'The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) has said it is commissioning an independent review into a "number of issues arising following the conviction of Jeffrey Donaldson".'...The DUP said it acted swiftly when he was first charged in 2024 and that its current leadership are deeply concerned by allegations that have surfaced in recent days.
"As a party we believe in the rule of law and that criminal proceedings must take their full course. Justice has been served with the guilty verdicts against him," a spokesperson said.
"The party leader Gavin Robinson, deputy leader Michelle McIlveen and party chairman are deeply concerned by allegations that have surfaced in recent days relating to inappropriate behaviour on behalf of Jeffrey Donaldson, and the indication that some may have had knowledge of inappropriate behaviour but which was never reported to the party officers."
They added further details about the independent review "will be announced shortly".'
All institutions ultimately end up protecting themselves above any considerations of morality or law. A lot of people very deliberately do not know things as part of that.
Nonetheless good to see the DUP leader announcing this review of who knew what when and if actions should have been taken by them
Just need a root & branch enquiry into the R*y*l F*m*ly now.
Prince Andrew will never face justice, though maybe he'll get a slap on the wrist for something.
He's not a prince any more.
I am aware. But I still call him that because it is what he was when, probably, committing crimes.
"He needed a lot of persuading to apply because he felt that as a working-class boy, going off to Cambridge wasn't for him. He didn't believe in himself, but he did it, and the rest is history."
These are the words of former English teacher Stephen Harrington on the advice he gave to a 16-year-old Andy Burnham in 1986 at St Aelred's Catholic High School in Newton-Le-Willows, Merseyside.
The man, now widely tipped to win any Labour leadership contest and become prime minister, has credited his former teacher with boosting his confidence at that pivotal time in his life.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2eymr3xrewo
Can relate.
Yes as the only working class son of a doctor ever I am sure you can!
I am the grandson of humble immigrants.
This is why putting people into groups/stereotypes isn't simple or easy.
So is the King on his father's side
I don't think the House of Oldenburg is particularly humble. Even the cadet branches.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Culinary discovery of the day - it's is possible to make raw tofu more than palatable. Served as thinly sliced sashimi with a dipping sauce of virgin olive oil and good double fermented soy sauce, it is surprisingly tasty, as the utter blandness complements the amazing umami of the soy.
Add garnishes to taste.
Why would you want to make it palatable? Just don't eat it.
Because it's an excellent dietary staple.
I have had incredible salt and pepper tofu in Chinese restaurants.
Should one ever go to Dubai, then at the Mina a Salem hotel in the Madinat Jumeriah, there is (or was) a high end Chinese restaurant call Zheng He (named after the famous admiral).
"Earlier in his life, Burnham spent the majority of his childhood living on Common Lane in Culcheth. The street is made up of big, detached, roomy properties with plenty of garden space and several houses are listed for sale with asking prices in excess of £1million."
I couldn't really care less whether AB is "working class" or not. But such a big deal is made of it, I wonder how it can reconciled with the BBC report. Anyone know?
Most people described as "working-class" aren't really. John Lennon is another example.
It's down to accent and presentation, unfortunately.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Did you not see back in 2024 the Government trying everything they could to avoid that obvious issue on the basis that it would destroy Universities overnight and with it an awful lot of towns...
Personally for an awful lot of people university does not make sense.
"Earlier in his life, Burnham spent the majority of his childhood living on Common Lane in Culcheth. The street is made up of big, detached, roomy properties with plenty of garden space and several houses are listed for sale with asking prices in excess of £1million."
I couldn't really care less whether AB is "working class" or not. But such a big deal is made of it, I wonder how it can reconciled with the BBC report. Anyone know?
Burnham's father was a telephone engineer and his mother a medical secretary, he was lower middle class not working class
Culinary discovery of the day - it's is possible to make raw tofu more than palatable. Served as thinly sliced sashimi with a dipping sauce of virgin olive oil and good double fermented soy sauce, it is surprisingly tasty, as the utter blandness complements the amazing umami of the soy.
Add garnishes to taste.
Tofu is good. Ignore everyone who says otherwise. It's curded like cheese essentially but made with soya instead of cows milk, and like cheese comes in many forms. In parts of China you get a beancurd with the consistency of thick cream and you put it in spicy soups, which is simple but delicious.
As you suggest, use it as a substrate to which you add other ingredients with stronger flavours. If anyone says, why would you do that? So why do you have potatoes, eggs, dried beans, polenta etc?
Missed the most obvious flavourless substrate to which you add ingredients with more flavour - chicken. Which like tofu is a lump of protein.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
'The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) has said it is commissioning an independent review into a "number of issues arising following the conviction of Jeffrey Donaldson".'...The DUP said it acted swiftly when he was first charged in 2024 and that its current leadership are deeply concerned by allegations that have surfaced in recent days.
"As a party we believe in the rule of law and that criminal proceedings must take their full course. Justice has been served with the guilty verdicts against him," a spokesperson said.
"The party leader Gavin Robinson, deputy leader Michelle McIlveen and party chairman are deeply concerned by allegations that have surfaced in recent days relating to inappropriate behaviour on behalf of Jeffrey Donaldson, and the indication that some may have had knowledge of inappropriate behaviour but which was never reported to the party officers."
They added further details about the independent review "will be announced shortly".'
All institutions ultimately end up protecting themselves above any considerations of morality or law. A lot of people very deliberately do not know things as part of that.
Nonetheless good to see the DUP leader announcing this review of who knew what when and if actions should have been taken by them
Just need a root & branch enquiry into the R*y*l F*m*ly now.
Prince Andrew will never face justice, though maybe he'll get a slap on the wrist for something.
He's not a prince any more.
