Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
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
The government sets the fee and, to a large extent, sets the service. Fees are usually paid back by loans on non-commercial terms, set by government. If the government wants to change the system, it can do that in multiple ways.
Adding VAT is pointless. The government has already set the costs and benefits how they want. It would be like the government adding VAT to the fee you pay for prescriptions. It’s a largely state-mandated ecosystem.
If you think students should pay more of their own resource into the system, sure, you can make that case, but there would be several more practical ways of doing that rather than imposing VAT.
I am not arguing the university fees should be subject to VAT. I am arguing that it is unfair and inconsistent that education provided by private schools is subject to VAT whilst education provided by universities is not. Both should be zero rated for VAT in my opinion. Education is Education
From a tax point of view how the purchase is financed and who sets the price is irrelevant for education charges as it is for anything else.
Without realising you raise a perfect example to make my point. VAT on both NHS and private prescriptions are treated exactly the same. They are zero rated.
The point I am making is that envy and class war are behind the introduction of VAT on private school fees not fairness, logic, consistency or practicality
Cosmetic procedures are liable for VAT, so not all healthcare is exempt.
Surely cosmetic procedures are procedures not prescriptions.
They involve prescriptions such as Botox and Dermal fillers, and are VATable.
There are other weird anomolies out there. Psychology assessments do not pay VAT but psychotherapy or counselling does.
The reason I draw a distinction between procedures and prescriptions is that both NHS and private prescriptions involve a charge that attracts a zero rated VAT charge.
If I understand it correctly private cosmetic procedures create a charge and VAT is imposed.
NHS cosmetic procedures do not involve a charge. So 20% of nothing is nothing. You haven’t got anything to add Value added tax.
So there isn’t a difference in tax treatment between private and NHS but a difference in charging. but charging
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.
Th my disdain for e 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.
It happened but it was very unusual, two or three from the secondary joined my grammar school sixth form.
I won't bore you all again with my dreary comprehensive v. grammar school personal anecdata. Suffice to say I remain totally opposed to state school selection at 11 and certainly in my case it is not as suggested earlier based on "class" envy.
When comprehensive schools were properly funded they worked. I suspect these days, with academy groups ladelling off the financial cream they probably don't.
Didn't have an issue with Stokes' innings. He's taken 6 wickets in the match, and his batting average hasn't been great recently (Mid 20s according to AI) so a quickfire start to the innings is fine. Brooks dismissal however....
Maybe I am being over critical, but watching the test when Ben Stokes retirement was announced and his immediate take off a wicket was extraordinary
However what followed made me feel a bit uneasy as he milked all the applause (fair enough) but his opening batting performance seemed more about a couldn't careless attitude to the result, just bazball
Correct me if I am wrong but it didn't seem the way his distinguished career should have ended
I think he has been very badly treated by the ECB and especially recently. This was a final f#ck you.
Actually I can see the logic in that
As I understand it he broke the curfew that he helped establish. I don't really see that as the fault of the ECB. They should have been allowed out as long as they wanted after winning the first match. But then that should have been agreed.
Alls well with the world . Wimbledon starts tomorrow !
There’s nothing quite like it. Im tuning out of politics and the news in general and am going into my happy tennis bubble!
Always brilliant. Absolutely in my top 5 annual sports events along with the Open, the Arc, the Crucible, and Boxing Day football.
I'd like to see Novak do 25.
Novak used to really grate on me but I’ve warmed to him in recent years as he’s coming to the end of his career and to play at such a high standard at his age is exceptional and deserves respect . Before my early retirement I used to always take off two weeks to watch and sometimes get to Wimbledon . And when the final BBC montage used to appear I was really gutted .
He's not everyone's cup of tea (inc mine in certain respects) but I just admire so much what he did - busting into that Roger Rafa duopoly, crowds always for them and not him, and ending up eclipsing both of them. The indisputable on the facts GOAT.
Maybe I am being over critical, but watching the test when Ben Stokes retirement was announced and his immediate take off a wicket was extraordinary
However what followed made me feel a bit uneasy as he milked all the applause (fair enough) but his opening batting performance seemed more about a couldn't careless attitude to the result, just bazball
Correct me if I am wrong but it didn't seem the way his distinguished career should have ended
I think he has been very badly treated by the ECB and especially recently. This was a final f#ck you.
