The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

Axe_meister

Every Child that goes to Private school means 1 less child in state school. The money for that child is either saved or put into the state school the child would have gone to.
So you whack those parents twice.
i used to have my son in private school but 2008 happened and had to pull him out.

capo4th

The problem is the standard of state education in London varies widely.

32 kids in a class, mixed language abilities and various cultural differences and backgrounds. 

Very difficult to deliver a good quality education to all 32 kids in the class.

Like I said earlier we have decent jobs but are still maxed out every month with mortgage and bills because of the choices we have made.

Sporky

Axe_meister said:

Every Child that goes to Private school means 1 less child in state school. The money for that child is either saved or put into the state school the child would have gone to.

True.

But it also means that motivated parents are removed from the state system and working to improve it. And there's an argument that some/many of the best teachers are poached from the state system by decent wages in the private schools.

As with most things political the problem and solution are rather wide.

ToneControl

I accept that it's true that some of those sending their kids to private schools aren't "rich", and are forgoing other things, or taking on extra jobs to pay for it.

Nevertheless, the other things they would be spending on would have VAT added

What justification is there for private schools being classed as charities?
Who owns the properties the schools are run within?

They certainly don't look like charities - can giving more privileged kids a better education than 93% of the population be classed as charitable work? 

Pretty much whatever you spend your money on, it's taxed - why should this spend be immune from VAT?

capo4th

Benefitting the greater good and educating our future politicians perhaps ....

sorry couldnt help myself. 

capo4th

The schools will pay VAT on any profits and I am sure education is a lucrative business. 
Education fees for private schools have gone up drastically in the last 10 years. 

It is just another cheap shot by Jeremy Corbyn and the idiot policy makers in the Labour Party to create division in society.

capo4th

ToneControl said:

 Can giving more privileged kids a better education than 93% of the population be classed as charitable work? 

This is what creates the division and distorted view people have of private schools. It's not all about Harry and Tarquin playing lacrosse.

Most of the kids are not privileged. They live in normal semi detached houses with a Nissan Qashqai on the drive but mum and dad are working their nuts off to give their kids the best education possible. This probably applies to 80-90% of the kids and parents I interact with.

Of course you get the odd kid who has a fat house Range Rover and a Bentley but they are the exception not the norm. Not all private schools are like Eton. It's a choice for how parents live their lives and spend their money. I am also finding a lot of it is funded by grand parents frustrated by the current educational system in London and want to give offspring a good start in life.

ICBM

capo4th said:

It is just another cheap shot by Jeremy Corbyn and the idiot policy makers in the Labour Party to create division in society.

Unless you think that it's private education which is divisive…

capo4th said:

Benefitting the greater good and educating our future politicians perhaps ....

... and tends to produce a political class which is more isolated from the rest of society than it should be.

Disclaimer - I went to a private school, I've worked in one, and as I said I have friends who send their kids to private school who it would hit hard - but I chose not to send mine to one, and I still wouldn't if I could have afforded it.

TheBigDipper

I went to a Central London private day school in the 1970s. My parents were p**s poor, but I was lucky enough to win a scholarship through the ILEA (as it was then). Selection was by interview, as those of us in state primary schools would have had no chance at competing with prep school boys in an entrance exam situation. All the friends I grew up with went to the local grammar and local comprehensives. 

So, looking at grammar schools and private schools as a way of enabling social mobility - I would say it works for the people who can access it but not for those who are unlucky enough to be good enough to attend but unable to do so. In my experience, it is definitely not a way of enabling social mobility for everyone. In my entrance year there were 10 places available for kids like me and probably 100+ suitable kids who might have qualified and benefitted. Those 90 kids were denied something they were quite qualified for, purely on the basis of available capacity and funding. They were not given the same opportunity as me, or the children of parents who could just about afford to make the financial sacrifice on their children's behalf. 

Poor families will not be able to pay for the coaching required to enable their kids to compete in Grammar school entrance examinations with the children of better-off families who can afford to improve their kids chances with out of school coaching. It's not always a choice about where parents spend their money. If there isn't enough money, there isn't enough. Pointing at parents who won't pay for school fees but take expensive holidays doesn't justify the fact that there are many parents without the money to do either of those things who have a child that would benefit. 

The argument that a child in private education is one less child in state education and therefore not a drain is totally specious. Private schools provide the best environment for working as a teacher and take those teachers away from the state system. That's a drain. Private schools remove bright pupils from the state system. That diminishes the state schools they could have attended and graced with their presence and input. 

I'm not against private schools. I respect the right of parents to do the best they can for their children in the best way they can. I don't think private schools should be treated as charities for the purposes of taxation, etc. They are education businesses and should be treated as such. 

ToneControl

ICBM said:

capo4th said:

It is just another cheap shot by Jeremy Corbyn and the idiot policy makers in the Labour Party to create division in society.