I am aware. But I still call him that because it is what he was when, probably, committing crimes.
As far as I am concerned, he is a Prince. Henry VIII was a shitebag - he was still the King. It's not awarded for good behaviour. I think the whole de-princing has been ridiculous.
"Earlier in his life, Burnham spent the majority of his childhood living on Common Lane in Culcheth. The street is made up of big, detached, roomy properties with plenty of garden space and several houses are listed for sale with asking prices in excess of £1million."
I couldn't really care less whether AB is "working class" or not. But such a big deal is made of it, I wonder how it can reconciled with the BBC report. Anyone know?
Burnham's father was a telephone engineer and his mother a medical secretary, he was lower middle class not working class
So to be fair and consistent VAT should be applied to university fees. After all they university is not available to all and confers advantage
You said that 15 minutes ago - and it would destroy a fair number of middle size towns as the biggest employer in the area (often by miles) went kaput.
Plus even without VAT the university sector is falling apart and that will continue for the next 4 years. Literally the only places that won't have massive problems are Russell Group Universities who will cannibalise other universities by quietly (in clearing) reducing their admission criteria.
So to be fair and consistent VAT should be applied to university fees. After all they university is not available to all and confers advantage
You said that 15 minutes ago - and it would destroy a fair number of middle size towns as the biggest employer in the area (often by miles) went kaput.
Plus even without VAT the university sector is falling apart and that will continue for the next 4 years. Literally the only places that won't have massive problems are Russell Group Universities who will cannibalise other universities by quietly (in clearing) reducing their admission criteria.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
Except it's not a 20% price shock, is it, because businesses claim back the VAT on their inputs.
It very much is a price shock for those paying the fees. They are not businesses.
Which is all that Casino claimed.
The damage to the business is the resulting fall in rolls.
Stuart: 80% of a school's budget is wages. No VAT to reclaim there. So, at least a 16% shock..?
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
So to be fair and consistent VAT should be applied to university fees. After all they university is not available to all and confers advantage
You said that 15 minutes ago - and it would destroy a fair number of middle size towns as the biggest employer in the area (often by miles) went kaput.
Plus even without VAT the university sector is falling apart and that will continue for the next 4 years. Literally the only places that won't have massive problems are Russell Group Universities who will cannibalise other universities by quietly (in clearing) reducing their admission criteria.
Yes it's paywalled but you can read it for free if you register.
The entire fees system needs reforming, with fees charged on the average graduate earnings premium of each course
THat doesn't even start to fix the issue - the problem is that University is both too expensive for students (to make sense) and not earning enough to pay it's current costs.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
So to be fair and consistent VAT should be applied to university fees. After all they university is not available to all and confers advantage
You said that 15 minutes ago - and it would destroy a fair number of middle size towns as the biggest employer in the area (often by miles) went kaput.
Plus even without VAT the university sector is falling apart and that will continue for the next 4 years. Literally the only places that won't have massive problems are Russell Group Universities who will cannibalise other universities by quietly (in clearing) reducing their admission criteria.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
The problem with Grammar Schools was never the Grammar School, it was the fact that Secondary Moderns were dreadful, and that if you found yourself in one, it was incredibly hard to get out.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
That's not quite what I meant.
I'm suggesting that a meritocratic society and the benefits to the 'country as a whole' doesn't end with how many GCSEs you get at 16.
The average level of education is important (and I appreciate the arguments that private schools and grammar schools have an impact - although I believe there is plenty of research suggesting grammar schools don't raise the average, even though those attending do better), but it's not the end game of a meritocracy - where the impact people have over their working lives is more important.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
The problem with Grammar Schools was never the Grammar School, it was the fact that Secondary Moderns were dreadful, and that if you found yourself in one, it was incredibly hard to get out.
Yes, and Secondary Moderns help to make the argument against meritocracy. The reason they were dreadful is because the meritocratic conclusion was that the kids in them didn't deserve any more effort on their education, because they were a lost cause.
The meritocratic winners who got to go to grammar school had been chosen already.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
I'm somewhat losing track of the logical contortions here.
Private nurseries are ok, private universities are ok, private tutors are ok and private adult education is ok.
It seems to be private schooling between the ages of 5 and 18 that is considered uniquely bad and utterly unworthy of anything but full business taxation.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
The problem with Grammar Schools was never the Grammar School, it was the fact that Secondary Moderns were dreadful, and that if you found yourself in one, it was incredibly hard to get out.
Not necessarily, if you got good O levels or GCSEs you could enter a grammar at 16. Plenty of high schools now do OK in selective areas
So to be fair and consistent VAT should be applied to university fees. After all they university is not available to all and confers advantage
You said that 15 minutes ago - and it would destroy a fair number of middle size towns as the biggest employer in the area (often by miles) went kaput.
Plus even without VAT the university sector is falling apart and that will continue for the next 4 years. Literally the only places that won't have massive problems are Russell Group Universities who will cannibalise other universities by quietly (in clearing) reducing their admission criteria.
Yes it's paywalled but you can read it for free if you register.
The entire fees system needs reforming, with fees charged on the average graduate earnings premium of each course
THat doesn't even start to fix the issue - the problem is that University is both too expensive for students (to make sense) and not earning enough to pay it's current costs.
Of course it does, make law and economics and medicine courses far more expensive and creative arts and English literature courses have their fees capped or even reduced and you solve the problem of university fee income and student debt for those who go on to earn little post graduation
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
I'm somewhat losing track of the logical contortions here.
Private nurseries are ok, private universities are ok, private tutors are ok and private adult education is ok.
It seems to be private schooling between the ages of 5 and 18 that is considered uniquely bad and utterly unworthy of anything but full business taxation.
