Jump to content

Recommended Posts

And to be clear rahrah-- that's not double speak. I'm not in some ideological corner trying to win something. Both private and state education harm social mobility and both need to be reformed in different ways. Its really not that complicated.
It's like saying that air pollution causes early deaths (true), so cigarettes and breathing air are both bad for health. On some level this is true and you could signpost lots of reasearch about air quality and health impacts, but that wouldn't make the implied equivalence any less inappropriate.

You've done my trick, Mick - read too quickly and without thinking...


Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > You don't need to help the poor to be a charity

> in

> > the legal sense. Again, people are conflating

> the

> > common usage of "charity" with a legal charity.

>

> Who are these "people" you talk about?

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's like saying that air pollution causes early

> deaths (true), so cigarettes and breathing air are

> both bad for health. On some level this is true

> and you could signpost lots of reasearch about air

> quality and health impacts, but that wouldn't make

> the implied equivalence any less inappropriate.



I get that you think private schools are worse because they (in your view) intentionally prevent social mobility while for you the state school system it's just a bi-product. However, the impact of each is what they are and both need to be addressed.


The equivalence only comes on the parent-side and stems from the fact that the inequality in the state school system is directly the result of individuals on mass using their wealth to buy their way into good state schools / avoiding bad schools. Parents who opt into the private school system are doing the same. Those choices are very similar and not at all like the choice to breathe air vs smoke cigarettes.

Parents who send their children to private schools have already paid income tax on the money that they spend on their children's education and they get nothing from the government towards that education nor do they get any tax allowance to compensate for relieving the government of the obligation to pay for schooling for their children.


in other European countries the government give a fixed emolument to every school towards each child's education & the parents can then choose to send their kids to private schools that charge more for a better service - smaller class sizes, more subjects taught, better facilities & so on.


In 2016-17, local authorities? SBUFs varied from just over ?4,000 in Wokingham to just under ?7,000 in Tower Hamlets. There are, however, other sources of income for schools ? including post-16- high need- , early years- , and pupil premium funding.


Alleyn's fees for Years 7 to 13: ?6,042 per term (?18,126 p.a.) - Sutton Trust want the private schools to keep on doing what they do now but admit only the best students regardless of their capacity to pay and suggest the government will pay for all of this according to their plan. ?850m was provided in fee assistance for pupils with ?700m coming from the schools themselves. ?400m related to means-tested assistance & I am assuming that the other ?150m comes from the likes of the Dulwich Estate & other endowments.


There are 518,432 pupils including 27,211 foreign students so the Sutton Trust want the government to find another ?7 billion per year or so for this worthy project. The total education budget is ?85billion so that is a non starter given that ?2.5 billion is needed for the immediate shortfall in the NHS & every year to 2020 and the government is baulking at that. The governments solution is an accountants solution - closures & squeezing salaries. They have done virtually the same with the education budget while their own salaries go up & up.


People who have more money have better food, clothes, houses, cars & holidays - they also buy a better education product for their children. That is not to say that they are any better than less well off people or that children at state schools don't do just as well in many cases.


What need to be addressed is a more fair distribution of wealth & a better management of education including ensuring that teachers are up to scratch and doing the best job possible for all the students in the UK. Look to Sweden & Denmark & other European countries - oops sorry, how could any other country offer the UK any advice on anything - Sorry sorry Mr Gove et al....!

You can't expect a 'tax allowance' for not using a public service. There are plenty of public services which not everyone uses, but there is a principle whereby we all contribute to the maintenance of some basic, universal provision, for the public good. You're perfectly entitled to use your money to buy a better 'education product' and I don't criticize anyone for doing so. But please don't point to some inequalities in the state system and then conclude that therefore state education is a barrier to social mobility and drawing equivalence with an exclusive and exclusionary private system. That's the slight of hand. State education is universal and free at the point of use, the private sector is not. That's fine, but there is a difference in terms of how the two might act to reproduce privilege or restrict social mobility.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You can't expect a 'tax allowance' for not using a

> public service. There are plenty of public

> services which not everyone uses, but there is a

> principle whereby we all contribute to the

> maintenance of some basic, universal provision,

> for the public good. You're perfectly entitled to

> use your money to buy a better 'education product'

> and I don't criticize anyone for doing so. But

> please don't point to some inequalities in the

> state system and then conclude that therefore

> state education is a barrier to social mobility

> and drawing equivalence with an exclusive and

> exclusionary private system. That's the slight of

> hand. State education is universal and free at the

> point of use, the private sector is not. That's

> fine, but there is a difference in terms of how

> the two might act to reproduce privilege or

> restrict social mobility.