Unless you think that it's private education which is divisive…

capo4th said:

Benefitting the greater good and educating our future politicians perhaps ....

... and tends to produce a political class which is more isolated from the rest of society than it should be.

Disclaimer - I went to a private school, I've worked in one, and as I said I have friends who send their kids to private school who it would hit hard - but I chose not to send mine to one, and I still wouldn't if I could have afforded it.

my disclosure is that I was able to move house to ensure my kids went to a good state school, not an option for most people. I concluded that sending my kids to an school with issues to prove my sincerity was not my duty as a parent. This is why I don't criticise those who send their kids to private school, or move heaven and earth to get them into grammar schools, but it would be better if the dilemma were not present

this is why I wonder if it would be good if school places were allocated randomly within a town, and free school buses collected all the kids. Then every school would have a more mixture of social status, ethnicity, religion, etc

From what I can see, there are 2 sides to private schools:

1. improved (you would hope) education
2. social engineering - your kids don't mix with poorer people, your daughter doesn't marry someone with a basic profession and a low wage, your kids develop accent and speech patterns that cement a position in the upper middle classes, etc.

It's clear that both of these generally improve the prospects of kids send to private schools, and that this is at the expense of kids in state schools.  This is why I believe that private schools are pretty much doing the opposite of charitable work

ToneControl

TheBigDipper said:

So, looking at grammar schools and private schools as a way of enabling social mobility - I would say it works for the people who can access it but not for those who are unlucky enough to be good enough to attend but unable to do so. In my experience, it is definitely not a way of enabling social mobility for everyone. In my entrance year there were 10 places available for kids like me and probably 100+ suitable kids who might have qualified and benefitted. Those 90 kids were denied something they were quite qualified for, purely on the basis of available capacity and funding. They were not given the same opportunity as me, or the children of parents who could just about afford to make the financial sacrifice on their children's behalf. 

Poor families will not be able to pay for the coaching required to enable their kids to compete in Grammar school entrance examinations with the children of better-off families who can afford to improve their kids chances with out of school coaching. 

as you mention, grammar school entrance is not what it was in the 70s

When I was a kid, everyone at my primary school did the 11+ and didn't know it was coming

Now, aspirational parents spend lots of cash on tuition over many years to get their kids a grammar school place 
My ex did a teaching degree, and has never worked in a school - she' smade a living for decades on tutoring kids for the 11+

The outcome of this in Trafford (which still has its grammar schools) is that all the non-grammar schools are a bit crap, and bizarrely - the tutored kids who fail to get a grammar school place then get put in comprehensives in nice towns outside Trafford (to avoid the injured comprehensives where they live). I visited Knutsford high school on the open day when our eldest was 11, and about half the parents were from Trafford, a good 30 minute drive away for most of them (I know this because the school was asking everyone to provide their postcodes on sheets of paper at the entrance)

TheBigDipper

ToneControl said:

<big snip>

From what I can see, there are 2 sides to private schools:

1. improved (you would hope) education
2. social engineering - your kids don't mix with poorer people, your daughter doesn't marry someone with a basic profession and a low wage, your kids develop accent and speech patterns that cement a position in the upper middle classes, etc.

It's clear that both of these generally improve the prospects of kids send to private schools, and that this is at the expense of kids in state schools.  This is why I believe that private schools are pretty much doing the opposite of charitable work

Just to give my personal experience...

Re 1:  Yes, although very focused on good exam results and not as broad as my friends in the state system.

Re 2:  It doesn't happen at the school, but the school delivers an OxBridge uni place and it happens there. 

Fretwired

ToneControl said:

I accept that it's true that some of those sending their kids to private schools aren't "rich", and are forgoing other things, or taking on extra jobs to pay for it.

Nevertheless, the other things they would be spending on would have VAT added

What justification is there for private schools being classed as charities?
Who owns the properties the schools are run within?

They certainly don't look like charities - can giving more privileged kids a better education than 93% of the population be classed as charitable work? 

Pretty much whatever you spend your money on, it's taxed - why should this spend be immune from VAT?

Charge VAT and remove charitable status, but then give tax payers who send their kids to private school tax relief on the fees. Why should they effectively pay twice. for their kids education? In the overall scheme of things it's peanuts - scrapping private education would cost the state more.

Fretwired

ToneControl said:

<big snip>

From what I can see, there are 2 sides to private schools:

1. improved (you would hope) education
2. social engineering - your kids don't mix with poorer people, your daughter doesn't marry someone with a basic profession and a low wage, your kids develop accent and speech patterns that cement a position in the upper middle classes, etc.