Exactly unless you are a spiteful class warrior it makes no sense
Culinary discovery of the day - it's is possible to make raw tofu more than palatable. Served as thinly sliced sashimi with a dipping sauce of virgin olive oil and good double fermented soy sauce, it is surprisingly tasty, as the utter blandness complements the amazing umami of the soy.
Add garnishes to taste.
It's a decent carrier for Szechuan pepper or other spicy things, too.
That looks way too thick to me. Thinner slices make the tofu texture, which puts off a lot of people, disappear.
Have you tried harder drier tofu, rather than the smooth "silken" type? It tastes of something, plus the texture is better.
Food that tastes of nothing is very pleasant if it has a nice smooth texture. Eg plain set yoghurt.
Yes, a silken tofu is not dissimilar to a panna cotta in texture. But the firm stuff is undeniably rubbery, especially when raw, which some find disconcerting.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
The problem with Grammar Schools was never the Grammar School, it was the fact that Secondary Moderns were dreadful, and that if you found yourself in one, it was incredibly hard to get out.
My father failed his 11 plus, went to a secondary modern and then moved from there to a Grammar School at 13 based on his ongoing exam results.
Sounds like the nutty right wing of the Tories are getting worried that Reform’s bloom is fading. Now would be wrong time to do a deal.
And I’m not sure that a deal should be done anyway. It would retoxify the Tory brand and sure as shit would unite the left.
The Tories need to courage of their convictions: sound money, disciplined fiscal policy, socially tolerant, controlled immigration. Focus on getting the the basics right of running the country.
Good morning
The question may be coming from panicking reform supporters who must be really worried just how long Farage will remain in the party
Kemi is right to reject all and any suggestions to unite the right and continue her progress in leading the conservatives into GE29 and ignore reform/restore
Did you not read TSE's point about the party funders, though, Big_G. If enough of them decide that's the way to get what they want, some sort of pact might be inevitable. Unless the Tories suddenly pick up another 10% in the polls, in that circumstance whatever Kemi wants might well be irrelevant.
Kemi has attracted over £6,063,7111 million in Q1 to Farage £9,936.393
By contrast labour attracted £4,102,856
Deduct public funds. Labour and Tories roughly equal on £4m in actual donations.
Deduct the value of civil service assistance from Labour?
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
The problem with Grammar Schools was never the Grammar School, it was the fact that Secondary Moderns were dreadful, and that if you found yourself in one, it was incredibly hard to get out.
My father failed his 11 plus, went to a secondary modern and then moved from there to a Grammar School at 13 based on his ongoing exam results.
Indeed, most comprehensives and academies are secondary moderns in all but name anyway except those in the leafiest and wealthiest suburbs and towns
"Earlier in his life, Burnham spent the majority of his childhood living on Common Lane in Culcheth. The street is made up of big, detached, roomy properties with plenty of garden space and several houses are listed for sale with asking prices in excess of £1million."
I couldn't really care less whether AB is "working class" or not. But such a big deal is made of it, I wonder how it can reconciled with the BBC report. Anyone know?
Burnham's father was a telephone engineer and his mother a medical secretary, he was lower middle class not working class
Telephone technician. Working class.
Golgafrinchan B Ark candidate
The Golgafrinchans were wiped out due to a disease that originated on a dirty phone
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
The problem with Grammar Schools was never the Grammar School, it was the fact that Secondary Moderns were dreadful, and that if you found yourself in one, it was incredibly hard to get out.
My father failed his 11 plus, went to a secondary modern and then moved from there to a Grammar School at 13 based on his ongoing exam results.
Anecdote does not good policy make, as Yoda would say if he made an unlikely sideways move into the DfE.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
The problem with Grammar Schools was never the Grammar School, it was the fact that Secondary Moderns were dreadful, and that if you found yourself in one, it was incredibly hard to get out.
Yes, and Secondary Moderns help to make the argument against meritocracy. The reason they were dreadful is because the meritocratic conclusion was that the kids in them didn't deserve any more effort on their education, because they were a lost cause.
The meritocratic winners who got to go to grammar school had been chosen already.
But all of that is an argument over a system designed eighty years ago, and into which post war austerity (and class prejudice) baked in irredeemable deficiencies.
Merit is anyway hard to define; it's as much application and effort as it is intelligence.
Well. I guess if Stokes is out this evening that will be his international career over. Feels a bit like he doesn't want to play tomorrow? Seems a bit odd. Fingers crossed he has one last special innings.
'The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) has said it is commissioning an independent review into a "number of issues arising following the conviction of Jeffrey Donaldson".'...The DUP said it acted swiftly when he was first charged in 2024 and that its current leadership are deeply concerned by allegations that have surfaced in recent days.
"As a party we believe in the rule of law and that criminal proceedings must take their full course. Justice has been served with the guilty verdicts against him," a spokesperson said.
"The party leader Gavin Robinson, deputy leader Michelle McIlveen and party chairman are deeply concerned by allegations that have surfaced in recent days relating to inappropriate behaviour on behalf of Jeffrey Donaldson, and the indication that some may have had knowledge of inappropriate behaviour but which was never reported to the party officers."
They added further details about the independent review "will be announced shortly".'
All institutions ultimately end up protecting themselves above any considerations of morality or law. A lot of people very deliberately do not know things as part of that.
Nonetheless good to see the DUP leader announcing this review of who knew what when and if actions should have been taken by them
Just need a root & branch enquiry into the R*y*l F*m*ly now.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
They are more meritocratic than selection on parental wealth, which is largely how private schools and outstanding comprehensives/academies in areas with expensive house prices select their pupils
"Earlier in his life, Burnham spent the majority of his childhood living on Common Lane in Culcheth. The street is made up of big, detached, roomy properties with plenty of garden space and several houses are listed for sale with asking prices in excess of £1million."
