engineering. I don't really approve.
Encouraging more children to go to private schools (the opposite policy) is also social engineering.
It is valid politics to discuss whether the state should limit the ability for the rich to give their kids a leg up simply by spending money. This is of course impossible but if you want a meritocracy…
I'd turn that around: why shouldn't the government give all parents a voucher for their children's education that they can spend it at a school of their choice?
You'd have near £7k a year. That would halve the cost of a full private school education for most (£600 a month would be all that's required to do it at any good day school) and you'd get more schools opening up, more choice, more inclusion and more and better education overall. State schools would, of course, remain completely free.
What's not to like?
That "top-ups" of extra charges are allowed. Give parents a voucher (like in Sweden) where they can spend where they like, on condition there is no top-up.
I doubt the changes in VAT, in the long run, will make much difference either way, However I agree with the minority of others that it seems unfair in principle that essentials like petrol have VAT charged but a luxury item that only the wealthiest in society can afford does not.
In terms of private education as a whole, I find it's where my principles collide. As a liberal I believe anyone should have the right to educate their children privately if they so wish. At the same time I don't believe it is fair for the wealthiest to entrench advantage on their children, in comparison to bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The only solution I can see is to render private education obsolete by improving state education to the same level. Unfortunately that would require an equivalent level of spending per pupil. More probably; if it is worth spending around £30k p.a. on a bright upper-middle class child at (say) Tonbridge, then a disadvantaged Special Needs child must need double that.
And the comments on this board show how skewed we are to the very wealthiest end of the spectrum. I earn within the top 5% of incomes and I would have needed to double my salary to be able to educate my children privately. Ironically now it's too late I could probably afford to send one of them somewhere now but they are in their 20s!
Given nearly 10% of parents educate their children privately you wouldn't
PB's bias towards the private school sector is showing. Labour's policy on this was clear and widely discussed in their manifesto, but more importantly is widely popular. Far more so than any other thing they have done:
Regardless of that, do you think it is the right thing to do, especially in the way it has been done?
No, I do not support the way the policy has been done. I do think that private education is a major drag on social mobility in Britain that entrenched privileged, which is exactly why the privately educated support it.
But Labour implementing a manifesto commitment supported by the vast majority of Britons is not something I will get upset about.
What a lot of bollocks.
Your determination to become Roger's understudy, with a heavy seasoning of Scott's bitterness over Brexit, only damages what little credibility you have still further.
You're one of the most laughable commentators on here, and increasingly unpleasant.
Foxy's post was expressing his opinion on a government policy; yours was a personal attack on him. When it comes to unpleasantness, you are way in front of Foxy.
Foxy's post was, also, rather good whatever one thinks of the policy, because it was segmented, nuanced and logical.
Nah, it was pointless, partisan, populist and ill-considered.
You just liked it because it was tub-thumping for your side of the political spectrum.
Do you know what? That simply isn't true. Before the election you were busy giving me flags because you disagreed with me over this policy. Whether it has been through properly is for experts like Y'Doethur. I am quite content with it's practical implementation and I doubt back in the real World it will have the impact those who are affected say it will. If it does they can always cancel Netflix and buy a smaller car. If I am wrong I can apologise in a few years time. Anyway, unlike Brexit the policy can be unraveled by a future Government.
My belief is you are perfectly entitled to send your children to an expensive school prefaced with "St", but I resent subsidising you.
I could have afforded to send my children to private school, but I didn't on the grounds of being charged with Diane Abbott style hypocrisy and inconsistency, it was not for me. If it was, it wouldn't have been some Mickey Mouse affair prefaced with "Saint". I'd have sent them to Llandovery College or Christ College Brecon, and for the unfair networking leg up, perhaps I should have. My son's minimum entry on his MA at the prestigious Cardiff School of Journalism was his undergrad 2:1. There was a girl on his course aged 18 that had come straight from A levels at a Headmaster's Conference College because she was seen as particularly "gifted".He said she was OK, but he struggled to see her particular "gift" for digital journalism.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
Baby and infant (and possibly pre-birth) nutrition has a huge role to play.
I’ve always thought the reason why ThePrince got so widely reviled is because Machiavelli held up a mirror to people, who did not like the truth revealed to them. He understood that human nature is pretty heinous, on the whole.
When it comes to 80% being potential shoplifters, (and a smaller, but still substantial proportion being potential rapists), it is “the dread of punishment”, that keeps people in check, far more than any appeal to their better nature.
I am not sure what this says about me but I found The Prince one of the funniest books I read at University (ie before I discovered Pratchett) . His observations on human nature are profound and remain valid today.
I laughed out loud at his observations that “men will more readily forgive the loss of their parents than the loss of their patrimony”, and that while a prince must certainly profess to be a Christian, nothing would be more fatal to his rule than to actually practice Christian precepts.
There's another point I saw someone make on Twitter (I think Andrew Neil) that salaries for teachers would need to be raised significantly to attract the proposed new intake to the sector. You could give golden hellos to just the new teachers I suppose, but either way it is probably the case that announcing 6500 new teachers isn't just a case of 6500 starter salaries per year, but other costs on top.
You would also need to significantly raise other salaries, I think you're saying? Yes, that would be true as well, although I can't see any obvious holes in the costings around £1.7 billion - I'm more dubious if it will raise that much.
One thing I haven't heard about in terms of budgets and black holes is the current state of the infamous unfunded increase in teacher pay from 2022, which is one reason for the current financial situation of most state schools. Does anyone know if that has been sorted out yet?
The impeached, under criminal investigation, failed coup guy hasn't given up. (The one in S Korea.)
https://x.com/yejinjgim/status/1874604043001303528 On January 1, President Yoon Suk Yeol distributed signed letters near the presidential residence. In these letters, he claimed South Korea is under threat from "anti-state forces" while saying he'll "fight till the end" and encouraging his supporters to "stay strong together."..
On the same day at the same place, some of his supporters surrounded and physically assaulted two JTBC video journalists. They also ran toward protesters demanding Yoon's arrest and clashed with police while attempting to break through police lines..,
I went to the area this afternoon, and as soon as I tried to take some pictures of a pro-Yoon protester's hat (I told him only taking a photo of his hat written "TRUMP SAVE AMERICA 2024"), people shouted and even followed me, threatening and taking photos of my face. Traumatic...
It's an absolute disgrace that Labour should announce a clear policy in its manifesto, win an election, and then implement the policy straight away. What is the world coming to?
I gather there a few regretful Lab voters on PB. Perhaps they as high information voters could clarify what they thought they were voting for, aside from anyone apart from the mob that fcked up the country for the last 14 years.
Like many who voted Labour this year having voted Conservative from 2010-2019 they thought with Starmer they were getting Blair 1997 2, instead they got Brown 2009 2
Pretty sure even the most enthusiastic Starmer backers didn’t think they were getting Blair 2! There was a bit of ‘he’s quite sexy’ and ‘he has a lovely smile’ a while back but that’s melted like snow aff a dyke.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
Good morning all. This thread has certainly generated a considerable amount of quite bitter dissension. Is that a good thing; possibly, possibly not. All I would say, on topic is that almost 80 years ago those of us in the top stream of the primary school I attended were quite ruthlessly coached to 'succeed' (as I did) in the 11+ examination. In the mid to late 70's my children didn't have as much, largely because grammar places had been considerably cut back and there were, and still are, good comprehensive schools locally. I'm not in favour of private education, or selective schools. I am in favour of provision being made for SEND children, especially while the effects of Covid are still working through.
Serious question: Should parents read to their children and, later, have their children read to them?
Certainly not.
They should hire world-leading private tutors at very reasonable hourly rates to do it for them.
(Seriously, yes, they should.)
Middle class: yes, mummy or daddy should read to the children and, if they are famous off the telly, write their own children's books.
Older middle class: no, that is nanny's job.
Working class: no, it is the school's job to teach children to read.
West African: Demand nothing less than academic perfection from your child. Any A that does not have a * after it is a source of family humiliation.
Sounds like Asian mode parenting. At least for Indians and Chinese people.
They’re not a patch on mothers from Ivory Coast.
I got A stars in everything except Art and Music where my talents match my ability to be modest.
My father was fine with that as I did well in the subjects that matter, a West African parent would have beaten me within an inch of my life for bringing shame to the family for not getting A stars in every subject.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
I didn't have private coaching!
Me neither.
I passed the 11+ a year early! Being a year younger than the rest of my year for seven years had its disadvantages though.
My school converted from Grammar to Comprehensive when I was in 3rd year. Some kids who had passed their 11+ ended up without an O level to their name, while others who had failed the 11+ but arrived later, in 3rd year, went on to university. (The school went from 11-18 age range to 13-18 range). So selection at 11 is a load of bollocks.
PB's bias towards the private school sector is showing. Labour's policy on this was clear and widely discussed in their manifesto, but more importantly is widely popular. Far more so than any other thing they have done:
Regardless of that, do you think it is the right thing to do, especially in the way it has been done?
No, I do not support the way the policy has been done. I do think that private education is a major drag on social mobility in Britain that entrenched privileged, which is exactly why the privately educated support it.
But Labour implementing a manifesto commitment supported by the vast majority of Britons is not something I will get upset about.
What a lot of bollocks.
Your determination to become Roger's understudy, with a heavy seasoning of Scott's bitterness over Brexit, only damages what little credibility you have still further.
You're one of the most laughable commentators on here, and increasingly unpleasant.
'Heat not a furnace so hot that it does singe yourself!'
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
But it's like everything else- once a measure becomes a target, it stops working as a measure.
There are only so many questions you can ask in IQ-like tests, and coaching and familiarity with them increase performance a lot. (If it didn't, the entire education system might as well pack up and shuffle off home.)
Grammar schools do continually tweak their admission tests to try to stay one step ahead of the coaching industry. They generally fail in that endeavour.
Regardless of your thoughts on the VAT status of private education (and I don't feel particularly strongly either way, in the abstract), the policy is quite evidently not designed to solve a problem, or to genuinely improve education during this Parliament.
Rather, it's quite obviously a piece of political signalling, to keep a particular set of supporters happy.
That's hardly unusual in recent years, and certainly not unique to the UK. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are far less interested in practical solutions to our various problems - if indeed they are even capable of recognising them at all - than they are in drawing ideological lines.
Little wonder that faith in democracy is waning.
Not everywhere.
It seems to have risen substantially in Argentina over the last year.
I wonder why ...?
Because the guy in charge did exactly what he said he was going to do, with large cuts in public spending and getting inflation under control.
I wonder if there’s another large country in that part of the world planning something similar in 2025?
I think you might be a little confused there. US inflation is under 3%, not 200%.
Or are you taking about Russia ?
The policies in Argentina are actually not actually unconventional (mostly). Just dramatic in being applied in a country that has had a weirdly fucked up economy for so long.
Floating exchange rates, cutting spending to vaguely match receipts, deregulating.
Note that Milei specifically rejected tariffs as a generally good thing. Even gave a rather good explanation as to why, in a number of interviews.
Agreed.
The point isn't that they're right wing - it's that he's grasped the nettle (which is going to sting quite a large proportion of the population in the short term) to prevent a complete collapse, and provide half a chance of a decent future.
