Alleyns...doing their bit for the community?

[LondonMix]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I think people have very different impulses around education and to assume that people make choices using the same frame of reference or give the same weight to different factors is mistaken.

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

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?

[LondonMix]

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.

[Lordship 516]

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....!

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[Lordship 516]

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.

[LondonMix]

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...

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Lordship516 - I agree

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/vat-fees-greedy-private-schools-coming/

[Lordship 516]

...displacing the Ken Livingstone story..!

[Earl Aelfheah]

Lordship 516 Wrote:

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

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

Eh?

[Lordship 516]

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...

[JoeLeg]

Good luck with that Jeremy...

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

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.