Actually I can see the logic in that
As I understand it he broke the curfew that he helped establish. I don't really see that as the fault of the ECB. They should have been allowed out as long as they wanted after winning the first match. But then that should have been agreed.
Shades of Boris Johnson there.
No mention of being ambushed by a cake. Is a punch up with a rugby player excuse enough?
Heard an anecdote today from a former chauffeur who was driving the chairman of Roche to a meeting with then Health Secretary Andy Burnham. Said he came back from the meeting and said 'that man hasn't got a clue what he is talking about and is out of his depth.'
We will see if there is more to Burnham than the likeable northern chappy image, we must hope the Roche chair was wrong
Surely if they aren't accustomed to imbibing anything during each half's play it could have quite an impact on performance, not necessarily for the better.
Some startling commentary from one of Tommy Robinson's associated "vicars" * on the Makerfield byelection.
Apparently we have an "Islamo-Communist Government", and it is getting worse. He's overdoing his quote mining of the Bible - Andy Burnham appearing at the announcement next to a "Protect Wildlife" candidate in a fox costume leads him to make a comparison with King Herod (for whom there is a Gospel refence to Jesus calling "that fox"). He says there was "hardly any resistance" at the byelection, which is a stretch.
Here's a deep link to the segment. He is walking around Parliament Square in the sun and probably needs to get a more observant editor, unless he left the "knicker bombing" (which I have not seen before) in deliberately. I think that is unlikely for a pastor who probably wants to be seen as respectable.
* This is a chap called Chris Wickland, who has appeared at several TR rallies, and is a minister in the "Confessing Anglican Church" (I think that is up to date), which is a group regarding the Anglican Communion as Apostate (the English CofE Bishops are a "nest of vipers"), and is associated with people such as Bishop Ceirion Dewar.
Politically, I think they will align mainly with Restore Britain.
Almost certainly the stopped clock effect considering the persons concerned, but it's difficult to disagree with the assertion that the CofE House of Bishops is a brood of vipers. Frankly, the vipers should sue for defamation of their character.
Some startling commentary from one of Tommy Robinson's associated "vicars" * on the Makerfield byelection.
Apparently we have an "Islamo-Communist Government", and it is getting worse. He's overdoing his quote mining of the Bible - Andy Burnham appearing at the announcement next to a "Protect Wildlife" candidate in a fox costume leads him to make a comparison with King Herod (for whom there is a Gospel refence to Jesus calling "that fox"). He says there was "hardly any resistance" at the byelection, which is a stretch.
Here's a deep link to the segment. He is walking around Parliament Square in the sun and probably needs to get a more observant editor, unless he left the "knicker bombing" (which I have not seen before) in deliberately. I think that is unlikely for a pastor who probably wants to be seen as respectable.
* This is a chap called Chris Wickland, who has appeared at several TR rallies, and is a minister in the "Confessing Anglican Church" (I think that is up to date), which is a group regarding the Anglican Communion as Apostate (the English CofE Bishops are a "nest of vipers"), and is associated with people such as Bishop Ceirion Dewar.
Politically, I think they will align mainly with Restore Britain.
Almost certainly the stopped clock effect considering the persons concerned, but it's difficult to disagree with the assertion that the CofE House of Bishops is a brood of vipers. Frankly, the vipers should sue for defamation of their character.
Why is that? Has one of them secretly started believing in religion, instead of steam trains?
Peter Cushing reprised his Star Wars role quite well, while being slightly dead.
Ollie Reed did a great turn in Gladiator from beyond the grave and the Big O toured, as a hologram a few years back. Probably drawing inspiration from Rimmer from Red Dwarf. He didn’t have an ‘H’ on his forehead.
Peter Cushing reprised his Star Wars role quite well, while being slightly dead.
Ollie Reed did a great turn in Gladiator from beyond the grave and the Big O toured, as a hologram a few years back. Probably drawing inspiration from Rimmer from Red Dwarf. He didn’t have an ‘H’ on his forehead.
"We mortals are but shadows and dust. Shadows and dust, Maximus!"
“ Roger Moore started his working life as a trainee animator at PPP in Soho at 15 years old. Later in life, he would often sketch members of the crew or cast during breaks in filming at Elstree. #SundaySaint”
Peter Cushing reprised his Star Wars role quite well, while being slightly dead.
Ollie Reed did a great turn in Gladiator from beyond the grave and the Big O toured, as a hologram a few years back. Probably drawing inspiration from Rimmer from Red Dwarf. He didn’t have an ‘H’ on his forehead.