Efforts to compare Argentina with the US are pretty nonsensical.
I think the next Tory leader once Kemi falls needs to look at what Millei has done in Argentina both in style and substance. We need someone in this country willing to tell hard truths. 1 in 5 people bring employed by the state is not sustainable or affordable, the next Tory leader has got to grasp the nettle and start making the case for reducing the size of the state and spell out the consequences of not doing so very clearly.
That Bernard Manning looking c-nt was running his campaign while inflation was 200%+ and so there was some desperation in giving his shock therapy a go.
This hypothetical tory anarcho-cap godhead isn't going to be campaigning in such favourable circumstances and running on a platform of massive public spending cuts and environmental carnage will lead to electoral oblivion. An outcome, which admittedly and hopefully, may await the tories in any event.
I have a grand daughter who cannot be placed by the State Sector, they have no vacancies. As a result she is now out of school, 2 years before her GSCE's, ( is it still called that?) Phillipson should be sacked, Labour have lost their left already to Farage and the Greens, so she will not be missed.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
Good morning all. This thread has certainly generated a considerable amount of quite bitter dissension. Is that a good thing; possibly, possibly not. All I would say, on topic is that almost 80 years ago those of us in the top stream of the primary school I attended were quite ruthlessly coached to 'succeed' (as I did) in the 11+ examination. In the mid to late 70's my children didn't have as much, largely because grammar places had been considerably cut back and there were, and still are, good comprehensive schools locally. I'm not in favour of private education, or selective schools. I am in favour of provision being made for SEND children, especially while the effects of Covid are still working through.
Good comprehensives and academies locally, certainly the Outstanding rated ones, almost entirely in leafy suburbs or commuter belt market towns with expensive average house prices, so selection just by house price for them.
Otherwise you get a few oustanding free schools in inner cities but again largely independent run even if state funded
It's an absolute disgrace that Labour should announce a clear policy in its manifesto, win an election, and then implement the policy straight away. What is the world coming to?
I gather there a few regretful Lab voters on PB. Perhaps they as high information voters could clarify what they thought they were voting for, aside from anyone apart from the mob that fcked up the country for the last 14 years.
Like many who voted Labour this year having voted Conservative from 2010-2019 they thought with Starmer they were getting Blair 1997 2, instead they got Brown 2009 2
Pretty sure even the most enthusiastic Starmer backers didn’t think they were getting Blair 2! There was a bit of ‘he’s quite sexy’ and ‘he has a lovely smile’ a while back but that’s melted like snow aff a dyke.
There's another point I saw someone make on Twitter (I think Andrew Neil) that salaries for teachers would need to be raised significantly to attract the proposed new intake to the sector. You could give golden hellos to just the new teachers I suppose, but either way it is probably the case that announcing 6500 new teachers isn't just a case of 6500 starter salaries per year, but other costs on top.
You would also need to significantly raise other salaries, I think you're saying? Yes, that would be true as well, although I can't see any obvious holes in the costings around £1.7 billion - I'm more dubious if it will raise that much.
One thing I haven't heard about in terms of budget's and black holes is the current state of the infamous unfunded increase in teacher pay from 2022, which is one reason for the current financial situation of most state schools. Does anyone know if that has been sorted out yet?
Yes. He suggested that salaries across the board would need to be raised to secure the necessary intake. That would swallow a large portion of the £1.7bn, and the resulting calculation (can't remember what the suggested pay boost was) meant the VAT would raise a third of the sum required. But like I said, you might get away with a golden hello. That would also need to apply to all teaching entrants, not just 'the extras', but wouldn't need to be across the board.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
But it's like everything else- once a measure becomes a target, it stops working as a measure.
There are only so many questions you can ask in IQ-like tests, and coaching and familiarity with them increase performance a lot. (If it didn't, the entire education system might as well pack up and shuffle off home.)
Grammar schools do continually tweak their admission tests to try to stay one step ahead of the coaching industry. They generally fail in that endeavour.
Without needing to pull apart HYUFD's notion that IQ is "largely inherited and genetic", the point is that all one needs to get into a grammar school is to be scored that bit better than the pack, given IQ is a statistical construct based on a distribution around the mean. And that's what coaching gives.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
I did and I had private lessons before my 11plus - mind you that was in the early 1950s
I have a grand daughter who cannot be placed by the State Sector, they have no vacancies. As a result she is now out of school, 2 years before her GSCE's, ( is it still called that?) Phillipson should be sacked, Labour have lost their left already to Farage and the Greens, so she will not be missed.
Phillipson will be the next Prime Minister.
Wes.
Perhaps everyone in the queue will get a turn before their booting out never to return at the next election.
There is an old saying that if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
And that saying reflects the fact that education is, in 1066 terms, a good thing. We need more of it. Will this policy help produce that? In theory, the answer is "yes" because those 6,500 additional teachers would benefit more students than the select few who go to private schools, whether on a fee paying or bursary basis.
But there are so many problems with that theory. As @ydoethur points out in most subjects there is a shortage of teachers so there are no more to be had. It is possible that wage increases might increase supply somewhat but this government has already gone too far in trying to solve problems by spending all the available cash on wages.
Secondly, if the result is that some kids come out of the private sector then the full cost of their education has to come out of the pot. Educating a child costs the local authority roughly £5k a year, a lot more for SEND children. So, if the consequence of the policy is that it would take 340k kids to transfer to exhaust the money. Given that 556k children currently go to private schools this seems wildly pessimistic but it is not as simple as that. Firstly, the distribution of those children will be extremely lumpy, depending on where schools close. Secondly, if even 100k transfer then something like 20% of the £1,7bn will be lost.
Thirdly, lets look at the reverse. If 100k of those children end up in state schools that is going to cost local authorities something like £500m.
Finally, the sad truth is that too many of our state schools are simply dysfunctional. Having more children attending those schools instead of (generally) better private educational establishments, particularly children who need a lot of help, is going to result in a less well educated workforce going forward.
This is a stupid policy based on jealousy and prejudice. The number of people adversely affected by it are not likely to be politically significant but it will diminish our total spend on education, it will reduce the average quality of that education and it will hurt many vulnerable kids. Stupid.
It will improve the distribution of spending on education, with more available for struggling state schools who need the money. In these straitened times we can't afford tax breaks for the privileged. If we are to boost spending on education to benefit the vast majority of children who attend state funded schools then the money has to come from somewhere. There is no magic money tree.
Presumably the influx of parents into the state system who apparently ‘just want to do the best for their kids’ will be a real boon to those schools in terms of involvement and engagement.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
But it's like everything else- once a measure becomes a target, it stops working as a measure.
There are only so many questions you can ask in IQ-like tests, and coaching and familiarity with them increase performance a lot. (If it didn't, the entire education system might as well pack up and shuffle off home.)
Grammar schools do continually tweak their admission tests to try to stay one step ahead of the coaching industry. They generally fail in that endeavour.
The IQ debate is one of pbs many weird and endearing oddities. Everyone knows that HY has a bizarre and obviously incorrect view of IQ tests, and we also know that this is never going to change. Yet once a month without fail someone or other tries to change his mind and the same arguments get rehashed before the subject is temporarily forgotten for another few weeks.
Regardless of your thoughts on the VAT status of private education (and I don't feel particularly strongly either way, in the abstract), the policy is quite evidently not designed to solve a problem, or to genuinely improve education during this Parliament.
Rather, it's quite obviously a piece of political signalling, to keep a particular set of supporters happy.
That's hardly unusual in recent years, and certainly not unique to the UK. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are far less interested in practical solutions to our various problems - if indeed they are even capable of recognising them at all - than they are in drawing ideological lines.
Little wonder that faith in democracy is waning.
Not everywhere.
It seems to have risen substantially in Argentina over the last year.
I wonder why ...?
Because the guy in charge did exactly what he said he was going to do, with large cuts in public spending and getting inflation under control.
I wonder if there’s another large country in that part of the world planning something similar in 2025?
I think you might be a little confused there. US inflation is under 3%, not 200%.
Or are you taking about Russia ?
The policies in Argentina are actually not actually unconventional (mostly). Just dramatic in being applied in a country that has had a weirdly fucked up economy for so long.
Floating exchange rates, cutting spending to vaguely match receipts, deregulating.
Note that Milei specifically rejected tariffs as a generally good thing. Even gave a rather good explanation as to why, in a number of interviews.
Agreed.
The point isn't that they're right wing - it's that he's grasped the nettle (which is going to sting quite a large proportion of the population in the short term) to prevent a complete collapse, and provide half a chance of a decent future.
Efforts to compare Argentina with the US are pretty nonsensical.
I think the next Tory leader once Kemi falls needs to look at what Millei has done in Argentina both in style and substance. We need someone in this country willing to tell hard truths. 1 in 5 people bring employed by the state is not sustainable or affordable, the next Tory leader has got to grasp the nettle and start making the case for reducing the size of the state and spell out the consequences of not doing so very clearly.
That Bernard Manning looking c-nt was running his campaign while inflation was 200%+ and so there was some desperation in giving his shock therapy a go.
Touch of Harry Secombe (with the sideburns) in Oliver about him.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
But it's like everything else- once a measure becomes a target, it stops working as a measure.
There are only so many questions you can ask in IQ-like tests, and coaching and familiarity with them increase performance a lot. (If it didn't, the entire education system might as well pack up and shuffle off home.)
Grammar schools do continually tweak their admission tests to try to stay one step ahead of the coaching industry. They generally fail in that endeavour.
Without needing to pull apart HYUFD's notion that IQ is "largely inherited and genetic", the point is that all one needs to get into a grammar school is to be scored that bit better than the pack, given IQ is a statistical construct based on a distribution around the mean. And that's what coaching gives.
If you are below average IQ no matter how hard you are coached you will likely never get the above average numerical and verbal reasoning scores to get into grammar school
I laughed out loud at @ydoethur's description of himself. Can all header writers give themselves a pen portrait?
Anyway, I have refrained from commenting on this topic despite being the Chair of Trustees of a long established Catholic charity which owns and runs a girl's primary school - the one I went to in fact.
We have spent much of the last few years preparing for this while maintaining our charitable activities for those who do not attend the school - we provide free pre-nursery provision for locals, especially local health workers. We also have quite a few SEND pupils.
One point worth making is that I've seen a few of our competitors be bought up by private equity groups. They have more resources but are not that committed to education and we've seen some of them pull out or water down the ethos of their schools. This has resulted in parents moving their children. I would not be surprised to see more such changes because such schools are run as businesses and profit is what motivates them rather than education. But we'll see.
My husband offered to be a governor of the local secondary school near where we live. It is nowhere near as good as it needs to be and both it and the local primary have had poor reports in recent years. It is a real shame because it is one of the factors holding this area back. Parents who can drive their children to schools elsewhere in the Lakes. He has been a teacher and 2 of his siblings are teachers. But no. There is a poverty of expectations which really damages an area like this. I would like to see this addressed. Instead we get spiteful measures like cancelling the Latin programme halfway through a school year. Why?
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
VAT is a no-brainer really. The upset is that their nice exemption has been removed. I get the upset, but we can't afford it any more. As for the "more kids will end up in your pleb schools so there" argument, great! I support comprehensive education.