It's clear that both of these generally improve the prospects of kids send to private schools, and that this is at the expense of kids in state schools.  This is why I believe that private schools are pretty much doing the opposite of charitable work

Whilst that maybe true of private schools its also true of thousands of state schools in leafy middle-class suburbs. I doubt there are any poor kids in my old school - the average three bed family house price is £600K and there are no council houses in the catchment area. It's a specialist maths and science school which Ofsted rates as outstanding and has an excellent Oxbridge record. Parents fight to get their kids admitted. The junior school that feeds it is also rated as outstanding and the battle to get kids in is even tougher.

As usual the debate focuses on what is seen as privilege (shouldn't parents be able to spend their money on what they like?) rather than how to we help pupils from poorer backgrounds succeed. I work with a charity in Stevenage that tries to help poorer pupils - some of our initiatives have included giving them tech (iPads and laptops which poorer families can't afford) and additional tutoring and mentoring so they don't feel like failures. The charity has had a lot of success  and its about time government started funding this sort of initiative as it works. Unfortunately the Tories and Labour just focus on soundbites.

ToneControl

Fretwired said:

ToneControl said:

<big snip>

From what I can see, there are 2 sides to private schools:

1. improved (you would hope) education
2. social engineering - your kids don't mix with poorer people, your daughter doesn't marry someone with a basic profession and a low wage, your kids develop accent and speech patterns that cement a position in the upper middle classes, etc.

It's clear that both of these generally improve the prospects of kids send to private schools, and that this is at the expense of kids in state schools.  This is why I believe that private schools are pretty much doing the opposite of charitable work

Whilst that maybe true of private schools its also true of thousands of state schools in leafy middle-class suburbs. I doubt there are any poor kids in my old school - the average three bed family house price is £600K and there are no council houses in the catchment area. It's a specialist maths and science school which Ofsted rates as outstanding and has an excellent Oxbridge record. Parents fight to get their kids admitted. The junior school that feeds it is also rated as outstanding and the battle to get kids in is even tougher.

As usual the debate focuses on what is seen as privilege (shouldn't parents be able to spend their money on what they like?) rather than how to we help pupils from poorer backgrounds succeed. I work with a charity in Stevenage that tries to help poorer pupils - some of our initiatives have included giving them tech (iPads and laptops which poorer families can't afford) and additional tutoring and mentoring so they don't feel like failures. The charity has had a lot of success  and its about time government started funding this sort of initiative as it works. Unfortunately the Tories and Labour just focus on soundbites.

my other post gives my opinions on how to avoid postcode/ofsted school selection by mortgage size

Fretwired

ToneControl said:

Fretwired said:

ToneControl said:

<big snip>

From what I can see, there are 2 sides to private schools:

1. improved (you would hope) education
2. social engineering - your kids don't mix with poorer people, your daughter doesn't marry someone with a basic profession and a low wage, your kids develop accent and speech patterns that cement a position in the upper middle classes, etc.

It's clear that both of these generally improve the prospects of kids send to private schools, and that this is at the expense of kids in state schools.  This is why I believe that private schools are pretty much doing the opposite of charitable work

Whilst that maybe true of private schools its also true of thousands of state schools in leafy middle-class suburbs. I doubt there are any poor kids in my old school - the average three bed family house price is £600K and there are no council houses in the catchment area. It's a specialist maths and science school which Ofsted rates as outstanding and has an excellent Oxbridge record. Parents fight to get their kids admitted. The junior school that feeds it is also rated as outstanding and the battle to get kids in is even tougher.

As usual the debate focuses on what is seen as privilege (shouldn't parents be able to spend their money on what they like?) rather than how to we help pupils from poorer backgrounds succeed. I work with a charity in Stevenage that tries to help poorer pupils - some of our initiatives have included giving them tech (iPads and laptops which poorer families can't afford) and additional tutoring and mentoring so they don't feel like failures. The charity has had a lot of success  and its about time government started funding this sort of initiative as it works. Unfortunately the Tories and Labour just focus on soundbites.

my other post gives my opinions on how to avoid postcode/ofsted school selection by mortgage size

What? By busing in kids from poorer areas? Is there any evidence this works? In my limited experience kids from poorer backgrounds can feel out of place in a school full of middle class kids. It wouldn't work where I live as the local traffic is chaotic in the morning and this would add to it.

The answer is simple - schools in poorer areas should have more funds, smaller class sizes and more teachers for one-to-one tutoring/mentoring as well as specialists who can help with, for example, mental issues brought on by a tough home life.

Heartfeltdawn

My grandfather wished to send me to private school but my privately-educated father refused the offer on the basis that he fucking hated it, came out with a few O levels and learnt far more going to technical college before university. 