"We mortals are but shadows and dust. Shadows and dust, Maximus!"
The OG dead guy in a film was Brandon Lee. In The Crow.
Who was a dead guy playing a dead guy who dies twice in the film.
Peter Cushing reprised his Star Wars role quite well, while being slightly dead.
Ollie Reed did a great turn in Gladiator from beyond the grave and the Big O toured, as a hologram a few years back. Probably drawing inspiration from Rimmer from Red Dwarf. He didn’t have an ‘H’ on his forehead.
"We mortals are but shadows and dust. Shadows and dust, Maximus!"
The OG dead guy in a film was Brandon Lee. In The Crow.
Who was a dead guy playing a dead guy who dies twice in the film.
The film ‘Herostratus’ about a poet wanting to publicly commit suicide was written/directed by a guy who ended his own life and the lead actor ended his own life
It’s an odd film. I recall some abbatoir scenes and dead horses.
Heard an anecdote today from a former chauffeur who was driving the chairman of Roche to a meeting with then Health Secretary Andy Burnham. Said he came back from the meeting and said 'that man hasn't got a clue what he is talking about and is out of his depth.'
We will see if there is more to Burnham than the likeable northern chappy image, we must hope the Roche chair was wrong
It is 16 years since he was Health Secretary, and he was only in that post for 11 months.
So we can at least hope that he has learnt and gained experience since then !
Alls well with the world . Wimbledon starts tomorrow !
There’s nothing quite like it. Im tuning out of politics and the news in general and am going into my happy tennis bubble!
Always brilliant. Absolutely in my top 5 annual sports events along with the Open, the Arc, the Crucible, and Boxing Day football.
I'd like to see Novak do 25.
Forgive my stupidity, but what's the Arc?
I've got Noah idea.
I Ham unable to figure that out.
I've always been intrigued about the scandal involving Noah and his son;
The moral of the story is "don't take the mickey from your dad, even when he is pissed out of his head with his knob hanging out"
A lesson for us all.
Is that a reference to Leon?
In the Book of Genesis, the curse of Ham is described as a curse which was imposed upon Ham's son Canaan by the patriarch Noah.
It occurs in the context of Noah's drunkenness and it is provoked by a shameful act that was perpetrated by Noah's son Ham, who "saw the nakedness of his father".
The exact nature of Ham's transgression and the reason Noah cursed Canaan when Ham had sinned have been debated for over 2,000 years
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
Currently private schools (the better ones) achieve more educational value added than state schools. Shouldn’t we be learning from them and replicating what they do right in state schools instead of shutting it all down because it’s different?
Britain's Emma Raducanu will not play at Wimbledon after withdrawing on the eve of her home Grand Slam tournament because of a stress fracture in her lower right leg.
Raducanu, 23, announced the decision shortly after 22:00 BST on Sunday - about seven hours after telling journalists she planned to play.
Raducanu, who is seeded 30th, was due to start her campaign on Monday against Croatia's Antonia Ruzic on Court One.
"I've done everything possible to try to get to the start line but after a final scan tonight the niggle I've been managing has developed into a stress fracture," Raducanu said.
"I've been medically advised to stop pushing through."
Britain's Emma Raducanu will not play at Wimbledon after withdrawing on the eve of her home Grand Slam tournament because of a stress fracture in her lower right leg.
Raducanu, 23, announced the decision shortly after 22:00 BST on Sunday - about seven hours after telling journalists she planned to play.
Raducanu, who is seeded 30th, was due to start her campaign on Monday against Croatia's Antonia Ruzic on Court One.
"I've done everything possible to try to get to the start line but after a final scan tonight the niggle I've been managing has developed into a stress fracture," Raducanu said.
"I've been medically advised to stop pushing through."
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
Currently private schools (the better ones) achieve more educational value added than state schools. Shouldn’t we be learning from them and replicating what they do right in state schools instead of shutting it all down because it’s different?
Having a pupil to teacher ratio that is half the state sector is not something that is easily reproducible
Britain's Emma Raducanu will not play at Wimbledon after withdrawing on the eve of her home Grand Slam tournament because of a stress fracture in her lower right leg.
Raducanu, 23, announced the decision shortly after 22:00 BST on Sunday - about seven hours after telling journalists she planned to play.