Just as a matter if interest what is the Lib Dem policy on this, and for that matter the SNP. ?
LibDems opposed the implementation of VAT on private schools.
Reform are also opposed to VAT on private school fees as well as the Tories of course.
Regardless of your thoughts on the VAT status of private education (and I don't feel particularly strongly either way, in the abstract), the policy is quite evidently not designed to solve a problem, or to genuinely improve education during this Parliament.
Rather, it's quite obviously a piece of political signalling, to keep a particular set of supporters happy.
That's hardly unusual in recent years, and certainly not unique to the UK. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are far less interested in practical solutions to our various problems - if indeed they are even capable of recognising them at all - than they are in drawing ideological lines.
Little wonder that faith in democracy is waning.
Not everywhere.
It seems to have risen substantially in Argentina over the last year.
I wonder why ...?
Because the guy in charge did exactly what he said he was going to do, with large cuts in public spending and getting inflation under control.
I wonder if there’s another large country in that part of the world planning something similar in 2025?
I think you might be a little confused there. US inflation is under 3%, not 200%.
Or are you taking about Russia ?
The policies in Argentina are actually not actually unconventional (mostly). Just dramatic in being applied in a country that has had a weirdly fucked up economy for so long.
Floating exchange rates, cutting spending to vaguely match receipts, deregulating.
Note that Milei specifically rejected tariffs as a generally good thing. Even gave a rather good explanation as to why, in a number of interviews.
Agreed.
The point isn't that they're right wing - it's that he's grasped the nettle (which is going to sting quite a large proportion of the population in the short term) to prevent a complete collapse, and provide half a chance of a decent future.
Efforts to compare Argentina with the US are pretty nonsensical.
I think the next Tory leader once Kemi falls needs to look at what Millei has done in Argentina both in style and substance. We need someone in this country willing to tell hard truths. 1 in 5 people bring employed by the state is not sustainable or affordable, the next Tory leader has got to grasp the nettle and start making the case for reducing the size of the state and spell out the consequences of not doing so very clearly.
That Bernard Manning looking c-nt was running his campaign while inflation was 200%+ and so there was some desperation in giving his shock therapy a go.
This hypothetical tory anarcho-cap godhead isn't going to be campaigning in such favourable circumstances and running on a platform of massive public spending cuts and environmental carnage will lead to electoral oblivion. An outcome, which admittedly and hopefully, may await the tories in any event.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
Some coaching is beneficial, so that your child is familiar with the format of the questions and how to answer them. But beyond that I think all the extra tuition is a waste of time and money for old rope for the teachers providing it. The brightest will pass anyway, maybe on the borderline it might make a difference. My primary school made sure we all had adequate exposure to mock papers ahead of the 11+; if all primaries do that in grammar school areas then most of the advantage of private coaching is removed.
I have a friend whose son is being coached within an inch of his life (at her husband's insistence, he seems to think that if you go to the local Comprehensive you will automatically end up being a builder). There are only a handful of state grammars in Essex, competition is fierce, and I am absolutely sure that her son will not pass, however much more coaching he gets.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
I didn't have private coaching!
Me neither.
I passed the 11+ a year early! Being a year younger than the rest of my year for seven years had its disadvantages though.
My school converted from Grammar to Comprehensive when I was in 3rd year. Some kids who had passed their 11+ ended up without an O level to their name, while others who had failed the 11+ but arrived later, in 3rd year, went on to university. (The school went from 11-18 age range to 13-18 range). So selection at 11 is a load of bollocks.
Yet when we had grammar schools we had plenty of state educated PMs like Wilson, Thatcher, Heath and Major.
Since we have only had one PM fully educated at a comprehensive for secondary education, Liz Truss
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
But it's like everything else- once a measure becomes a target, it stops working as a measure.
There are only so many questions you can ask in IQ-like tests, and coaching and familiarity with them increase performance a lot. (If it didn't, the entire education system might as well pack up and shuffle off home.)
Grammar schools do continually tweak their admission tests to try to stay one step ahead of the coaching industry. They generally fail in that endeavour.
Without needing to pull apart HYUFD's notion that IQ is "largely inherited and genetic", the point is that all one needs to get into a grammar school is to be scored that bit better than the pack, given IQ is a statistical construct based on a distribution around the mean. And that's what coaching gives.
If you are below average IQ no matter how hard you are coached you will likely never get the above average numerical and verbal reasoning scores to get into grammar school
Chinese 65.5 Indian 59.4 Asian other 54.3 Asian 53.1 Bangladeshi 51.9 Mixed White and Asian 51.7 White Irish 50.7 Mixed other 48.8 Black African 48.7 White other 48.4 Pakistani 47 Other 47 Mixed 46.7 Black 46.6 Mixed White and Black African 46.4 All 46.3 White 45.2 White British 44.9 Black other 44.3 Unknown 42.1 Black Caribbean 40 Mixed White and Black Caribbean 39.1 Irish traveller 26.8 Gypsy, Roma 20.3
I have a grand daughter who cannot be placed by the State Sector, they have no vacancies. As a result she is now out of school, 2 years before her GSCE's, ( is it still called that?) Phillipson should be sacked, Labour have lost their left already to Farage and the Greens, so she will not be missed.
Phillipson will be the next Prime Minister.
Really? I was going to put the trabant on it being Reeves
(who happens to be my favourite politician by a mile)
It's an absolute disgrace that Labour should announce a clear policy in its manifesto, win an election, and then implement the policy straight away. What is the world coming to?
Hard to understand how it’s been so poorly implemented then, being they’ve had years to devise the guidance and understand the impact.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
But it's like everything else- once a measure becomes a target, it stops working as a measure.
There are only so many questions you can ask in IQ-like tests, and coaching and familiarity with them increase performance a lot. (If it didn't, the entire education system might as well pack up and shuffle off home.)
Grammar schools do continually tweak their admission tests to try to stay one step ahead of the coaching industry. They generally fail in that endeavour.
Without needing to pull apart HYUFD's notion that IQ is "largely inherited and genetic", the point is that all one needs to get into a grammar school is to be scored that bit better than the pack, given IQ is a statistical construct based on a distribution around the mean. And that's what coaching gives.
If you are below average IQ no matter how hard you are coached you will likely never get the above average numerical and verbal reasoning scores to get into grammar school
Chinese 65.5 Indian 59.4 Asian other 54.3 Asian 53.1 Bangladeshi 51.9 Mixed White and Asian 51.7 White Irish 50.7 Mixed other 48.8 Black African 48.7 White other 48.4 Pakistani 47 Other 47 Mixed 46.7 Black 46.6 Mixed White and Black African 46.4 All 46.3 White 45.2 White British 44.9 Black other 44.3 Unknown 42.1 Black Caribbean 40 Mixed White and Black Caribbean 39.1 Irish traveller 26.8 Gypsy, Roma 20.3
PB's bias towards the private school sector is showing. Labour's policy on this was clear and widely discussed in their manifesto, but more importantly is widely popular. Far more so than any other thing they have done:
Regardless of that, do you think it is the right thing to do, especially in the way it has been done?
No, I do not support the way the policy has been done. I do think that private education is a major drag on social mobility in Britain that entrenched privileged, which is exactly why the privately educated support it.
But Labour implementing a manifesto commitment supported by the vast majority of Britons is not something I will get upset about.
What a lot of bollocks.
Your determination to become Roger's understudy, with a heavy seasoning of Scott's bitterness over Brexit, only damages what little credibility you have still further.
You're one of the most laughable commentators on here, and increasingly unpleasant.
Foxy's post was expressing his opinion on a government policy; yours was a personal attack on him. When it comes to unpleasantness, you are way in front of Foxy.
You are one of the few people on here who exceeds him for pointlessness and nastiness, being, as you are, a dumb, partisan, stupid and tin-headed idiotic Lefty - who only ever recognises contributions of their own.
So there is that.
Surely rather than just offend thoughtful posters who disagree legitimately with your legitimate view on VAT on schools you should make the positive argument for me subsidising your school fees.
I have a grand daughter who cannot be placed by the State Sector, they have no vacancies. As a result she is now out of school, 2 years before her GSCE's, ( is it still called that?) Phillipson should be sacked, Labour have lost their left already to Farage and the Greens, so she will not be missed.
Exactly - real life consequences that affect children and cost local authorities more. All for the greater good.
If they cared about the kids, they’d have implemented it for September 2025
I laughed out loud at @ydoethur's description of himself. Can all header writers give themselves a pen portrait?
Anyway, I have refrained from commenting on this topic despite being the Chair of Trustees of a long established Catholic charity which owns and runs a girl's primary school - the one I went to in fact.
We have spent much of the last few years preparing for this while maintaining our charitable activities for those who do not attend the school - we provide free pre-nursery provision for locals, especially local health workers. We also have quite a few SEND pupils.
One point worth making is that I've seen a few of our competitors be bought up by private equity groups. They have more resources but are not that committed to education and we've seen some of them pull out or water down the ethos of their schools. This has resulted in parents moving their children. I would not be surprised to see more such changes because such schools are run as businesses and profit is what motivates them rather than education. But we'll see.
My husband offered to be a governor of the local secondary school near where we live. It is nowhere near as good as it needs to be and both it and the local primary have had poor reports in recent years. It is a real shame because it is one of the factors holding this area back. Parents who can drive their children to schools elsewhere in the Lakes. He has been a teacher and 2 of his siblings are teachers. But no. There is a poverty of expectations which really damages an area like this. I would like to see this addressed. Instead we get spiteful measures like cancelling the Latin programme halfway through a school year. Why?
I've been wondering if St Bees* might be a casualty of this policy (given it has had a tough time the last few years). But I don't know how many local children go there. Not many, I would guess.
*Hurriedly clarifies - St Bees has no relationship to the school Cyclefree mentions.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
But it's like everything else- once a measure becomes a target, it stops working as a measure.
There are only so many questions you can ask in IQ-like tests, and coaching and familiarity with them increase performance a lot. (If it didn't, the entire education system might as well pack up and shuffle off home.)
Grammar schools do continually tweak their admission tests to try to stay one step ahead of the coaching industry. They generally fail in that endeavour.
Without needing to pull apart HYUFD's notion that IQ is "largely inherited and genetic", the point is that all one needs to get into a grammar school is to be scored that bit better than the pack, given IQ is a statistical construct based on a distribution around the mean. And that's what coaching gives.
If you are below average IQ no matter how hard you are coached you will likely never get the above average numerical and verbal reasoning scores to get into grammar school
There is an old saying that if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
And that saying reflects the fact that education is, in 1066 terms, a good thing. We need more of it. Will this policy help produce that? In theory, the answer is "yes" because those 6,500 additional teachers would benefit more students than the select few who go to private schools, whether on a fee paying or bursary basis.
But there are so many problems with that theory. As @ydoethur points out in most subjects there is a shortage of teachers so there are no more to be had. It is possible that wage increases might increase supply somewhat but this government has already gone too far in trying to solve problems by spending all the available cash on wages.
Secondly, if the result is that some kids come out of the private sector then the full cost of their education has to come out of the pot. Educating a child costs the local authority roughly £5k a year, a lot more for SEND children. So, if the consequence of the policy is that it would take 340k kids to transfer to exhaust the money. Given that 556k children currently go to private schools this seems wildly pessimistic but it is not as simple as that. Firstly, the distribution of those children will be extremely lumpy, depending on where schools close. Secondly, if even 100k transfer then something like 20% of the £1,7bn will be lost.