I couldn't really care less whether AB is "working class" or not. But such a big deal is made of it, I wonder how it can reconciled with the BBC report. Anyone know?
Burnham's father was a telephone engineer and his mother a medical secretary, he was lower middle class not working class
Telephone technician. Working class.
Golgafrinchan B Ark candidate
The Golgafrinchans were wiped out due to a disease that originated on a dirty phone
The B Ark brigade were more useful than imagined.
The B Ark weren’t working class as such.
A Ark – the leaders, scientists, thinkers, and other people considered essential. B Ark – * hairdressers * telephone sanitizers * marketing executives * management consultants * TV producers * security guards * and many other professions the ruling class mocked as useless. C Ark – the workers who actually kept society running, such as farmers, mechanics, and technicians.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
The problem with Grammar Schools was never the Grammar School, it was the fact that Secondary Moderns were dreadful, and that if you found yourself in one, it was incredibly hard to get out.
Yes, and Secondary Moderns help to make the argument against meritocracy. The reason they were dreadful is because the meritocratic conclusion was that the kids in them didn't deserve any more effort on their education, because they were a lost cause.
The meritocratic winners who got to go to grammar school had been chosen already.
But all of that is an argument over a system designed eighty years ago, and into which post war austerity (and class prejudice) baked in irredeemable deficiencies.
Merit is anyway hard to define; it's as much application and effort as it is intelligence.
The problem was not grammar or secondary modern schools. It was that the technical schools that were intended as the third type of school alongside the others were rarely built because they were too expensive because of all the equipment they needed while the other two were mainly chalk and talk.
'The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) has said it is commissioning an independent review into a "number of issues arising following the conviction of Jeffrey Donaldson".'...The DUP said it acted swiftly when he was first charged in 2024 and that its current leadership are deeply concerned by allegations that have surfaced in recent days.
"As a party we believe in the rule of law and that criminal proceedings must take their full course. Justice has been served with the guilty verdicts against him," a spokesperson said.
"The party leader Gavin Robinson, deputy leader Michelle McIlveen and party chairman are deeply concerned by allegations that have surfaced in recent days relating to inappropriate behaviour on behalf of Jeffrey Donaldson, and the indication that some may have had knowledge of inappropriate behaviour but which was never reported to the party officers."
They added further details about the independent review "will be announced shortly".'
All institutions ultimately end up protecting themselves above any considerations of morality or law. A lot of people very deliberately do not know things as part of that.
Nonetheless good to see the DUP leader announcing this review of who knew what when and if actions should have been taken by them
Just need a root & branch enquiry into the R*y*l F*m*ly now.
Makes some sort of sense. It's a highly unlikely run chase, though not impossible on this pitch ?? Probably better to find out at the start whether to drop anchors for the draw, rather than bring Stokes in several wickets down.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
The problem with Grammar Schools was never the Grammar School, it was the fact that Secondary Moderns were dreadful, and that if you found yourself in one, it was incredibly hard to get out.
Yes, and Secondary Moderns help to make the argument against meritocracy. The reason they were dreadful is because the meritocratic conclusion was that the kids in them didn't deserve any more effort on their education, because they were a lost cause.
The meritocratic winners who got to go to grammar school had been chosen already.
But all of that is an argument over a system designed eighty years ago, and into which post war austerity (and class prejudice) baked in irredeemable deficiencies.
Merit is anyway hard to define; it's as much application and effort as it is intelligence.
The problem was not grammar or secondary modern schools. It was that the technical schools that were intended as the third type of school alongside the others were rarely built because they were too expensive because of all the equipment they needed while the other two were mainly chalk and talk.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
The problem with Grammar Schools was never the Grammar School, it was the fact that Secondary Moderns were dreadful, and that if you found yourself in one, it was incredibly hard to get out.
My father failed his 11 plus, went to a secondary modern and then moved from there to a Grammar School at 13 based on his ongoing exam results.
Anecdote does not good policy make, as Yoda would say if he made an unlikely sideways move into the DfE.
This is is his presentation on “Restructuring OFSTED”
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
They are more meritocratic than selection on parental wealth, which is largely how private schools and outstanding comprehensives/academies in areas with expensive house prices select their pupils
I'd agree with all that, and it opens up a whole new can of worms
Our local church school is the best state school in the borough, but now has so many hoops to jump through that it essentially selects by wealth.
So to be fair and consistent VAT should be applied to university fees. After all they university is not available to all and confers advantage
You said that 15 minutes ago - and it would destroy a fair number of middle size towns as the biggest employer in the area (often by miles) went kaput.
Plus even without VAT the university sector is falling apart and that will continue for the next 4 years. Literally the only places that won't have massive problems are Russell Group Universities who will cannibalise other universities by quietly (in clearing) reducing their admission criteria.
Yes it's paywalled but you can read it for free if you register.
The entire fees system needs reforming, with fees charged on the average graduate earnings premium of each course
THat doesn't even start to fix the issue - the problem is that University is both too expensive for students (to make sense) and not earning enough to pay it's current costs.
Here is my romantic solution to the education system.
You educate everybody on the same things until GCSE level. After GCSE, you do academic sixth form to prepare you for traditional university, or you do three years further education at a college, to prepare you for a trade, skill, technology, starting your own business, etc. So you typically enter work at 19, ready and prepared.
This three years serves to give a bit of a 'uni' experience to those who are going the FE route, as they can go away from home and board for the three years. After the three years has elapsed, you enter the world of work, hopefully sponsored by a company. Sports would be a big part of the experience, and the colleges would define themselves by sporting endeavours and a confident positive approach to the world. I think I would give it a preppy flavour and call it 'The Ivy League'. I am aware that the Ivy League is like the Oxbridge of the States so there's not a direct read across but I see no harm in stealing it to give some glamour to these FE colleges.
