We have pooled thoughts on the NHS, how about education?

Galaxy

Sorry are you saying that if we doesnt have an answer to the issues of child carers that we cant comment on the private school/public school debate? That would render any intervention impossible, should we not have pupil premium because it doesnt tackle the issues of children with dyslexia. I am really unclear as to what you mean.

Confused! Pupil premium has absolutely nothing to do with dyslexic pupils.

I think that's Galaxy's point growstuff.

Galaxy

Sorry are you saying that if we doesnt have an answer to the issues of child carers that we cant comment on the private school/public school debate? That would render any intervention impossible, should we not have pupil premium because it doesnt tackle the issues of children with dyslexia. I am really unclear as to what you mean.

I am saying that there’s so much passion for the idea of social equality and it’s very narrow in its aim. Why not expand it to think constructively about improving outcomes for all children?

Yes I know that was my point. Child carers seem to be being used as a reason why we cant discuss the inequality of private schooling so why not say we shouldnt implement any strategy as it doesnt remove inequality for all children.

Glorianny I was never a supporter of academies but having seen our LEA so strapped for cash that it was completely disfunctional joining an academy was the only way we could get the support that my local primary needed. It is a complete success story and the school is thriving. 80% of secondary schools in England are now academies or Free schools, 40% of primaries are. I'm no longer involved with the MAT but I know other primaries would like to join however, they are so fragile financially that a risk assessment (which is required as part of the transition) is such that they cannot be accepted. Academisation has gone too far now to roll it back, LEAs barely exist in most counties but IM (limited) E most academies seem to do a very good job. Just for the record, it was the LP that introduced academies but I'm sure you know that. If I had a magic wand I'd like to see the role of Ofsted changed so that it had a more supportive role rather than a punitive one. Having gone through three inspections, they were all unnecessarily grueling and combative experiences and too much teacher time is spent box ticking to defend themselves.

Academies were introduced in a bid to support failing schools by partnering them up with successful schools. The situation has now changed, as perfectly good schools are being encouraged to join; and some academies are nationwide, rather than local, and they are just in it for the money which is top-sliced from each school's funding (in itself very low). Their boards (with highly paid members) tout round to add on schools so they can boost their incomes.

Good schools that are doing fine are now in limbo. LA education departments are dwindling along with the support that they used to offer. Schools have to take into account the element of compulsion to academise or join a MAT that has been around for some time now, but changes with successive ministers. The latest is that the Schools Bill, which contained this directive has been ditched, so no compulsion it would seem. However, there is no way of knowing which way the wind might blow in the future, so long-term planning is virtually impossible. I am CoG of a stand-alone rural primary which is popular and oversubscribed. We have no reason at all to join a MAT - and a fair bit to lose if we did. But we cannot close out eyes to the fact that it might become compulsory in the future so have to have some sort of Plan B up our sleeve.

The irony is that the DofE have now said that LAs can put together a MAT, but will only accept successful schools! - somewhat defeats the object of helping failing schools and ignores the fact that if the schools are successful why would they want to join a MAT at all?

So much political interference when all the teachers want to do is get on and teach well.

The irony is that the DofE have now said that LAs can put together a MAT, but will only accept successful schools! - somewhat defeats the object of helping failing schools and ignores the fact that if the schools are successful why would they want to join a MAT at all?

The whole Labour concept of academisation to support failing schools was completely turned on its head the moment the tories came to power in 2010. They immediately said that good schools should become academies because they didn't need any LA oversight.

I suspect that the word 'academy', implying something more intellectual and out of the ordinary than just 'school', was a key part of their thinking...

We are still a stand alone school as are several others locally.
One local school which went for academy status was in the poorest area with lots of fluctuating attendance depending on parents drifting in and out of the area for employment.
It now has a new head, some new staff, smart uniforms and some new equipment, however the issue of fluctuating attendance has not been solved, which means the results show little difference.

I am saying that there’s so much passion for the idea of social equality and it’s very narrow in its aim. Why not expand it to think constructively about improving outcomes for all children?

Wasn't that the key objective of this thread?

The fee paying schools are something of a side issue, really, but was bound to be raised.

The idea of fee paying schools having their tax evasion vehicles removed from them and ensuring comparable funding for state schools so that they compete on a level playing field may seem utopian but seems to me to be a route to ensuring equality of opportunity.