Raducanu, who is seeded 30th, was due to start her campaign on Monday against Croatia's Antonia Ruzic on Court One.
"I've done everything possible to try to get to the start line but after a final scan tonight the niggle I've been managing has developed into a stress fracture," Raducanu said.
"I've been medically advised to stop pushing through."
Credit for not starting tomorrow and withdrawing during the match, and thus getting the losing money from 1st round. Although I doubt she’s short of money despite her lack of success since the big one.
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
Currently private schools (the better ones) achieve more educational value added than state schools. Shouldn’t we be learning from them and replicating what they do right in state schools instead of shutting it all down because it’s different?
Those private schools closing down are doing so because of an inadequate business plan.
I have no problem with people who can afford to send their children to public sending their children to public/ private schools.
I would also like to see adequate funding for every child. But that's not going to happen.
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
Currently private schools (the better ones) achieve more educational value added than state schools. Shouldn’t we be learning from them and replicating what they do right in state schools instead of shutting it all down because it’s different?
Maybe start by equalising the spend per pupil and the socioeconomic profile of the intake. Then see how different the value added is. In any case there's no serious prospect of them being shut down. Outlawing private education is a non-starter in this country. It's embedded. Just look at the fuss over the loss of their tax advantages.
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
Currently private schools (the better ones) achieve more educational value added than state schools. Shouldn’t we be learning from them and replicating what they do right in state schools instead of shutting it all down because it’s different?
Having a pupil to teacher ratio that is half the state sector is not something that is easily reproducible
It is very easily achievable. Pupil numbers are falling. If instead of closing state schools, they were left open with smaller rolls, then class sizes would naturally fall, and it would cost no more money because we are already paying for those schools to be open. The per-pupil sums would rise, but not the aggregate spend. We'd lose any putative savings from closing schools but there would be no extra spending in cash terms.
Heard an anecdote today from a former chauffeur who was driving the chairman of Roche to a meeting with then Health Secretary Andy Burnham. Said he came back from the meeting and said 'that man hasn't got a clue what he is talking about and is out of his depth.'
We will see if there is more to Burnham than the likeable northern chappy image, we must hope the Roche chair was wrong
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
Currently private schools (the better ones) achieve more educational value added than state schools. Shouldn’t we be learning from them and replicating what they do right in state schools instead of shutting it all down because it’s different?
Well, in theory we could. It would mean roughly doubling per-pupil funding, and finding another 400 000 people able and willing to be teachers. I've got friends who teach in indie schools and friends who send their children to them. Not going to condemn either group...
... but the secret sauce really isn't all that secret.
Yes it's good for the comp if the host nation goes deep. But I make an exception for Trump2 USA (obvs) and Mexico (since we're due to meet them in the last 16).
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
Currently private schools (the better ones) achieve more educational value added than state schools. Shouldn’t we be learning from them and replicating what they do right in state schools instead of shutting it all down because it’s different?
Having a pupil to teacher ratio that is half the state sector is not something that is easily reproducible
That’s not the only factor. Michaela, for example, delivers better results with the same pupil teacher ratio
Heard an anecdote today from a former chauffeur who was driving the chairman of Roche to a meeting with then Health Secretary Andy Burnham. Said he came back from the meeting and said 'that man hasn't got a clue what he is talking about and is out of his depth.'
We will see if there is more to Burnham than the likeable northern chappy image, we must hope the Roche chair was wrong
Britain's Emma Raducanu will not play at Wimbledon after withdrawing on the eve of her home Grand Slam tournament because of a stress fracture in her lower right leg.
Raducanu, 23, announced the decision shortly after 22:00 BST on Sunday - about seven hours after telling journalists she planned to play.
Raducanu, who is seeded 30th, was due to start her campaign on Monday against Croatia's Antonia Ruzic on Court One.
"I've done everything possible to try to get to the start line but after a final scan tonight the niggle I've been managing has developed into a stress fracture," Raducanu said.
"I've been medically advised to stop pushing through."
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
Currently private schools (the better ones) achieve more educational value added than state schools. Shouldn’t we be learning from them and replicating what they do right in state schools instead of shutting it all down because it’s different?
Having a pupil to teacher ratio that is half the state sector is not something that is easily reproducible
That’s not the only factor. Michaela, for example, delivers better results with the same pupil teacher ratio
Comments
The reason I draw a distinction between procedures and prescriptions is that both NHS and private prescriptions involve a charge that attracts a zero rated VAT charge.