After that three years, there is the opportunity to go to the next level of an elite technological college (modelled after the American MIT) as an alternative to work. There would only be one of these, perhaps two.
Some of our current Universities could be tranformed into these Ivy League colleges, saving them from closure.
So to be fair and consistent VAT should be applied to university fees. After all they university is not available to all and confers advantage
You said that 15 minutes ago - and it would destroy a fair number of middle size towns as the biggest employer in the area (often by miles) went kaput.
Plus even without VAT the university sector is falling apart and that will continue for the next 4 years. Literally the only places that won't have massive problems are Russell Group Universities who will cannibalise other universities by quietly (in clearing) reducing their admission criteria.
Yes it's paywalled but you can read it for free if you register.
The entire fees system needs reforming, with fees charged on the average graduate earnings premium of each course
THat doesn't even start to fix the issue - the problem is that University is both too expensive for students (to make sense) and not earning enough to pay it's current costs.
Here is my romantic solution to the education system.
You educate everybody on the same things until GCSE level. After GCSE, you do academic sixth form to prepare you for traditional university, or you do three years further education at a college, to prepare you for a trade, skill, technology, starting your own business, etc. So you typically enter work at 19, ready and prepared.
This three years serves to give a bit of a 'uni' experience to those who are going the FE route, as they can go away from home and board for the three years. After the three years has elapsed, you enter the world of work, hopefully sponsored by a company. Sports would be a big part of the experience, and the colleges would define themselves by sporting endeavours and a confident positive approach to the world. I think I would give it a preppy flavour and call it 'The Ivy League'. I am aware that the Ivy League is like the Oxbridge of the States so there's not a direct read across but I see no harm in stealing it to give some glamour to these FE colleges.
After that three years, there is the opportunity to go to the next level of an elite technological college (modelled after the American MIT) as an alternative to work. There would only be one of these, perhaps two.
Some of our current Universities could be tranformed into these Ivy League colleges, saving them from closure.
One of your better ideas (though we'd argue over the details there.) Note existing 6th form colleges are already a step in that direction.
So to be fair and consistent VAT should be applied to university fees. After all they university is not available to all and confers advantage
You said that 15 minutes ago - and it would destroy a fair number of middle size towns as the biggest employer in the area (often by miles) went kaput.
Plus even without VAT the university sector is falling apart and that will continue for the next 4 years. Literally the only places that won't have massive problems are Russell Group Universities who will cannibalise other universities by quietly (in clearing) reducing their admission criteria.
Yes it's paywalled but you can read it for free if you register.
The entire fees system needs reforming, with fees charged on the average graduate earnings premium of each course
THat doesn't even start to fix the issue - the problem is that University is both too expensive for students (to make sense) and not earning enough to pay it's current costs.
Here is my romantic solution to the education system.
You educate everybody on the same things until GCSE level. After GCSE, you do academic sixth form to prepare you for traditional university, or you do three years further education at a college, to prepare you for a trade, skill, technology, starting your own business, etc. So you typically enter work at 19, ready and prepared.
This three years serves to give a bit of a 'uni' experience to those who are going the FE route, as they can go away from home and board for the three years. After the three years has elapsed, you enter the world of work, hopefully sponsored by a company. Sports would be a big part of the experience, and the colleges would define themselves by sporting endeavours and a confident positive approach to the world. I think I would give it a preppy flavour and call it 'The Ivy League'. I am aware that the Ivy League is like the Oxbridge of the States so there's not a direct read across but I see no harm in stealing it to give some glamour to these FE colleges.
After that three years, there is the opportunity to go to the next level of an elite technological college (modelled after the American MIT) as an alternative to work. There would only be one of these, perhaps two.
Some of our current Universities could be tranformed into these Ivy League colleges, saving them from closure.
One of your better ideas (though we'd argue over the details there.) Note existing 6th form colleges are already a step in that direction.
Thank you, and apologies for earlier.
Though I was glad you then engaged with the ideas presented, even if it was to rubbish them.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
On the South Coast you can't move for privately educated children. Usually Chinese, Indian or European. The local school is buying a lot of property for boarders. A local college has a successful business in 1 year courses for 16-17 year olds. The world seems to value our education system even if we don't.
My guess is the right unites in 2029/30 post the next GE - the Tories and Reform need to figure out who will be top and who will be bottom before a pact/merger can be worth agreeing, whereas at the moment Reform still think they'll win it all and the Tories have too many MPs over Reform to justify bending over as Reform (and Jacob Rees-Mogg) wish.
That will depend entirely on the next general election result. If Reform win more seats than the Tories and that remains the same at the general election after as well, Reform would likely take over the Tories within a decade unless we get PR. If however the Tories win more seats than Reform still at the next general election, then most likely the Tories would reabsorb most of Reform, perhaps if Labour are re elected under Jacob Rees Mogg after Kemi and Farage resignations with some Reform hardliners going Restore
"...if Labour are re elected under Jacob Rees Mogg..."
And people thought Wes Streeting was too far to the right to lead Labour!
(And it should be Labour is, BTW.)
JRM obviously being referred to as a potential Tory leader to reabsorb most of Reform in the event of a Burnham Labour win at the next general election.
If the reference is to Labour as a collective movement and party then it would be Labour are
Is.
Is, is, is, is.
The Labour Party is a singular entity.
Labour is.
We speak British English, not American.