Thirdly, lets look at the reverse. If 100k of those children end up in state schools that is going to cost local authorities something like £500m.
Finally, the sad truth is that too many of our state schools are simply dysfunctional. Having more children attending those schools instead of (generally) better private educational establishments, particularly children who need a lot of help, is going to result in a less well educated workforce going forward.
This is a stupid policy based on jealousy and prejudice. The number of people adversely affected by it are not likely to be politically significant but it will diminish our total spend on education, it will reduce the average quality of that education and it will hurt many vulnerable kids. Stupid.
I am not jealous of you sending your children to private school, that is your prerogative. If I had been so minded I would have done so myself. However I don't want my taxes subsidising your choice.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Those with an IQ of 150 would of course pass with likely full marks even if never coached at all
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
Some coaching is beneficial, so that your child is familiar with the format of the questions and how to answer them. But beyond that I think all the extra tuition is a waste of time and money for old rope for the teachers providing it.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Jacob Rees-Mogg must have passed Common Entrance, which isn't noticeably easier. So there must be some leeway.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
Some coaching is beneficial, so that your child is familiar with the format of the questions and how to answer them. But beyond that I think all the extra tuition is a waste of time and money for old rope for the teachers providing it. The brightest will pass anyway, maybe on the borderline it might make a difference. My primary school made sure we all had adequate exposure to mock papers ahead of the 11+; if all primaries do that in grammar school areas then most of the advantage of private coaching is removed.
I have a friend whose son is being coached within an inch of his life (at her husband's insistence, he seems to think that if you go to the local Comprehensive you will automatically end up being a builder). There are only a handful of state grammars in Essex, competition is fierce, and I am absolutely sure that her son will not pass, however much more coaching he gets.
Agreed, though good luck to your friend's son, there are some excellent Essex grammars, especially in Chelmsford and Colchester which are also in the top 100 schools for Oxbridge entry and get better results even than most private schools
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
I originally applied to be RAF aircrew and when I went to the selection thing at Biggin Hill I failed the logic and IQ tests. Did ok on the maths and English but I'd been extensively and intensively tutored for my maths/English A-Level by two of my mother's colleagues.
I then applied to be a pilot in the RN and was sent back to Biggin Hill a few weeks later to do the exact same tests. Having done the tests before, I was now apparently significantly cleverer and more logical, scoring high enough to be shot at in intrinsically dangerous aircraft for sixpence a day.
There, but for the grace of God, goes I in a uniform that makes you look like a Spanish security guard.
There is an old saying that if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
And that saying reflects the fact that education is, in 1066 terms, a good thing. We need more of it. Will this policy help produce that? In theory, the answer is "yes" because those 6,500 additional teachers would benefit more students than the select few who go to private schools, whether on a fee paying or bursary basis.
But there are so many problems with that theory. As @ydoethur points out in most subjects there is a shortage of teachers so there are no more to be had. It is possible that wage increases might increase supply somewhat but this government has already gone too far in trying to solve problems by spending all the available cash on wages.
Secondly, if the result is that some kids come out of the private sector then the full cost of their education has to come out of the pot. Educating a child costs the local authority roughly £5k a year, a lot more for SEND children. So, if the consequence of the policy is that it would take 340k kids to transfer to exhaust the money. Given that 556k children currently go to private schools this seems wildly pessimistic but it is not as simple as that. Firstly, the distribution of those children will be extremely lumpy, depending on where schools close. Secondly, if even 100k transfer then something like 20% of the £1,7bn will be lost.
Thirdly, lets look at the reverse. If 100k of those children end up in state schools that is going to cost local authorities something like £500m.
Finally, the sad truth is that too many of our state schools are simply dysfunctional. Having more children attending those schools instead of (generally) better private educational establishments, particularly children who need a lot of help, is going to result in a less well educated workforce going forward.
This is a stupid policy based on jealousy and prejudice. The number of people adversely affected by it are not likely to be politically significant but it will diminish our total spend on education, it will reduce the average quality of that education and it will hurt many vulnerable kids. Stupid.
I am not jealous of you sending your children to private school, that is your prerogative. If I had been so minded I would have done so myself. However I don't want my taxes subsidising your choice.
I think that's a false elision for two reasons:
1) Not levying a tax is not the same thing as a 'subsidy through tax;'
2) Large numbers of private schools survive on the EHCP funds they attract anyway which come from your tax and will continue to do so.
There is an old saying that if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
And that saying reflects the fact that education is, in 1066 terms, a good thing. We need more of it. Will this policy help produce that? In theory, the answer is "yes" because those 6,500 additional teachers would benefit more students than the select few who go to private schools, whether on a fee paying or bursary basis.
But there are so many problems with that theory. As @ydoethur points out in most subjects there is a shortage of teachers so there are no more to be had. It is possible that wage increases might increase supply somewhat but this government has already gone too far in trying to solve problems by spending all the available cash on wages.
Secondly, if the result is that some kids come out of the private sector then the full cost of their education has to come out of the pot. Educating a child costs the local authority roughly £5k a year, a lot more for SEND children. So, if the consequence of the policy is that it would take 340k kids to transfer to exhaust the money. Given that 556k children currently go to private schools this seems wildly pessimistic but it is not as simple as that. Firstly, the distribution of those children will be extremely lumpy, depending on where schools close. Secondly, if even 100k transfer then something like 20% of the £1,7bn will be lost.
Thirdly, lets look at the reverse. If 100k of those children end up in state schools that is going to cost local authorities something like £500m.
Finally, the sad truth is that too many of our state schools are simply dysfunctional. Having more children attending those schools instead of (generally) better private educational establishments, particularly children who need a lot of help, is going to result in a less well educated workforce going forward.
This is a stupid policy based on jealousy and prejudice. The number of people adversely affected by it are not likely to be politically significant but it will diminish our total spend on education, it will reduce the average quality of that education and it will hurt many vulnerable kids. Stupid.
I am not jealous of you sending your children to private school, that is your prerogative. If I had been so minded I would have done so myself. However I don't want my taxes subsidising your choice.
My choice subsidised your children's education (or at least would have done so if they attended schools in Dundee). There is a saving to the State if people choose to go private, just as there is in private medicine. The subsidy is all one way.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
I didn't have private coaching!
Me neither.
I passed the 11+ a year early! Being a year younger than the rest of my year for seven years had its disadvantages though.
My school converted from Grammar to Comprehensive when I was in 3rd year. Some kids who had passed their 11+ ended up without an O level to their name, while others who had failed the 11+ but arrived later, in 3rd year, went on to university. (The school went from 11-18 age range to 13-18 range). So selection at 11 is a load of bollocks.
Yet when we had grammar schools we had plenty of state educated PMs like Wilson, Thatcher, Heath and Major.
Since we have only had one PM fully educated at a comprehensive for secondary education, Liz Truss
I am vociferously opposed to selection at aged 11. Although your final paragraph does make a compelling case for closing down all comprehensive schools.
The case for exempting VAT on private schools rests on two basic arguments I think. Unfortunately for the people making them, neither quite stacks up.
Argument 1 is that private education is a societal good. It promotes aspiration and should be encouraged. The problem with the argument as it applies to VAT is that the encouragement of aspiration is limited to those who can afford the very expensive school fees today but not 20% more than that. We can assume the wealthy don't need the aspiration boost. Implying to the vast majority who can't afford the privilege, they don't need the aspiration but should support those who can afford it, isn't a compelling argument to that vast majority.
Argument 2 is that private education fills in the gaps in state provision. Removing the VAT exemption is counterproductive as it would force some currently privately educated students into the state sector. The issue here is that those implementing the policy have numbers to show they will get more revenue than additional costs incurred. Those numbers may or may not be correct but this is a general tax payer question; school fee paying parents don't get to decide.
So they are left I think with a hybrid argument. While exempting VAT on private education may not do anything for most people, it doesn't do them much harm either. Meanwhile it means a lot for a small number of people and for that reason it should be retained. It isn't a very powerful argument.
I have some sympathy with anyone on a middling income faced with a difficult choice, however this is so full of holes and misinformation.
1) They are businesses. They sell a service to customers. They are however, mainly incorporated as charities. They are charged business rates but got an 80% relief (no an exemption).
Churches, Youth clubs and the CAB are not in any way businesses. The comparison is ludicrous
3) The effect of any change in taxation will result in some behavioual changes. I'd agree that it won't likely raise the full amount. Most private schools are situated in areas where there is an alternative private school. The 50 miles away example is surely an edge case.
4) The policy has been highlighted by Labour for several years, was in the manifesto and was announced formally om the 29th July. It has not been backdated at all and only applies from 1st Jan 2025.
To claim it's been applied retrospectively is pure nonsense.
5) We should have a plan to recruit and retain teachers. We should have a plan on how to fund that. Nothing controversial at all.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Jacob Rees-Mogg must have passed Common Entrance, which isn't noticeably easier. So there must be some leeway.
“Like most intellectuals, he’s extremely stupid”, sums up JRM and Cummings.
There is an old saying that if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
And that saying reflects the fact that education is, in 1066 terms, a good thing. We need more of it. Will this policy help produce that? In theory, the answer is "yes" because those 6,500 additional teachers would benefit more students than the select few who go to private schools, whether on a fee paying or bursary basis.
But there are so many problems with that theory. As @ydoethur points out in most subjects there is a shortage of teachers so there are no more to be had. It is possible that wage increases might increase supply somewhat but this government has already gone too far in trying to solve problems by spending all the available cash on wages.
Secondly, if the result is that some kids come out of the private sector then the full cost of their education has to come out of the pot. Educating a child costs the local authority roughly £5k a year, a lot more for SEND children. So, if the consequence of the policy is that it would take 340k kids to transfer to exhaust the money. Given that 556k children currently go to private schools this seems wildly pessimistic but it is not as simple as that. Firstly, the distribution of those children will be extremely lumpy, depending on where schools close. Secondly, if even 100k transfer then something like 20% of the £1,7bn will be lost.
Thirdly, lets look at the reverse. If 100k of those children end up in state schools that is going to cost local authorities something like £500m.
Finally, the sad truth is that too many of our state schools are simply dysfunctional. Having more children attending those schools instead of (generally) better private educational establishments, particularly children who need a lot of help, is going to result in a less well educated workforce going forward.
This is a stupid policy based on jealousy and prejudice. The number of people adversely affected by it are not likely to be politically significant but it will diminish our total spend on education, it will reduce the average quality of that education and it will hurt many vulnerable kids. Stupid.
I am not jealous of you sending your children to private school, that is your prerogative. If I had been so minded I would have done so myself. However I don't want my taxes subsidising your choice.
I think that's a false elision for two reasons:
1) Not levying a tax is not the same thing as a 'subsidy through tax;'
2) Large numbers of private schools survive on the EHCP funds they attract anyway which come from your tax and will continue to do so.
If not levying a tax is a subsidy then gift aid is certainly also a subsidy - and there are a good number of gift-aid eligible orgs that preach views a person may disagree with.