If I understand it correctly private cosmetic procedures create a charge and VAT is imposed.
NHS cosmetic procedures do not involve a charge. So 20% of nothing is nothing. You haven’t got anything to add Value added tax.
So there isn’t a difference in tax treatment between private and NHS but a difference in charging. but charging
I won't bore you all again with my dreary comprehensive v. grammar school personal anecdata. Suffice to say I remain totally opposed to state school selection at 11 and certainly in my case it is not as suggested earlier based on "class" envy.
When comprehensive schools were properly funded they worked. I suspect these days, with academy groups ladelling off the financial cream they probably don't.
We will see if there is more to Burnham than the likeable northern chappy image, we must hope the Roche chair was wrong
I was particularly taken by Roger Moore's acting. He's still got it:
https://youtube.com/shorts/L3eAZEXa1kE?is=tf8LgCi-8PjEXqIo
In my teens I canoed, played golf, tennis, football and cricket, plus cross country running
In my later years I continued with golf and cricket though eventually golf only
I also had a season ticket for Hibs in the early sixties and Man Utd for several decades
I enjoy watching most sport, amateur or professional
Many important people blather on about stakeholders.
But who talks of the hammer wielders?
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/17DfK73dgW/
“ Roger Moore started his working life as a trainee animator at PPP in Soho at 15 years old. Later in life, he would often sketch members of the crew or cast during breaks in filming at Elstree. #SundaySaint”
https://x.com/rodneymarshall1/status/2071151448167997866?s=61
https://youtu.be/xAIy5DWWST8?is=vUiux1F2BQ05y6WA
Who was a dead guy playing a dead guy who dies twice in the film.
It’s an odd film. I recall some abbatoir scenes and dead horses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4ubykNHPN0
A 5-minute teardown of the Prime Minister's vocal style.
It'd be less irritating if they were honest it is an ad break, rather than a hydration break.
A lesson for us all.
So we can at least hope that he has learnt and gained experience since then !
It occurs in the context of Noah's drunkenness and it is provoked by a shameful act that was perpetrated by Noah's son Ham, who "saw the nakedness of his father".
The exact nature of Ham's transgression and the reason Noah cursed Canaan when Ham had sinned have been debated for over 2,000 years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham
Last 16
Up the Commonwealth.
And now, one Isaiah than the other.
Britain's Emma Raducanu will not play at Wimbledon after withdrawing on the eve of her home Grand Slam tournament because of a stress fracture in her lower right leg.
Raducanu, 23, announced the decision shortly after 22:00 BST on Sunday - about seven hours after telling journalists she planned to play.
Raducanu, who is seeded 30th, was due to start her campaign on Monday against Croatia's Antonia Ruzic on Court One.
"I've done everything possible to try to get to the start line but after a final scan tonight the niggle I've been managing has developed into a stress fracture," Raducanu said.
"I've been medically advised to stop pushing through."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/articles/c15y0q31522o
Emma Raducanu says she has withdrawn from Wimbledon
If attacked koi A, B, and C will scatter leaving behind the D koi.
I have no problem with people who can afford to send their children to public sending their children to public/ private schools.
I would also like to see adequate funding for every child. But that's not going to happen.
WarMonitor🇺🇦🇬🇧
@WarMonitor3
·
1h
Massive Ukrainian attack on Crimea ongoing explosions all over reported including Sevastopol.
... but the secret sauce really isn't all that secret.
Sacha Lord
@Sacha_Lord
·
5h
Under her Leadership, Manchester was named The UK's Capital of Nightlife by The Sunday times.
In the last twelve months alone, Manchester has attracted The Brits, MTV Europe and the MOBO Awards.
That's why I'm backing @bevcraig for the next Mayor for Greater Manchester.
https://x.com/Sacha_Lord/status/2071276397398520037
2. More importantly, have media reports/image of those there desperate to leave.
3. Russia in Crimea but not in power there - Putin's biggest loss of authority.
4. 60 days for it to get much worse - ower, food, water all next.
Spencer Hakimian
@SpencerHakimian
·
47m
Generic Ballot:
🔵 Democrats 51%
🔴 Republicans 35%
Highest lead for the Democrats
WSJ
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/2071343464738914452
NEW: Shabana Mahmood has announced members of the public will replace judges in deciding appeals from failed asylum seekers