“Labour are…” and “Labour is…” are both acceptable.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Not true. It isn't by much but the studies show a small increase in the results of Grammar school pupils with no corresponding drop in the results of the associated Comptehensives. So overall there is a slight increase in overall standards
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
The problem with Grammar Schools was never the Grammar School, it was the fact that Secondary Moderns were dreadful, and that if you found yourself in one, it was incredibly hard to get out.
Yes, and Secondary Moderns help to make the argument against meritocracy. The reason they were dreadful is because the meritocratic conclusion was that the kids in them didn't deserve any more effort on their education, because they were a lost cause.
The meritocratic winners who got to go to grammar school had been chosen already.
But all of that is an argument over a system designed eighty years ago, and into which post war austerity (and class prejudice) baked in irredeemable deficiencies.
Merit is anyway hard to define; it's as much application and effort as it is intelligence.
Indeed. And other personal qualities that are not necessarily marketable. Eg concern for others.
I'm very anti private schools but it's not in pursuit of a 'meritocracy' whereby wealth is distributed according to a hierarchy of ability. I just think that a parallel education system providing significant advantages accessed via parental bank balance is wrong and damaging (to society as a whole).
The driving sentiment for me is egalitarian not meritocratic. That said, I think a meritocracy is less bad than most other 'ocracies', eg a 'the' or a 'plut' or an 'arist'. There's a reason that 'ocracy' makes an offputting sound when you say it.
Meritocracy is just a crap ideology so that people who have risen to the top of society - often with a large dose of luck or help from others - can justify treating the people at the bottom of society like shit.
Whatever the merits of taxing private education might be, I am immediately suspicious when meritocracy is reached to as a justification.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
I'll tell you one thing though - making EM the Chancellor will certainly indicate that commodity which everyone is reputed to be desperate for and which adorned Labour's 24 manifesto.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Oh and trying to eliminate family circumstances from a meritocratic system is ludicrous. By far the largest influence on a child's success is family circumstance. Always has been, always will. Unless you are advocating taking all children into care at birth so you destroy everyone's opportunities equally, you will never make any impact on equalising family circumstances.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Not true. It isn't by much but the studies show a small increase in the results of Grammar school pupils with no corresponding drop in the results of the associated Comptehensives. So overall there is a slight increase in overall standards
Clearly there should be stratification by ability level: to me the real question is whether the right age is 11 (grammar schools), 13 (traditional private schools with Common Entrance), 16 (A Levels and Sixth Form Colleges) or 18 (university).
My gut -and I'm completely biased by being an August baby here- is that 11 is too young. More than twice as many September babies went to grammar schools as August babies, which seems hella unfair on us youngsters.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
The problem with Grammar Schools was never the Grammar School, it was the fact that Secondary Moderns were dreadful, and that if you found yourself in one, it was incredibly hard to get out.
Yes, and Secondary Moderns help to make the argument against meritocracy. The reason they were dreadful is because the meritocratic conclusion was that the kids in them didn't deserve any more effort on their education, because they were a lost cause.
The meritocratic winners who got to go to grammar school had been chosen already.
But all of that is an argument over a system designed eighty years ago, and into which post war austerity (and class prejudice) baked in irredeemable deficiencies.
Merit is anyway hard to define; it's as much application and effort as it is intelligence.
Indeed. And other personal qualities that are not necessarily marketable. Eg concern for others.
I'm very anti private schools but it's not in pursuit of a 'meritocracy' whereby wealth is distributed according to a hierarchy of ability. I just think that a parallel education system providing significant advantages accessed via parental bank balance is wrong and damaging (to society as a whole).
The driving sentiment for me is egalitarian not meritocratic. That said, I think a meritocracy is less bad than most other 'ocracies', eg a 'the' or a 'plut' or an 'arist'. There's a reason that 'ocracy' makes an offputting sound when you say it.
Pure meritocracy is such a ludicrous proposition as to not be worth discussing, in my view.
Nevertheless, an approximation could serve as a useful fiction if we were just a little better at defining merit and designing systems that recognised and rewarded that merit.
For example, some of the most resilient students in our school are those who have been through forced removal from their birth parents and the imperfections of the foster system without it completely destroying them. By dint of attending school at all, they have shown that they can adapt to trauma that would break most of us privileged lot.
If we were to take meritocracy seriously, we'd structure more of the school system around what they need to continue to thrive (and, to be fair, it is something the private sector can often do really well).
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
The problem with Grammar Schools was never the Grammar School, it was the fact that Secondary Moderns were dreadful, and that if you found yourself in one, it was incredibly hard to get out.
Yes, and Secondary Moderns help to make the argument against meritocracy. The reason they were dreadful is because the meritocratic conclusion was that the kids in them didn't deserve any more effort on their education, because they were a lost cause.
The meritocratic winners who got to go to grammar school had been chosen already.
But all of that is an argument over a system designed eighty years ago, and into which post war austerity (and class prejudice) baked in irredeemable deficiencies.
Merit is anyway hard to define; it's as much application and effort as it is intelligence.
Indeed. And other personal qualities that are not necessarily marketable. Eg concern for others.
I'm very anti private schools but it's not in pursuit of a 'meritocracy' whereby wealth is distributed according to a hierarchy of ability. I just think that a parallel education system providing significant advantages accessed via parental bank balance is wrong and damaging (to society as a whole).
The driving sentiment for me is egalitarian not meritocratic. That said, I think a meritocracy is less bad than most other 'ocracies', eg a 'the' or a 'plut' or an 'arist'. There's a reason that 'ocracy' makes an offputting sound when you say it.
Your view is backed by PISA. They aren't comparing countries' educational standards for the sake of a competitive league table, but on the assumption backed by evidence that different countries can have better or worse performing education systems independent of cultural norms or wealth, what does a good education system look like? What do the best performing countries have in common? It then proposes a set of good practices.
