Re: Safeism : Tue Apr 28, 2020 10:28 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Once you understand why people send their kids to private school then you begin to understand why the public sector can never compete. There are plenty of private schools where the standards of education are below that of the better public sector schools yet they are still full!!

As Paul Weller sang, "What chance have you got against a tie and a crest?"

Re: Safeism : Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:02 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

No its not - I agree its the state's job to provide an appropriate standard of education to anyone who wants to access it - similar to health care and the NHS. If the government increased the standard of education within the public sector perhaps demand for the private sector might drop. What the state cannot do is dictate to its citizens how they spend their money - surely.

Although I'm a lefty I agree with Sal on this. I don't agree with Labour's war on private schools. If you have public provision of things like education and healthcare, and private providers enter to add to the supply then as long as they are properly regulated then I think they can co-exist. I would still have higher taxes on the wealthy so they will be contributing to the education of others at the same time as paying school fees.

In the Thatcher and Major eras they used to have an Assisted Places scheme. In our area, we didn't have state grammar schools, it was all comprehensives and all the grammar schools in the area were private. But if a child passed the entrance exam for a private grammar school and their parents income was below a certain threshold, the government would subsidise or completely fund their fees. The grammar schools at the time would have something like 40% children on some form of assisted place and maybe 25% on full fee subsidy. It meant that there was a social mix in the schools. Also it was a good form of social mobility (admittedly only for the children who were able to pass those entrance exams at age 11), because you would have kids from less well off backgrounds suddenly having access to the good schools, good facilities of the better off.

It's not a perfect solution and I can see why it had its critics but I thought that was an avenue for social mobility for a generation of people who grew up in the 80s and 90s that got shut off after Blair came in.

Re: Safeism : Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:31 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Although I'm a lefty I agree with Sal on this. I don't agree with Labour's war on private schools. If you have public provision of things like education and healthcare, and private providers enter to add to the supply then as long as they are properly regulated then I think they can co-exist. I would still have higher taxes on the wealthy so they will be contributing to the education of others at the same time as paying school fees.

In the Thatcher and Major eras they used to have an Assisted Places scheme. In our area, we didn't have state grammar schools, it was all comprehensives and all the grammar schools in the area were private. But if a child passed the entrance exam for a private grammar school and their parents income was below a certain threshold, the government would subsidise or completely fund their fees. The grammar schools at the time would have something like 40% children on some form of assisted place and maybe 25% on full fee subsidy. It meant that there was a social mix in the schools. Also it was a good form of social mobility (admittedly only for the children who were able to pass those entrance exams at age 11), because you would have kids from less well off backgrounds suddenly having access to the good schools, good facilities of the better off.

It's not a perfect solution and I can see why it had its critics but I thought that was an avenue for social mobility for a generation of people who grew up in the 80s and 90s that got shut off after Blair came in.

99% of people paying to educate their kids privately will be paying income tax through PAYE and council tax so they will be contributing to the education without accessing it and most will be higher rate tax payers so they will contributing above the average too.

Re: Safeism : Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:53 pm  

Why should many private schools be registered charities.

Re: Safeism : Tue Apr 28, 2020 3:42 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

Why should many private schools be registered charities.

They shouldn't - it's an act of fraud on a massive scale, but the Charity Commission is completely toothless.

Re: Safeism : Wed Apr 29, 2020 8:17 am  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

Why should many private schools be registered charities.

Completely agree - they shouldn't - I expect that will change by the time of the next election

Re: Safeism : Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:02 am  

Whether public or private schools are involved ,one thing that can't be taught is intelligence & creativity ,there are no qualifications in the world for that & there are no guarantees that the man/woman who has been schooled through his/her qualifications is not as thick as two short planks. That's why many of our inventions of our past & present have come from the mind of the man or woman in the street who has gone on to make a fortune.

Re: Safeism : Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:25 am  

ninearches wrote:

Whether public or private schools are involved ,one thing that can't be taught is intelligence & creativity ,there are no qualifications in the world for that & there are no guarantees that the man/woman who has been schooled through his/her qualifications is not as thick as two short planks. That's why many of our inventions of our past & present have come from the mind of the man or woman in the street who has gone on to make a fortune.

Ideas are developed by interaction with other people who have diverse experiences - where do you think that is more likely to happen? It is no surprise that kids from private schools on the whole do better - they mix in diverse challenging environments where ideas are discussed/challenged at a more rigorous level.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Safeism : Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:53 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Completely agree - they shouldn't - I expect that will change by the time of the next election

I’d be absolutely astonished if a Johnson-led government challenged the charitable status of public schools (I cba to check, but I think the distinction between a public school and private school in this country is that former is not for profit and eligible to be a charity). A cartoonist who worked for the Spectator was surprised at the freedom he was given to mock all sorts of people and institutions under Johnson’s editorship - but the line was drawn at Eton.

Sal Paradise wrote:

Ideas are developed by interaction with other people who have diverse experiences - where do you think that is more likely to happen? It is no surprise that kids from private schools on the whole do better - they mix in diverse challenging environments where ideas are discussed/challenged at a more rigorous level.

I largely agree about the genesis of ideas and the foundation of sound thinking. However, although it is a different type of homogeneity to that in many state schools, it is still a problem in public/private schools - especially the more elitist (or ‘elite’ if you’re on their side). While it is no surprise that the more advantaged kids do better (although I think accepted metrics of success may be skewed by a culturally dominant elite [arguably part of their success, I admit]), I think the reason you give is only one of many, and some of the others are less wholesome.

Not aimed at anyone in particular, but I understand why people dislike out of touch liberal elites with their tofu and courgettes and avocados and hypocrisies. What I struggle to follow though is the embrace of Johnson or Rees-Mogg as champions of decency or normalcy or competency.

Re: Safeism : Wed Apr 29, 2020 10:27 am  

Mild Rover wrote:

I’d be absolutely astonished if a Johnson-led government challenged the charitable status of public schools (I cba to check, but I think the distinction between a public school and private school in this country is that former is not for profit and eligible to be a charity). A cartoonist who worked for the Spectator was surprised at the freedom he was given to mock all sorts of people and institutions under Johnson’s editorship - but the line was drawn at Eton.

I largely agree about the genesis of ideas and the foundation of sound thinking. However, although it is a different type of homogeneity to that in many state schools, it is still a problem in public/private schools - especially the more elitist (or ‘elite’ if you’re on their side). While it is no surprise that the more advantaged kids do better (although I think accepted metrics of success may be skewed by a culturally dominant elite [arguably part of their success, I admit]), I think the reason you give is only one of many, and some of the others are less wholesome.

Not aimed at anyone in particular, but I understand why people dislike out of touch liberal elites with their tofu and courgettes and avocados and hypocrisies. What I struggle to follow though is the embrace of Johnson or Rees-Mogg as champions of decency or normalcy or competency.

The Tories have got win northern votes - this is a no brainer - even a soft left Labour will attack the elitist nature of the Tories and something will have to give.

It will be different but at a higher level of debate - I am not trying to be elitist but I guarantee the level of debate in my household will be on a different level to that of the majority of kids attending public sector education. I really valued education as a platform for my children for their adult life and that didn't just mean the 3Rs - it was about challenging their thought processes and how they engage with the people around them. If you appreciate classical music or classical writing or travel it must enhance your existence and what you can offer in debate. Likewise if you like sport or economics etc. this diversity breeds development of ideas and if you have a better way of expressing it so much the better