There is an old saying that if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
And that saying reflects the fact that education is, in 1066 terms, a good thing. We need more of it. Will this policy help produce that? In theory, the answer is "yes" because those 6,500 additional teachers would benefit more students than the select few who go to private schools, whether on a fee paying or bursary basis.
But there are so many problems with that theory. As @ydoethur points out in most subjects there is a shortage of teachers so there are no more to be had. It is possible that wage increases might increase supply somewhat but this government has already gone too far in trying to solve problems by spending all the available cash on wages.
Secondly, if the result is that some kids come out of the private sector then the full cost of their education has to come out of the pot. Educating a child costs the local authority roughly £5k a year, a lot more for SEND children. So, if the consequence of the policy is that it would take 340k kids to transfer to exhaust the money. Given that 556k children currently go to private schools this seems wildly pessimistic but it is not as simple as that. Firstly, the distribution of those children will be extremely lumpy, depending on where schools close. Secondly, if even 100k transfer then something like 20% of the £1,7bn will be lost.
Thirdly, lets look at the reverse. If 100k of those children end up in state schools that is going to cost local authorities something like £500m.
Finally, the sad truth is that too many of our state schools are simply dysfunctional. Having more children attending those schools instead of (generally) better private educational establishments, particularly children who need a lot of help, is going to result in a less well educated workforce going forward.
This is a stupid policy based on jealousy and prejudice. The number of people adversely affected by it are not likely to be politically significant but it will diminish our total spend on education, it will reduce the average quality of that education and it will hurt many vulnerable kids. Stupid.
I am not jealous of you sending your children to private school, that is your prerogative. If I had been so minded I would have done so myself. However I don't want my taxes subsidising your choice.
My choice subsidised your children's education (or at least would have done so if they attended schools in Dundee). There is a saving to the State if people choose to go private, just as there is in private medicine. The subsidy is all one way.
Thank you for your contribution, it was greatly appreciated. You won't mind adding another 20% to the pot then.
I have some sympathy with anyone on a middling income faced with a difficult choice, however this is so full of holes and misinformation.
1) They are businesses. They sell a service to customers. They are however, mainly incorporated as charities. They are charged business rates but got an 80% relief (no an exemption).
Churches, Youth clubs and the CAB are not in any way businesses. The comparison is ludicrous
3) The effect of any change in taxation will result in some behavioual changes. I'd agree that it won't likely raise the full amount. Most private schools are situated in areas where there is an alternative private school. The 50 miles away example is surely an edge case.
4) The policy has been highlighted by Labour for several years, was in the manifesto and was announced formally om the 29th July. It has not been backdated at all and only applies from 1st Jan 2025.
To claim it's been applied retrospectively is pure nonsense.
5) We should have a plan to recruit and retain teachers. We should have a plan on how to fund that. Nothing controversial at all.
"Churches, Youth clubs and the CAB are not in any way businesses. The comparison is ludicrous"
A friend of ours has been badly stung by a hideous mortgage his parents took out with the Church of England many decades ago. Churches very much do business activities.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
Some coaching is beneficial, so that your child is familiar with the format of the questions and how to answer them. But beyond that I think all the extra tuition is a waste of time and money for old rope for the teachers providing it.
Oi! Please don't say things like that.
Most damaging to business...
From our experience those who cannot afford or choose not to afford private schools use tutors to an extent that was quite unimaginable when I was at school. The names of good tutors are shared around like gold dust at the school gate and in the work place. I suspect that you will not be short of work.
Going back in history my wife went to night school with her pal to do her resit in Higher maths (she had not even seen most of the topics on the paper). She and her pal were the only 2 who passed the prelim. The response of their teacher? "Just because you passed the prelim doesn't mean you are going to pass the exam you know". The interest of the school in the fact that the only 2 to pass were being educated elsewhere? Nil.
Private schools foster and propagate inequality, that's the whole point of the sector. It's a mechanism by which affluent people seek to lock in advantage for their offspring. Removing the tax incentives is the very least I'd expect from a Labour government.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
I mean, of course there will be techniques that can be taught to answer these questions. It's not like people will answer them by magic.
But I've had some exposure to being on the teacher side of the teacher-student interaction, and there are definitely variations in people's ability to learn. If a test is measuring that, instead of innate intelligence per se, then that is not in itself obviously valueless.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
If IQ is inherited and genetic, how come there is such a difference in scores between those from a certain part of South Asia who came here directly and their 3rd/4th/5th cousins who came here via East Africa? The latter scoring higher.
I have some sympathy with anyone on a middling income faced with a difficult choice, however this is so full of holes and misinformation.
1) They are businesses. They sell a service to customers. They are however, mainly incorporated as charities. They are charged business rates but got an 80% relief (no an exemption).
Churches, Youth clubs and the CAB are not in any way businesses. The comparison is ludicrous
3) The effect of any change in taxation will result in some behavioual changes. I'd agree that it won't likely raise the full amount. Most private schools are situated in areas where there is an alternative private school. The 50 miles away example is surely an edge case.
4) The policy has been highlighted by Labour for several years, was in the manifesto and was announced formally om the 29th July. It has not been backdated at all and only applies from 1st Jan 2025.
To claim it's been applied retrospectively is pure nonsense.
5) We should have a plan to recruit and retain teachers. We should have a plan on how to fund that. Nothing controversial at all.
Point 4 is incorrect, because it is applied to any monies paid for the term when it came in even if they had been paid in advance. That is a serious point because large numbers of private schools did discounts for paying a year in advance and then suddenly found their figures were all wrong due to a change in fee structure announced part way through the year and applied to matters dated before the start. That is the very definition of a retrospective application.
5) Yes, but this isn't a good plan from that point of view because it rests on lots of optimistic assumptions. It therefore is a reckless policy and moreover a high risk low reward one. It's hardly controversial to draw attention to that. Moreover, as I explained in a different header that TSE may or may not decide to use Phillipson's actually making things worse, not better, on teacher recruitment and retention. And that's separate from the funding.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
Some coaching is beneficial, so that your child is familiar with the format of the questions and how to answer them. But beyond that I think all the extra tuition is a waste of time and money for old rope for the teachers providing it. The brightest will pass anyway, maybe on the borderline it might make a difference. My primary school made sure we all had adequate exposure to mock papers ahead of the 11+; if all primaries do that in grammar school areas then most of the advantage of private coaching is removed.
I have a friend whose son is being coached within an inch of his life (at her husband's insistence, he seems to think that if you go to the local Comprehensive you will automatically end up being a builder). There are only a handful of state grammars in Essex, competition is fierce, and I am absolutely sure that her son will not pass, however much more coaching he gets.
There is a serious danger that the lad will end up a) failing and b) consequently develop feelings of academic inadequacy. Our younger son was, at 10 or so, one of the three brightest boys in his class. Unfortunately in our part of Essex then, only two boys per school could go to the two boys grammar schools in neighbouring Southend.... one to each school. On the day our son had a bad cold and was third, so no grammar school place. He was bitterly disappointed, although we'd made it clear that we weren't worried. I rang the Education Office and the strong impression I was given was that had he been at another school his marks would have been enough; however NO. It wasn't until several years later when he didn't do well in his A levels that he said 'what do you expect; I failed the 11+' and it all came out!
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Jacob Rees-Mogg must have passed Common Entrance, which isn't noticeably easier. So there must be some leeway.
I remember doing common entrance after common entrance mocks at my old prep school. Are they used for private school entry though - I definitely remember doing exams to get in (Not common entrance) even though it's fee paying. Not everyone "passed" though, my brother didn't get in and had to go to err.. Princethorpe (iirc).
I have some sympathy with anyone on a middling income faced with a difficult choice, however this is so full of holes and misinformation.
1) They are businesses. They sell a service to customers. They are however, mainly incorporated as charities. They are charged business rates but got an 80% relief (no an exemption).
Churches, Youth clubs and the CAB are not in any way businesses. The comparison is ludicrous
3) The effect of any change in taxation will result in some behavioual changes. I'd agree that it won't likely raise the full amount. Most private schools are situated in areas where there is an alternative private school. The 50 miles away example is surely an edge case.
4) The policy has been highlighted by Labour for several years, was in the manifesto and was announced formally om the 29th July. It has not been backdated at all and only applies from 1st Jan 2025.
To claim it's been applied retrospectively is pure nonsense.
5) We should have a plan to recruit and retain teachers. We should have a plan on how to fund that. Nothing controversial at all.
Point 4 is incorrect, because it is applied to any monies paid for the term when it came in even if they had been paid in advance. That is a serious point because large numbers of private schools did discounts for paying a year in advance and then suddenly found their figures were all wrong due to a change in fee structure announced part way through the year and applied to matters dated before the start. That is the very definition of a retrospective application.
5) Yes, but this isn't a good plan from that point of view because it rests on lots of optimistic assumptions. It therefore is a reckless policy and moreover a high risk low reward one. It's hardly controversial to draw attention to that. Moreover, as I explained in a different header that TSE may or may not decide to use Phillipson's actually making things worse, not better, on teacher recruitment and retention. And that's separate from the funding.
Your argument on 4 is wrong - due to how VAT is handled on payments made in advance those payments need to be handled in the exact same way a company that starts to charge VAT needs to handle such advanced payments.
It was pointed out at the time it was announced in July that most advanced payments wouldn't escape VAT...
There is an old saying that if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
And that saying reflects the fact that education is, in 1066 terms, a good thing. We need more of it. Will this policy help produce that? In theory, the answer is "yes" because those 6,500 additional teachers would benefit more students than the select few who go to private schools, whether on a fee paying or bursary basis.
But there are so many problems with that theory. As @ydoethur points out in most subjects there is a shortage of teachers so there are no more to be had. It is possible that wage increases might increase supply somewhat but this government has already gone too far in trying to solve problems by spending all the available cash on wages.
Secondly, if the result is that some kids come out of the private sector then the full cost of their education has to come out of the pot. Educating a child costs the local authority roughly £5k a year, a lot more for SEND children. So, if the consequence of the policy is that it would take 340k kids to transfer to exhaust the money. Given that 556k children currently go to private schools this seems wildly pessimistic but it is not as simple as that. Firstly, the distribution of those children will be extremely lumpy, depending on where schools close. Secondly, if even 100k transfer then something like 20% of the £1,7bn will be lost.
Thirdly, lets look at the reverse. If 100k of those children end up in state schools that is going to cost local authorities something like £500m.
Finally, the sad truth is that too many of our state schools are simply dysfunctional. Having more children attending those schools instead of (generally) better private educational establishments, particularly children who need a lot of help, is going to result in a less well educated workforce going forward.
This is a stupid policy based on jealousy and prejudice. The number of people adversely affected by it are not likely to be politically significant but it will diminish our total spend on education, it will reduce the average quality of that education and it will hurt many vulnerable kids. Stupid.
I am not jealous of you sending your children to private school, that is your prerogative. If I had been so minded I would have done so myself. However I don't want my taxes subsidising your choice.
I think that's a false elision for two reasons:
1) Not levying a tax is not the same thing as a 'subsidy through tax;'
2) Large numbers of private schools survive on the EHCP funds they attract anyway which come from your tax and will continue to do so.