There's a lot of detail in its proposals but three big common factors for successful education systems: 1. Consistent educational offer for all students (your point); 2. Head teachers have high degree of autonomy (and responsibility). 3 professionalisation of teaching
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Not true. It isn't by much but the studies show a small increase in the results of Grammar school pupils with no corresponding drop in the results of the associated Comptehensives. So overall there is a slight increase in overall standards
Clearly there should be stratification by ability level: to me the real question is whether the right age is 11 (grammar schools), 13 (traditional private schools with Common Entrance), 16 (A Levels and Sixth Form Colleges) or 18 (university).
My gut -and I'm completely biased by being an August baby here- is that 11 is too young. More than twice as many September babies went to grammar schools as August babies, which seems hella unfair on us youngsters.
In Trafford they moderate for birthdays so there is an even spread throughout the year.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Oh and trying to eliminate family circumstances from a meritocratic system is ludicrous. By far the largest influence on a child's success is family circumstance. Always has been, always will. Unless you are advocating taking all children into care at birth so you destroy everyone's opportunities equally, you will never make any impact on equalising family circumstances.
But that doesn't mean it isn't a good and viable objective to reduce the impact (relative to other factors) of parental wealth on life prospects.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
You really are a class warrior if you believe private university students should pay VAT on fees and state university students shouldn’t. That really is grossly unfair, illogical and almost impossible to legislate for.. it’s the service that’s taxed not the provider
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Not true. It isn't by much but the studies show a small increase in the results of Grammar school pupils with no corresponding drop in the results of the associated Comptehensives. So overall there is a slight increase in overall standards
Clearly there should be stratification by ability level: to me the real question is whether the right age is 11 (grammar schools), 13 (traditional private schools with Common Entrance), 16 (A Levels and Sixth Form Colleges) or 18 (university).
My gut -and I'm completely biased by being an August baby here- is that 11 is too young. More than twice as many September babies went to grammar schools as August babies, which seems hella unfair on us youngsters.
Although it doesn't fit my personal politics, I could see a good argument for elite academic sixth forms (I am constantly badgered by one that wants to nick all our decent mathematicians for A level).
By 16, the academic die is mostly set. And I'd be able to prep the best mathematicians much better for university maths courses if it was only the top 1 or 2% by ability.
They definitely shouldn't be fee paying, though, that would be like trying to win the world cup just after stapling 10 of the team's feet to the pitch.
My guess is the right unites in 2029/30 post the next GE - the Tories and Reform need to figure out who will be top and who will be bottom before a pact/merger can be worth agreeing, whereas at the moment Reform still think they'll win it all and the Tories have too many MPs over Reform to justify bending over as Reform (and Jacob Rees-Mogg) wish.
That will depend entirely on the next general election result. If Reform win more seats than the Tories and that remains the same at the general election after as well, Reform would likely take over the Tories within a decade unless we get PR. If however the Tories win more seats than Reform still at the next general election, then most likely the Tories would reabsorb most of Reform, perhaps if Labour are re elected under Jacob Rees Mogg after Kemi and Farage resignations with some Reform hardliners going Restore
"...if Labour are re elected under Jacob Rees Mogg..."
And people thought Wes Streeting was too far to the right to lead Labour!
(And it should be Labour is, BTW.)
JRM obviously being referred to as a potential Tory leader to reabsorb most of Reform in the event of a Burnham Labour win at the next general election.
If the reference is to Labour as a collective movement and party then it would be Labour are
Meritocracy is just a crap ideology so that people who have risen to the top of society - often with a large dose of luck or help from others - can justify treating the people at the bottom of society like shit.
Whatever the merits of taxing private education might be, I am immediately suspicious when meritocracy is reached to as a justification.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Not true. It isn't by much but the studies show a small increase in the results of Grammar school pupils with no corresponding drop in the results of the associated Comptehensives. So overall there is a slight increase in overall standards
Clearly there should be stratification by ability level: to me the real question is whether the right age is 11 (grammar schools), 13 (traditional private schools with Common Entrance), 16 (A Levels and Sixth Form Colleges) or 18 (university).
My gut -and I'm completely biased by being an August baby here- is that 11 is too young. More than twice as many September babies went to grammar schools as August babies, which seems hella unfair on us youngsters.
In Trafford they moderate for birthdays so there is an even spread throughout the year.
Definitely wasn’t the case 40 years ago - I was one of very few (think there was 5 of us) out of 200 who had an August birthday
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Not true. It isn't by much but the studies show a small increase in the results of Grammar school pupils with no corresponding drop in the results of the associated Comptehensives. So overall there is a slight increase in overall standards
Clearly there should be stratification by ability level: to me the real question is whether the right age is 11 (grammar schools), 13 (traditional private schools with Common Entrance), 16 (A Levels and Sixth Form Colleges) or 18 (university).
My gut -and I'm completely biased by being an August baby here- is that 11 is too young. More than twice as many September babies went to grammar schools as August babies, which seems hella unfair on us youngsters.
In Trafford they moderate for birthdays so there is an even spread throughout the year.
Even with that, every parent knows that kids have step functions of development rather than a nice gradual curve. Some precocious 11 year olds are idiots by the time of GCSEs, and others -like me- were in the remedial class, and yet pull it together later.
That's why I tend to veer later: either 13 or 16 are my preferences. Or we could be like the French, Japanese, Scanadaniavians and South Koreans and do it at 15.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
You really are a class warrior if you believe private university students should pay VAT on fees and state university students shouldn’t. That really is grossly unfair, illogical and almost impossible to legislate for.. it’s the service that’s taxed not the provider
He's employed by a university, and depends on it for his livelihood- during the two hours each day when he actually does some work.