I am not in favour of the Corbyn plan as it's vapid. That money would be used to grow more cash the way of people like Sodexho. If he announced a plan that saw funding into making sure as many schools as possible had what I would call a proper meal service (ie. not contracted out shit coming in), I'd be all for it. The system my old secondary has now is utterly superb, remarkably so given how shite the education was there. Not only do you give the kids something decent nutritionally, you also create workers who are learning decent budgeting and cookery skills rather than the reheat/fry chips squad so beloved of so many schools still. A school meal plan has been shown by the like of Jamie bastard Oliver to be a public approval winner. Instead Corbyn makes it all about class. Idiot. Pissup/brewery or whorehouse/laid, you choose your metaphor. Instead of money going to Sodexho, you keep the money within the local area. If it's a school run kitchen, any profit can be returned to the school. 

Public schools are not charities. I would subscribe to Fretwired's ideas above on VAT/tax relief. He is also quite right on charities trying to help people. Those kind of initiatives were exactly what the Cameron "Big Society" plan was meant to help. Of all the policies, the Big Society is the one that was loudly proclaimed and delivered the least. 

siremoon

Fretwired said:

ToneControl said:

Fretwired said:

ToneControl said:

<big snip>

From what I can see, there are 2 sides to private schools:

1. improved (you would hope) education
2. social engineering - your kids don't mix with poorer people, your daughter doesn't marry someone with a basic profession and a low wage, your kids develop accent and speech patterns that cement a position in the upper middle classes, etc.

It's clear that both of these generally improve the prospects of kids send to private schools, and that this is at the expense of kids in state schools.  This is why I believe that private schools are pretty much doing the opposite of charitable work

Whilst that maybe true of private schools its also true of thousands of state schools in leafy middle-class suburbs. I doubt there are any poor kids in my old school - the average three bed family house price is £600K and there are no council houses in the catchment area. It's a specialist maths and science school which Ofsted rates as outstanding and has an excellent Oxbridge record. Parents fight to get their kids admitted. The junior school that feeds it is also rated as outstanding and the battle to get kids in is even tougher.

As usual the debate focuses on what is seen as privilege (shouldn't parents be able to spend their money on what they like?) rather than how to we help pupils from poorer backgrounds succeed. I work with a charity in Stevenage that tries to help poorer pupils - some of our initiatives have included giving them tech (iPads and laptops which poorer families can't afford) and additional tutoring and mentoring so they don't feel like failures. The charity has had a lot of success  and its about time government started funding this sort of initiative as it works. Unfortunately the Tories and Labour just focus on soundbites.

my other post gives my opinions on how to avoid postcode/ofsted school selection by mortgage size

What? By busing in kids from poorer areas? Is there any evidence this works? In my limited experience kids from poorer backgrounds can feel out of place in a school full of middle class kids. It wouldn't work where I live as the local traffic is chaotic in the morning and this would add to it.

The answer is simple - schools in poorer areas should have more funds, smaller class sizes and more teachers for one-to-one tutoring/mentoring as well as specialists who can help with, for example, mental issues brought on by a tough home life.

I maybe the exception but it worked for me although I did feel out of place. 

We were very poor (cue violin music), my father was unable to get work and my mother did her best to keep us afloat but we had virtually nothing.  I did manage to pass the 11+ and was offered a place at arguably the best state grammar school in the county. 

The majority of my fellow pupils were from affluent families and I did feel like a fish out of water which was horrible and I hated it but somehow stuck with it and did sufficiently well to go to university.  After graduation I landed a very well paid job and never looked back.  This was in the 1970s when a degree was rather more valuable than it is now and the world is obviously a very different place but going to the school I did literally changed everything for me. 

I have no idea if it's possible for someone today to do what I did but if the school you go to is dictated by the value of the house your parents can afford then it seems unlikely.   

Fretwired

siremoon said:

I maybe the exception but it worked for me although I did feel out of place. 

We were very poor (cue violin music), my father was unable to get work and my mother did her best to keep us afloat but we had virtually nothing.  I did manage to pass the 11+ and was offered a place at arguably the best state grammar school in the county. 

The majority of my fellow pupils were from affluent families and I did feel like a fish out of water which was horrible and I hated it but somehow stuck with it and did sufficiently well to go to university.  After graduation I landed a very well paid job and never looked back.  This was in the 1970s when a degree was rather more valuable than it is now and the world is obviously a very different place but going to the school I did literally changed everything for me. 

I have no idea if it's possible for someone today to do what I did but if the school you go to is dictated by the value of the house your parents can afford then it seems unlikely.   

Well done ... however, you are bright as you passed your 11+ exam. My comment reflected my own experience - many kids from poorer backgrounds have a difficult home life and are often behind, especially with reading, writing and maths, or have English as a second language. And there seems to be a bizarre view that schools outside the middle-class enclaves are crap which isn't the case. The reason private schools do better is they have more money and resources - I've met plenty of thick rich kids. Just look at the royal family - no Nobel Prize winners there ... there more to school than exam league tables and more money and resources need to be channelled to those at the bottom so they can reach their full potential.

Garthy

It isn't just money, parental attitude makes a massive difference.