Paragraph 1, pedantry accepted. Paragraph 2, I am happy for specialist private schools providing a specific care plan for children who cannot be serviced by the state sector. Personally I would look at exemption for these institutions.
I remain adamant however that PB social climbers should be paying VAT on a service which they are purchasing to promote their children's future career network.
the story so far does not really add up so has something naughty been going on.
The risk is that whatever happened, it will be used to justify further restrictions on genuine and informed punters like the pb massive.
A fund pays out regular returns for a while until suddenly it is bankrupt...
A number of 'schemes' have followed that pattern over the years
Schemes shaped like old buildings in Egypt by any chance?
Even without "Asian Bookmakers", they bet too big. Article says 80 evens bets/week of 20K each = 80M wagered, making 400K. So edge of around 0.5%. With a bank of 5M they were betting pretty much the full Kelly criterion.
You never, ever, bet a full Kelly.
Can you explain that in more detail please?
The Kelly criterion is the only useful result to come out of the branch of mathematics known as information theory. Kelly (a mathematician) proved that the optimal bet size is proportional to your advantage over the market, in other words, how good the odds are, in order to grow your bankroll without going bust. Hence, the Kelly criterion.
Now, in practical terms, it can be hard if not impossible to know what your advantage is because that involves determining the true probability of Liverpool winning the league or Keir Starmer resigning. So mathematically-inclined punters with their sophisticated computer models based on metrics from every football match in all the top leagues in Europe will work out how much Kelly says they should stake (the "full Kelly") and instead bet a fraction such as half or quarter-Kelly. Profit rate is almost as good and it reduces the chance of losing the lot in one go.
As well as for betting, the Kelly criterion is typically used by hedge funds for investing in stock and derivative markets (and occasionally losing billions because their colossal geniuses missed out some important factor like the Russian government defaulting on its bonds, or the Fed letting Lehmans go bust).
I have some sympathy with anyone on a middling income faced with a difficult choice, however this is so full of holes and misinformation.
1) They are businesses. They sell a service to customers. They are however, mainly incorporated as charities. They are charged business rates but got an 80% relief (no an exemption).
Churches, Youth clubs and the CAB are not in any way businesses. The comparison is ludicrous
3) The effect of any change in taxation will result in some behavioual changes. I'd agree that it won't likely raise the full amount. Most private schools are situated in areas where there is an alternative private school. The 50 miles away example is surely an edge case.
4) The policy has been highlighted by Labour for several years, was in the manifesto and was announced formally om the 29th July. It has not been backdated at all and only applies from 1st Jan 2025.
To claim it's been applied retrospectively is pure nonsense.
5) We should have a plan to recruit and retain teachers. We should have a plan on how to fund that. Nothing controversial at all.
Point 4 is incorrect, because it is applied to any monies paid for the term when it came in even if they had been paid in advance. That is a serious point because large numbers of private schools did discounts for paying a year in advance and then suddenly found their figures were all wrong due to a change in fee structure announced part way through the year and applied to matters dated before the start. That is the very definition of a retrospective application.
5) Yes, but this isn't a good plan from that point of view because it rests on lots of optimistic assumptions. It therefore is a reckless policy and moreover a high risk low reward one. It's hardly controversial to draw attention to that. Moreover, as I explained in a different header that TSE may or may not decide to use Phillipson's actually making things worse, not better, on teacher recruitment and retention. And that's separate from the funding.
Your argument on 4 is wrong - due to how VAT is handled payments in advance are being handled in the exact same way a company that starts to charge VAT needs to handle such advanced payments.
That's not my understanding of how VAT normally works. My understanding is that if a company has been paid for a service in advance even if VAT subsequently becomes levied on that service or a different rate charged they would not normally be liable for it as it had already been paid for under the old rules.
I may be wrong, I'm not an accountant. But it seemed (and still seems, for the matter of that) a silly way to introduce it and an unusually aggressive one.
Again, though, we come back to this isn't about the money.
There is an old saying that if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
And that saying reflects the fact that education is, in 1066 terms, a good thing. We need more of it. Will this policy help produce that? In theory, the answer is "yes" because those 6,500 additional teachers would benefit more students than the select few who go to private schools, whether on a fee paying or bursary basis.
But there are so many problems with that theory. As @ydoethur points out in most subjects there is a shortage of teachers so there are no more to be had. It is possible that wage increases might increase supply somewhat but this government has already gone too far in trying to solve problems by spending all the available cash on wages.
Secondly, if the result is that some kids come out of the private sector then the full cost of their education has to come out of the pot. Educating a child costs the local authority roughly £5k a year, a lot more for SEND children. So, if the consequence of the policy is that it would take 340k kids to transfer to exhaust the money. Given that 556k children currently go to private schools this seems wildly pessimistic but it is not as simple as that. Firstly, the distribution of those children will be extremely lumpy, depending on where schools close. Secondly, if even 100k transfer then something like 20% of the £1,7bn will be lost.
Thirdly, lets look at the reverse. If 100k of those children end up in state schools that is going to cost local authorities something like £500m.
Finally, the sad truth is that too many of our state schools are simply dysfunctional. Having more children attending those schools instead of (generally) better private educational establishments, particularly children who need a lot of help, is going to result in a less well educated workforce going forward.
This is a stupid policy based on jealousy and prejudice. The number of people adversely affected by it are not likely to be politically significant but it will diminish our total spend on education, it will reduce the average quality of that education and it will hurt many vulnerable kids. Stupid.
I am not jealous of you sending your children to private school, that is your prerogative. If I had been so minded I would have done so myself. However I don't want my taxes subsidising your choice.
My choice subsidised your children's education (or at least would have done so if they attended schools in Dundee). There is a saving to the State if people choose to go private, just as there is in private medicine. The subsidy is all one way.
Surely Dundee isn't allocated a fixed amount of funding for education irrespective of how many children are in the state school system? (Although if it was that might explain a lot about Dundee).
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Jacob Rees-Mogg must have passed Common Entrance, which isn't noticeably easier. So there must be some leeway.
I remember doing common entrance after common entrance mocks at my old prep school. Are they used for private school entry though - I definitely remember doing exams to get in (Not common entrance) even though it's fee paying. Not everyone "passed" though, my brother didn't get in and had to go to err.. Princethorpe (iirc).
I have some sympathy with anyone on a middling income faced with a difficult choice, however this is so full of holes and misinformation.
1) They are businesses. They sell a service to customers. They are however, mainly incorporated as charities. They are charged business rates but got an 80% relief (no an exemption).
Churches, Youth clubs and the CAB are not in any way businesses. The comparison is ludicrous
3) The effect of any change in taxation will result in some behavioual changes. I'd agree that it won't likely raise the full amount. Most private schools are situated in areas where there is an alternative private school. The 50 miles away example is surely an edge case.
4) The policy has been highlighted by Labour for several years, was in the manifesto and was announced formally om the 29th July. It has not been backdated at all and only applies from 1st Jan 2025.
To claim it's been applied retrospectively is pure nonsense.
5) We should have a plan to recruit and retain teachers. We should have a plan on how to fund that. Nothing controversial at all.
Point 4 is incorrect, because it is applied to any monies paid for the term when it came in even if they had been paid in advance. That is a serious point because large numbers of private schools did discounts for paying a year in advance and then suddenly found their figures were all wrong due to a change in fee structure announced part way through the year and applied to matters dated before the start. That is the very definition of a retrospective application.
5) Yes, but this isn't a good plan from that point of view because it rests on lots of optimistic assumptions. It therefore is a reckless policy and moreover a high risk low reward one. It's hardly controversial to draw attention to that. Moreover, as I explained in a different header that TSE may or may not decide to use Phillipson's actually making things worse, not better, on teacher recruitment and retention. And that's separate from the funding.
On 1) a better example might well have been the charity shops who litter our High Streets selling second hand junk. On what possible basis are they not businesses? The have well paid chief execs, the lot. But they don't pay rates because they are deemed to be a public good.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
Some coaching is beneficial, so that your child is familiar with the format of the questions and how to answer them. But beyond that I think all the extra tuition is a waste of time and money for old rope for the teachers providing it. The brightest will pass anyway, maybe on the borderline it might make a difference. My primary school made sure we all had adequate exposure to mock papers ahead of the 11+; if all primaries do that in grammar school areas then most of the advantage of private coaching is removed.
I have a friend whose son is being coached within an inch of his life (at her husband's insistence, he seems to think that if you go to the local Comprehensive you will automatically end up being a builder). There are only a handful of state grammars in Essex, competition is fierce, and I am absolutely sure that her son will not pass, however much more coaching he gets.
Agreed, though good luck to your friend's son, there are some excellent Essex grammars, especially in Chelmsford and Colchester which are also in the top 100 schools for Oxbridge entry and get better results even than most private schools
Thank you. It's KEGS, or the end of life as we know it as far as his father is concerned! But if not, local Comprehensives will do perfectly well, and actually I think in his case, better, as I think he will flourish without the academic pressure.
I have some sympathy with anyone on a middling income faced with a difficult choice, however this is so full of holes and misinformation.
1) They are businesses. They sell a service to customers. They are however, mainly incorporated as charities. They are charged business rates but got an 80% relief (no an exemption).
Churches, Youth clubs and the CAB are not in any way businesses. The comparison is ludicrous
3) The effect of any change in taxation will result in some behavioual changes. I'd agree that it won't likely raise the full amount. Most private schools are situated in areas where there is an alternative private school. The 50 miles away example is surely an edge case.
4) The policy has been highlighted by Labour for several years, was in the manifesto and was announced formally om the 29th July. It has not been backdated at all and only applies from 1st Jan 2025.
To claim it's been applied retrospectively is pure nonsense.
5) We should have a plan to recruit and retain teachers. We should have a plan on how to fund that. Nothing controversial at all.
Point 4 is incorrect, because it is applied to any monies paid for the term when it came in even if they had been paid in advance. That is a serious point because large numbers of private schools did discounts for paying a year in advance and then suddenly found their figures were all wrong due to a change in fee structure announced part way through the year and applied to matters dated before the start. That is the very definition of a retrospective application.
5) Yes, but this isn't a good plan from that point of view because it rests on lots of optimistic assumptions. It therefore is a reckless policy and moreover a high risk low reward one. It's hardly controversial to draw attention to that. Moreover, as I explained in a different header that TSE may or may not decide to use Phillipson's actually making things worse, not better, on teacher recruitment and retention. And that's separate from the funding.
On 1) a better example might well have been the charity shops who litter our High Streets selling second hand junk. On what possible basis are they not businesses? The have well paid chief execs, the lot. But they don't pay rates because they are deemed to be a public good.
Churches also charge for multiple services - weddings, funerals, venue hire...
I have a grand daughter who cannot be placed by the State Sector, they have no vacancies. As a result she is now out of school, 2 years before her GSCE's, ( is it still called that?) Phillipson should be sacked, Labour have lost their left already to Farage and the Greens, so she will not be missed.
The state has a duty to offer your GD a place in a school. What I suspect you are really saying is that the place offered is not the preferred option of your family. Which is quite different.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
Some coaching is beneficial, so that your child is familiar with the format of the questions and how to answer them. But beyond that I think all the extra tuition is a waste of time and money for old rope for the teachers providing it. The brightest will pass anyway, maybe on the borderline it might make a difference. My primary school made sure we all had adequate exposure to mock papers ahead of the 11+; if all primaries do that in grammar school areas then most of the advantage of private coaching is removed.