Comments
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
And Mexico have played every match at that altitude
It's Salt & Pepper Tofu is absolutely incredible.
Personally for an awful lot of people university does not make sense.
Peter.
Plus even without VAT the university sector is falling apart and that will continue for the next 4 years. Literally the only places that won't have massive problems are Russell Group Universities who will cannibalise other universities by quietly (in clearing) reducing their admission criteria.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/university-exeter-cuts-existential-threat-humanities
Yes it's paywalled but you can read it for free if you register.
Of course any Russell Group universities which reduce their admission criteria too much lose their status to their main rivals
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
Are you suggesting that we should forget fairness and consistency and impose Vat on one sector of education and not another?
Likewise it's in Reform's interest for the Greens to take votes away from Labour.
I'm suggesting that a meritocratic society and the benefits to the 'country as a whole' doesn't end with how many GCSEs you get at 16.
The average level of education is important (and I appreciate the arguments that private schools and grammar schools have an impact - although I believe there is plenty of research suggesting grammar schools don't raise the average, even though those attending do better), but it's not the end game of a meritocracy - where the impact people have over their working lives is more important.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
The meritocratic winners who got to go to grammar school had been chosen already.
Private nurseries are ok, private universities are ok, private tutors are ok and private adult education is ok.
It seems to be private schooling between the ages of 5 and 18 that is considered uniquely bad and utterly unworthy of anything but full business taxation.
The B Ark brigade were more useful than imagined.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Merit is anyway hard to define; it's as much application and effort as it is intelligence.
A Ark – the leaders, scientists, thinkers, and other people considered essential.
B Ark –
* hairdressers
* telephone sanitizers
* marketing executives
* management consultants
* TV producers
* security guards
* and many other professions the ruling class mocked as useless.
C Ark – the workers who actually kept society running, such as farmers, mechanics, and technicians.
It's a highly unlikely run chase, though not impossible on this pitch ??
Probably better to find out at the start whether to drop anchors for the draw, rather than bring Stokes in several wickets down.
And what way to retire, should he succeed.
Our local church school is the best state school in the borough, but now has so many hoops to jump through that it essentially selects by wealth.
You educate everybody on the same things until GCSE level. After GCSE, you do academic sixth form to prepare you for traditional university, or you do three years further education at a college, to prepare you for a trade, skill, technology, starting your own business, etc. So you typically enter work at 19, ready and prepared.
This three years serves to give a bit of a 'uni' experience to those who are going the FE route, as they can go away from home and board for the three years. After the three years has elapsed, you enter the world of work, hopefully sponsored by a company. Sports would be a big part of the experience, and the colleges would define themselves by sporting endeavours and a confident positive approach to the world. I think I would give it a preppy flavour and call it 'The Ivy League'. I am aware that the Ivy League is like the Oxbridge of the States so there's not a direct read across but I see no harm in stealing it to give some glamour to these FE colleges.
After that three years, there is the opportunity to go to the next level of an elite technological college (modelled after the American MIT) as an alternative to work. There would only be one of these, perhaps two.
Some of our current Universities could be tranformed into these Ivy League colleges, saving them from closure.
Literally.
Note existing 6th form colleges are already a step in that direction.
Earliest ever 6 in an England opener's innings.
Though I was glad you then engaged with the ideas presented, even if it was to rubbish them.
“Labour are…” and “Labour is…” are both acceptable.
It will be very interesting if he's still in tomorrow.
'Red Ed Miliband' as Chancellor would be a disaster for Britain - Kwasi Kwarteng
https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/2070010825247506638
I'm very anti private schools but it's not in pursuit of a 'meritocracy' whereby wealth is distributed according to a hierarchy of ability. I just think that a parallel education system providing significant advantages accessed via parental bank balance is wrong and damaging (to society as a whole).
The driving sentiment for me is egalitarian not meritocratic. That said, I think a meritocracy is less bad than most other 'ocracies', eg a 'the' or a 'plut' or an 'arist'. There's a reason that 'ocracy' makes an offputting sound when you say it.
CHANGE
My gut -and I'm completely biased by being an August baby here- is that 11 is too young. More than twice as many September babies went to grammar schools as August babies, which seems hella unfair on us youngsters.
Nevertheless, an approximation could serve as a useful fiction if we were just a little better at defining merit and designing systems that recognised and rewarded that merit.
For example, some of the most resilient students in our school are those who have been through forced removal from their birth parents and the imperfections of the foster system without it completely destroying them. By dint of attending school at all, they have shown that they can adapt to trauma that would break most of us privileged lot.
If we were to take meritocracy seriously, we'd structure more of the school system around what they need to continue to thrive (and, to be fair, it is something the private sector can often do really well).
Two now
There's a lot of detail in its proposals but three big common factors for successful education systems: 1. Consistent educational offer for all students (your point); 2. Head teachers have high degree of autonomy (and responsibility). 3 professionalisation of teaching
By 16, the academic die is mostly set. And I'd be able to prep the best mathematicians much better for university maths courses if it was only the top 1 or 2% by ability.
They definitely shouldn't be fee paying, though, that would be like trying to win the world cup just after stapling 10 of the team's feet to the pitch.
That didn't work as intended, either.
https://x.com/barneyronay/status/2071279525590122912
That's why I tend to veer later: either 13 or 16 are my preferences. Or we could be like the French, Japanese, Scanadaniavians and South Koreans and do it at 15.
So he has an interest.
Do we need 5000 people to die before it registers?
(I know the above sounds mawkish and trite, but I don't know how else to express it and I am, genuinely, just askin' questions...)
1) Change of PM
2) Scorchio weather
3) The World Cup
are focussing minds.