Didn't propose a tax allowance - just commented that none was available & that most parents were using already taxed moneys to pay for their children's education.


Neither did I suggest that state education was a barrier to social mobility & I agree that there is a difference with how the two might act to reproduce privilage or restrict social mobility.


This is a dichotomy that possibly has no possible resolution - should we destroy private education by eliminating it altogether..? Would that result in a better state education system..? Or should we spend more on education overall..?


UK spends 5.6% of GDP - Norway, Sweden & Denmark spend 6.9%, 7% & 8.7% respectively with the results to show for it. However, Germany only spends 5.1% so maybe the problem is one of structure & management.


I don't know the answer - all I do know is that state education in the UK has a problem and is very hit & miss and that is a problem for everyone. The per pupil spend between State Education & Private Education is part of the problem - more money needs to be spent. The better results being experienced in London is a testament of this with up to ?8,000 being available but elsewhere only ?4.000 is available. This disparity is part of the problem.


Money pays for better facilities, lower pupil teacher ratios & so on. The same criteria applies to the NHS but this government is moving in the opposite direction.

rahrah--- that you can't accept that the admissions system in the state sector is a source if inequity and a barrier to social mobility despite it being well evidenced and researched says a lot. I thought you were in favor of evidenced based policy based on your posting regarding grammar schools?


Just because universal state education is a good thing doesn't mean it can't also have harmful impacts that need to addressed to produce a more equitable society. The two facts can and do co-exist.


Like I have repeatedly said, the only equivalence (your words not mine) between the two systems is that within both parents make decisions using their wealth to obtain the best educational result for their children. I'm not even sure what about that is controversial.


For some reason, unless people say private school is 100% bad and the state system is 100% good you see it as some sort of 'trick'. Reality is more nuanced than that...

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrah--- that you can't accept that the

> admissions system in the state sector is a source

> if inequity and a barrier to social mobility

> despite it being well evidenced and researched

> says a lot. I thought you were in favor of

> evidenced based policy based on your posting

> regarding grammar schools?

>

> Just because universal state education is a good

> thing doesn't mean it can't also have harmful

> impacts that need to addressed to produce a more

> equitable society. The two facts can and do

> co-exist.

>

> Like I have repeatedly said, the only equivalence

> (your words not mine) between the two systems is

> that within both parents make decisions using

> their wealth to obtain the best educational result

> for their children. I'm not even sure what about

> that is controversial.

>

> For some reason, unless people say private school

> is 100% bad and the state system is 100% good you

> see it as some sort of 'trick'. Reality is more

> nuanced than that...


I absolutely haven't said one system is 'good' and the other 'bad'. Nor that the state system is perfect. You can read back what I've said if you wish.

  • 5 months later...

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lordship 516 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ...displacing the Ken Livingstone story..!

>

> Eh?


Politicians always have a kite in their back pocket to fly when they want to displace an issue that is causing them problems - Corbyn likely let this one fly to diminish the Livingstone issue...

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Lordship 516 Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > ...displacing the Ken Livingstone story..!

> >

> > Eh?

>

> Politicians always have a kite in their back

> pocket to fly when they want to displace an issue

> that is causing them problems - Corbyn likely let

> this one fly to diminish the Livingstone issue...


Oh yeah, I see what you mean. I'm not sure anyone really pays much attention to Corbyn though TBH.

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Lordship 516 Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > ...displacing the Ken Livingstone story..!

> >

> > Eh?

>

> Politicians always have a kite in their back

> pocket to fly when they want to displace an issue

> that is causing them problems - Corbyn likely let

> this one fly to diminish the Livingstone issue...



That's a level of political sophistication Corbyn has not shown on any other issue.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...