I have a friend whose son is being coached within an inch of his life (at her husband's insistence, he seems to think that if you go to the local Comprehensive you will automatically end up being a builder). There are only a handful of state grammars in Essex, competition is fierce, and I am absolutely sure that her son will not pass, however much more coaching he gets.
There is a serious danger that the lad will end up a) failing and b) consequently develop feelings of academic inadequacy. Our younger son was, at 10 or so, one of the three brightest boys in his class. Unfortunately in our part of Essex then, only two boys per school could go to the two boys grammar schools in neighbouring Southend.... one to each school. On the day our son had a bad cold and was third, so no grammar school place. He was bitterly disappointed, although we'd made it clear that we weren't worried. I rang the Education Office and the strong impression I was given was that had he been at another school his marks would have been enough; however NO. It wasn't until several years later when he didn't do well in his A levels that he said 'what do you expect; I failed the 11+' and it all came out!
I feel very much for your son.
My best friend at primary school and I both took the 11+ (without tutoring - it wasn't a thing in those days, at least not in our modest social stratum). I passed; he failed, and he was utterly crushed by the experience. After that, his only ambition was to leave school as quickly as possible. He's made a good go of things since then, but still remembers his failure to pass the 11+ as one of the worst events of his life.
The case for exempting VAT on private schools rests on two basic arguments I think. Unfortunately for the people making them, neither quite stacks up.
Argument 1 is that private education is a societal good. It promotes aspiration and should be encouraged. The problem with the argument as it applies to VAT is that the encouragement of aspiration is limited to those who can afford the very expensive school fees today but not 20% more than that. We can assume the wealthy don't need the aspiration boost. Implying to the vast majority who can't afford the privilege, they don't need the aspiration but should support those who can afford it, isn't a compelling argument to that vast majority.
Argument 2 is that private education fills in the gaps in state provision. Removing the VAT exemption is counterproductive as it would force some currently privately educated students into the state sector. The issue here is that those implementing the policy have numbers to show they will get more revenue than additional costs incurred. Those numbers may or may not be correct but this is a general tax payer question; school fee paying parents don't get to decide.
So they are left I think with a hybrid argument. While exempting VAT on private education may not do anything for most people, it doesn't do them much harm either. Meanwhile it means a lot for a small number of people and for that reason it should be retained. It isn't a very powerful argument.
Argument 1 is more completely that such schools are generally charities, and there is already law that should ensure that these schools provide a public good, which extends beyond those who can afford their fees.
It seems reasonable to look at whether you could tighten up these rules - lord knows there are plenty of charities more generally that would benefit from a bit more scrutiny - and perhaps charge VAT on schools that do not qualify as charities. But I'd suspect they most private schools would pass a test of providing a public good as a charity.
I have some sympathy with anyone on a middling income faced with a difficult choice, however this is so full of holes and misinformation.
1) They are businesses. They sell a service to customers. They are however, mainly incorporated as charities. They are charged business rates but got an 80% relief (no an exemption).
Churches, Youth clubs and the CAB are not in any way businesses. The comparison is ludicrous
3) The effect of any change in taxation will result in some behavioual changes. I'd agree that it won't likely raise the full amount. Most private schools are situated in areas where there is an alternative private school. The 50 miles away example is surely an edge case.
4) The policy has been highlighted by Labour for several years, was in the manifesto and was announced formally om the 29th July. It has not been backdated at all and only applies from 1st Jan 2025.
To claim it's been applied retrospectively is pure nonsense.
5) We should have a plan to recruit and retain teachers. We should have a plan on how to fund that. Nothing controversial at all.
Point 4 is incorrect, because it is applied to any monies paid for the term when it came in even if they had been paid in advance. That is a serious point because large numbers of private schools did discounts for paying a year in advance and then suddenly found their figures were all wrong due to a change in fee structure announced part way through the year and applied to matters dated before the start. That is the very definition of a retrospective application.
5) Yes, but this isn't a good plan from that point of view because it rests on lots of optimistic assumptions. It therefore is a reckless policy and moreover a high risk low reward one. It's hardly controversial to draw attention to that. Moreover, as I explained in a different header that TSE may or may not decide to use Phillipson's actually making things worse, not better, on teacher recruitment and retention. And that's separate from the funding.
On 1) a better example might well have been the charity shops who litter our High Streets selling second hand junk. On what possible basis are they not businesses? The have well paid chief execs, the lot. But they don't pay rates because they are deemed to be a public good.
Some of them operate the following, lovely system.
The managers are given a target to reduce the number of hours by paid staff. To meet this, they try and get volunteers in. If they have enough, they cancel the hours for the paid staff. At basically no notice.
Again, there is a large grey area between a nod and a wink on the one hand as profitable punters were barred by bookmakers, and full-blown fraud on the other. Things are moving towards the latter.
The case for exempting VAT on private schools rests on two basic arguments I think. Unfortunately for the people making them, neither quite stacks up.
Argument 1 is that private education is a societal good. It promotes aspiration and should be encouraged. The problem with the argument as it applies to VAT is that the encouragement of aspiration is limited to those who can afford the very expensive school fees today but not 20% more than that. We can assume the wealthy don't need the aspiration boost. Implying to the vast majority who can't afford the privilege, they don't need the aspiration but should support those who can afford it, isn't a compelling argument to that vast majority.
Argument 2 is that private education fills in the gaps in state provision. Removing the VAT exemption is counterproductive as it would force some currently privately educated students into the state sector. The issue here is that those implementing the policy have numbers to show they will get more revenue than additional costs incurred. Those numbers may or may not be correct but this is a general tax payer question; school fee paying parents don't get to decide.
So they are left I think with a hybrid argument. While exempting VAT on private education may not do anything for most people, it doesn't do them much harm either. Meanwhile it means a lot for a small number of people and for that reason it should be retained. It isn't a very powerful argument.
I think that's a good summary. I've been arguing in support of the government's policy (an unusual position for me, as a rule), but actually I'm not that fussed one way or the other overall. Your post sets out why - like most people it wouldn't affect me at all even if I still had school age children. But as the government has decided to do it, I agree on the principle.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
Some coaching is beneficial, so that your child is familiar with the format of the questions and how to answer them. But beyond that I think all the extra tuition is a waste of time and money for old rope for the teachers providing it. The brightest will pass anyway, maybe on the borderline it might make a difference. My primary school made sure we all had adequate exposure to mock papers ahead of the 11+; if all primaries do that in grammar school areas then most of the advantage of private coaching is removed.
I have a friend whose son is being coached within an inch of his life (at her husband's insistence, he seems to think that if you go to the local Comprehensive you will automatically end up being a builder). There are only a handful of state grammars in Essex, competition is fierce, and I am absolutely sure that her son will not pass, however much more coaching he gets.
There is a serious danger that the lad will end up a) failing and b) consequently develop feelings of academic inadequacy. Our younger son was, at 10 or so, one of the three brightest boys in his class. Unfortunately in our part of Essex then, only two boys per school could go to the two boys grammar schools in neighbouring Southend.... one to each school. On the day our son had a bad cold and was third, so no grammar school place. He was bitterly disappointed, although we'd made it clear that we weren't worried. I rang the Education Office and the strong impression I was given was that had he been at another school his marks would have been enough; however NO. It wasn't until several years later when he didn't do well in his A levels that he said 'what do you expect; I failed the 11+' and it all came out!
I feel very much for your son.
My best friend at primary school and I both took the 11+ (without tutoring - it wasn't a thing in those days, at least not in our modest social stratum). I passed; he failed, and he was utterly crushed by the experience. After that, his only ambition was to leave school as quickly as possible. He's made a good go of things since then, but still remembers his failure to pass the 11+ as one of the worst events of his life.
Thank you; like your friend my son has, after a bit of a misstart, done well in life.
Comments
There was a bit of ‘he’s quite sexy’ and ‘he has a lovely smile’ a while back but that’s melted like snow aff a dyke.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1905599/nigel-farage-vat-private-schools-labour-piers-morgan
Labour, the SNP and Greens in favour
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
As I have said, I was at a Headmasters Conference Day School. Their fee increase is 16% to £7279 per term for seniors, which I think includes inflation as that number is Autumn 2024 to Summer 2025 unless inflation is due in Autumn 2025 - so that looks as if they have included the net increase after claims against VAT (I think.
I also have a relative who went from being bullied at State School, who could not deal with it, to several years in Private School, to a State Boarding School with weekly boarding - and the last one finally gave her the independence to make her way in University.
Getting the Statement took years and much attendance from a specialist barrister at meetings at 4 figures a time or more. So I certainly agree that the SEN system is broken and needs a "service".
They can't realistically take one of the remaining seasoned Flanker/Fulcrum/Fencer/Frogfoot drivers out of a gun squadron for a full year when there is a war on so ab initios make the most sense for F-16.
Blue-on-blue losses have been significant on both sides. The Ukrainians have had 30 fixed wing shootdowns, 9 of which they did themselves. According to Airforces Monthly who generally try to paint the most optimistic picture possible for Ukraine.
And the lawyers referred to in that piece are not "using... to avoid": all law firms have traditionally operated as partnerships. They are taxed no differently to the owners of any other unincorporated business.
I like Dan Neidle, but he does talk b****cks sometimes.
Then the private after-school tuition carries on, thereby buying the children better grades at GCSE and A-Level.
The problem with broadening access is one of cost. To make it fair everyone needs to be able to afford to send their children to the best schools, unless a cap is placed on how much schools may charge. State schools are much more cost-effective per pupil than private (I forget now how much a secondary school gets per pupil but it is surprisingly little). For example I just looked up the former Grammar School that would have been the only alternative to the state Grammar School I attended - fees are £8200 per term. Any voucher worth less than that would have been useless to my parents.
Give parents a voucher (like in Sweden) where they can spend where they like, on condition there is no top-up.
My belief is you are perfectly entitled to send your children to an expensive school prefaced with "St", but I resent subsidising you.
I could have afforded to send my children to private school, but I didn't on the grounds of being charged with Diane Abbott style hypocrisy and inconsistency, it was not for me. If it was, it wouldn't have been some Mickey Mouse affair prefaced with "Saint". I'd have sent them to Llandovery College or Christ College Brecon, and for the unfair networking leg up, perhaps I should have. My son's minimum entry on his MA at the prestigious Cardiff School of Journalism was his undergrad 2:1. There was a girl on his course aged 18 that had come straight from A levels at a Headmaster's Conference College because she was seen as particularly "gifted".He said she was OK, but he struggled to see her particular "gift" for digital journalism.
One thing I haven't heard about in terms of budgets and black holes is the current state of the infamous unfunded increase in teacher pay from 2022, which is one reason for the current financial situation of most state schools. Does anyone know if that has been sorted out yet?
(The one in S Korea.)
https://x.com/yejinjgim/status/1874604043001303528
On January 1, President Yoon Suk Yeol distributed signed letters near the presidential residence. In these letters, he claimed South Korea is under threat from "anti-state forces" while saying he'll "fight till the end" and encouraging his supporters to "stay strong together."..
On the same day at the same place, some of his supporters surrounded and physically assaulted two JTBC video journalists. They also ran toward protesters demanding Yoon's arrest and clashed with police while attempting to break through police lines..,
I went to the area this afternoon, and as soon as I tried to take some pictures of a pro-Yoon protester's hat (I told him only taking a photo of his hat written "TRUMP SAVE AMERICA 2024"), people shouted and even followed me, threatening and taking photos of my face. Traumatic...
This thread has certainly generated a considerable amount of quite bitter dissension. Is that a good thing; possibly, possibly not.
All I would say, on topic is that almost 80 years ago those of us in the top stream of the primary school I attended were quite ruthlessly coached to 'succeed' (as I did) in the 11+ examination. In the mid to late 70's my children didn't have as much, largely because grammar places had been considerably cut back and there were, and still are, good comprehensive schools locally.
I'm not in favour of private education, or selective schools. I am in favour of provision being made for SEND children, especially while the effects of Covid are still working through.
My father was fine with that as I did well in the subjects that matter, a West African parent would have beaten me within an inch of my life for bringing shame to the family for not getting A stars in every subject.
Being a year younger than the rest of my year for seven years had its disadvantages though.
My school converted from Grammar to Comprehensive when I was in 3rd year.
Some kids who had passed their 11+ ended up without an O level to their name, while others who had failed the 11+ but arrived later, in 3rd year, went on to university. (The school went from 11-18 age range to 13-18 range).
So selection at 11 is a load of bollocks.
There are only so many questions you can ask in IQ-like tests, and coaching and familiarity with them increase performance a lot. (If it didn't, the entire education system might as well pack up and shuffle off home.)
Grammar schools do continually tweak their admission tests to try to stay one step ahead of the coaching industry. They generally fail in that endeavour.
This hypothetical tory anarcho-cap godhead isn't going to be campaigning in such favourable circumstances and running on a platform of massive public spending cuts and environmental carnage will lead to electoral oblivion. An outcome, which admittedly and hopefully, may await the tories in any event.
Otherwise you get a few oustanding free schools in inner cities but again largely independent run even if state funded
https://institute-genetics-cancer.ed.ac.uk/news-and-events/news-2017/how-much-intelligence-personality-inherited#:~:text=Intelligence depends partly on environmental,haven't yet been identified.
If you are below average IQ no matter how hard you are coached you will likely never get the above average numerical and verbal reasoning scores to get into grammar school
Anyway, I have refrained from commenting on this topic despite being the Chair of Trustees of a long established Catholic charity which owns and runs a girl's primary school - the one I went to in fact.
We have spent much of the last few years preparing for this while maintaining our charitable activities for those who do not attend the school - we provide free pre-nursery provision for locals, especially local health workers. We also have quite a few SEND pupils.
One point worth making is that I've seen a few of our competitors be bought up by private equity groups. They have more resources but are not that committed to education and we've seen some of them pull out or water down the ethos of their schools. This has resulted in parents moving their children. I would not be surprised to see more such changes because such schools are run as businesses and profit is what motivates them rather than education. But we'll see.
My husband offered to be a governor of the local secondary school near where we live. It is nowhere near as good as it needs to be and both it and the local primary have had poor reports in recent years. It is a real shame because it is one of the factors holding this area back. Parents who can drive their children to schools elsewhere in the Lakes. He has been a teacher and 2 of his siblings are teachers. But no. There is a poverty of expectations which really damages an area like this. I would like to see this addressed. Instead we get spiteful measures like cancelling the Latin programme halfway through a school year. Why?
I have a friend whose son is being coached within an inch of his life (at her husband's insistence, he seems to think that if you go to the local Comprehensive you will automatically end up being a builder). There are only a handful of state grammars in Essex, competition is fierce, and I am absolutely sure that her son will not pass, however much more coaching he gets.
Please sir! May I have some more structural inequality and endemic poverty?
(That's the US as of the 20th!)
Since we have only had one PM fully educated at a comprehensive for secondary education, Liz Truss
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/education-skills-and-training/11-to-16-years-old/gcse-results-attainment-8-for-children-aged-14-to-16-key-stage-4/latest/
Avg attainment 8 score by ethnicity:
Chinese 65.5
Indian 59.4
Asian other 54.3
Asian 53.1
Bangladeshi 51.9
Mixed White and Asian 51.7
White Irish 50.7
Mixed other 48.8
Black African 48.7
White other 48.4
Pakistani 47
Other 47
Mixed 46.7
Black 46.6
Mixed White and Black African 46.4
All 46.3
White 45.2
White British 44.9
Black other 44.3
Unknown 42.1
Black Caribbean 40
Mixed White and Black Caribbean 39.1
Irish traveller 26.8
Gypsy, Roma 20.3
(who happens to be my favourite politician by a mile)
..or perhaps I’m cynically thinking it’s purely ideological.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-iq-by-country
Immigrants will also tend to be more motivated and driven than the native population which skews the figures a bit but otherwise the trend is clear
If they cared about the kids, they’d have implemented it for September 2025
*Hurriedly clarifies - St Bees has no relationship to the school Cyclefree mentions.
Those with an IQ of 150 would of course pass with likely full marks even if never coached at all
Most damaging to business...
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1874625291538350372
I then applied to be a pilot in the RN and was sent back to Biggin Hill a few weeks later to do the exact same tests. Having done the tests before, I was now apparently significantly cleverer and more logical, scoring high enough to be shot at in intrinsically dangerous aircraft for sixpence a day.
There, but for the grace of God, goes I in a uniform that makes you look like a Spanish security guard.
1) Not levying a tax is not the same thing as a 'subsidy through tax;'
2) Large numbers of private schools survive on the EHCP funds they attract anyway which come from your tax and will continue to do so.
Argument 1 is that private education is a societal good. It promotes aspiration and should be encouraged. The problem with the argument as it applies to VAT is that the encouragement of aspiration is limited to those who can afford the very expensive school fees today but not 20% more than that. We can assume the wealthy don't need the aspiration boost. Implying to the vast majority who can't afford the privilege, they don't need the aspiration but should support those who can afford it, isn't a compelling argument to that vast majority.
Argument 2 is that private education fills in the gaps in state provision. Removing the VAT exemption is counterproductive as it would force some currently privately educated students into the state sector. The issue here is that those implementing the policy have numbers to show they will get more revenue than additional costs incurred. Those numbers may or may not be correct but this is a general tax payer question; school fee paying parents don't get to decide.
So they are left I think with a hybrid argument. While exempting VAT on private education may not do anything for most people, it doesn't do them much harm either. Meanwhile it means a lot for a small number of people and for that reason it should be retained. It isn't a very powerful argument.
I have some sympathy with anyone on a middling income faced with a difficult choice, however this is so full of holes and misinformation.
1) They are businesses. They sell a service to customers. They are however, mainly incorporated as charities. They are charged business rates but got an 80% relief (no an exemption).
Churches, Youth clubs and the CAB are not in any way businesses. The comparison is ludicrous
3) The effect of any change in taxation will result in some behavioual changes. I'd agree that it won't likely raise the full amount.
Most private schools are situated in areas where there is an alternative private school.
The 50 miles away example is surely an edge case.
4) The policy has been highlighted by Labour for several years, was in the manifesto and was announced formally om the 29th July. It has not been backdated at all and only applies from 1st Jan 2025.
To claim it's been applied retrospectively is pure nonsense.
5) We should have a plan to recruit and retain teachers. We should have a plan on how to fund that. Nothing controversial at all.
A friend of ours has been badly stung by a hideous mortgage his parents took out with the Church of England many decades ago. Churches very much do business activities.
Going back in history my wife went to night school with her pal to do her resit in Higher maths (she had not even seen most of the topics on the paper). She and her pal were the only 2 who passed the prelim. The response of their teacher? "Just because you passed the prelim doesn't mean you are going to pass the exam you know". The interest of the school in the fact that the only 2 to pass were being educated elsewhere? Nil.
But I've had some exposure to being on the teacher side of the teacher-student interaction, and there are definitely variations in people's ability to learn. If a test is measuring that, instead of innate intelligence per se, then that is not in itself obviously valueless.
The latter scoring higher.
5) Yes, but this isn't a good plan from that point of view because it rests on lots of optimistic assumptions. It therefore is a reckless policy and moreover a high risk low reward one. It's hardly controversial to draw attention to that. Moreover, as I explained in a different header that TSE may or may not decide to use Phillipson's actually making things worse, not better, on teacher recruitment and retention. And that's separate from the funding.
Our younger son was, at 10 or so, one of the three brightest boys in his class. Unfortunately in our part of Essex then, only two boys per school could go to the two boys grammar schools in neighbouring Southend.... one to each school. On the day our son had a bad cold and was third, so no grammar school place. He was bitterly disappointed, although we'd made it clear that we weren't worried. I rang the Education Office and the strong impression I was given was that had he been at another school his marks would have been enough; however NO.
It wasn't until several years later when he didn't do well in his A levels that he said 'what do you expect; I failed the 11+' and it all came out!
Maybe it was for a discount on fees
It was pointed out at the time it was announced in July that most advanced payments wouldn't escape VAT...
I remain adamant however that PB social climbers should be paying VAT on a service which they are purchasing to promote their children's future career network.
Now, in practical terms, it can be hard if not impossible to know what your advantage is because that involves determining the true probability of Liverpool winning the league or Keir Starmer resigning. So mathematically-inclined punters with their sophisticated computer models based on metrics from every football match in all the top leagues in Europe will work out how much Kelly says they should stake (the "full Kelly") and instead bet a fraction such as half or quarter-Kelly. Profit rate is almost as good and it reduces the chance of losing the lot in one go.
As well as for betting, the Kelly criterion is typically used by hedge funds for investing in stock and derivative markets (and occasionally losing billions because their colossal geniuses missed out some important factor like the Russian government defaulting on its bonds, or the Fed letting Lehmans go bust).
Like most things, the Kelly criterion has its own Wikipedia page:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion
I may be wrong, I'm not an accountant. But it seemed (and still seems, for the matter of that) a silly way to introduce it and an unusually aggressive one.
Again, though, we come back to this isn't about the money.
So do a large number of Youth Clubs.
My best friend at primary school and I both took the 11+ (without tutoring - it wasn't a thing in those days, at least not in our modest social stratum). I passed; he failed, and he was utterly crushed by the experience. After that, his only ambition was to leave school as quickly as possible. He's made a good go of things since then, but still remembers his failure to pass the 11+ as one of the worst events of his life.
It seems reasonable to look at whether you could tighten up these rules - lord knows there are plenty of charities more generally that would benefit from a bit more scrutiny - and perhaps charge VAT on schools that do not qualify as charities. But I'd suspect they most private schools would pass a test of providing a public good as a charity.
The managers are given a target to reduce the number of hours by paid staff. To meet this, they try and get volunteers in. If they have enough, they cancel the hours for the paid staff. At basically no notice.
Warms the heart, eh?
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/jan/01/consumers-money-offer-personal-details-betting-accounts-gambling
Again, there is a large grey area between a nod and a wink on the one hand as profitable punters were barred by bookmakers, and full-blown fraud on the other. Things are moving towards the latter.