Luckygirl3

Academies were introduced in a bid to support failing schools by partnering them up with successful schools. The situation has now changed, as perfectly good schools are being encouraged to join; and some academies are nationwide, rather than local, and they are just in it for the money which is top-sliced from each school's funding (in itself very low). Their boards (with highly paid members) tout round to add on schools so they can boost their incomes.

Good schools that are doing fine are now in limbo. LA education departments are dwindling along with the support that they used to offer. Schools have to take into account the element of compulsion to academise or join a MAT that has been around for some time now, but changes with successive ministers. The latest is that the Schools Bill, which contained this directive has been ditched, so no compulsion it would seem. However, there is no way of knowing which way the wind might blow in the future, so long-term planning is virtually impossible. I am CoG of a stand-alone rural primary which is popular and oversubscribed. We have no reason at all to join a MAT - and a fair bit to lose if we did. But we cannot close out eyes to the fact that it might become compulsory in the future so have to have some sort of Plan B up our sleeve.

The irony is that the DofE have now said that LAs can put together a MAT, but will only accept successful schools! - somewhat defeats the object of helping failing schools and ignores the fact that if the schools are successful why would they want to join a MAT at all?

So much political interference when all the teachers want to do is get on and teach well.

Thanks , I knew the history but I'm sure lots here won't, however, I didn't know the wind had changed yet again! We jumped before we were pushed, our results had dipped badly and tbh there were some very serious staffing issues that were proving intractable. We looked at several options and some we wouldn't have touched with a bargepole, the GB voted unanimously bar one, the head left shortly before the school joined as did another member of staff. I will say no more except to add that I had not anticipated how stressful and challenging the role of COG could be. A plan B is certainly a very good thing to have at hand. Good luck, I know how much time and energy some governors give to their schools.

I had not anticipated how stressful and challenging the role of COG could be. - made me smile. I did in fact go into it with eyes open!

MaizieD

^I am saying that there’s so much passion for the idea of social equality and it’s very narrow in its aim. Why not expand it to think constructively about improving outcomes for all children?^

Wasn't that the key objective of this thread?

The fee paying schools are something of a side issue, really, but was bound to be raised.

The idea of fee paying schools having their tax evasion vehicles removed from them and ensuring comparable funding for state schools so that they compete on a level playing field may seem utopian but seems to me to be a route to ensuring equality of opportunity.

So have you spotted those others, who are neither socialists or communists, might see as extreme left verging on communism yet Maizie?

Pragmatism and my happy centrist view tell me that we would be far better going for increased equality of opportunity rather than unobtainable (except in some sort of 1984 setup) immediate equality for all that some seem to be cheerleading.

those those who to

growstuff

DaisyAnne

growstuff

Joseanne

Actually the thickos and dimwits are very much the ones who fare well in private education. Teaching staff are very quick to intervene and support children who struggle. A bright child will do well whatever type of school they attend, even if they were to sit in the garden shed for their lessons.

What kind of country condones buying advantage for its thickos and dimwits? Some of these thickos and dimwits take university places which could be used more productively by brighter students and some of them go on to be our leaders and owners of wealth. What kind of country doesn't want its brightest and best in charge?

Could you stop calling children "thickos and dimwits"? I certainly wouldn't send a child to a school you were in charge of. I just hope you are not a teacher.

What kind of country condones buying advantage for its thickos and dimwits?

I keep asking but no one has ever given an example. Which democratic country or countries ban fee-paying education? You want us to do something that, as far as anyone can tell me, doesn't happen in any other democratic country.

No, I haven't advocated banning fee-paying schools. I support abolishing a state tax subsidy to schools attended by children of people who are already better off.

Exactly. Someone said that no-one should have the right to dictate how people spend their money. Well, I was always taught that freedom should be limited at the point it hurts others. But certainly there is no reason whatsover that the 7% who send their children to private schools should be subsidised through tax exemption.

Luckygirl3

*I had not anticipated how stressful and challenging the role of COG could be.* - made me smile. I did in fact go into it with eyes open!

Lucky you, Luckygirl13 If I'd known what I was walking into I might have run the other way. Glad I didn't, steep learning curve though but I genuinely feel that I made a difference for the better.

certainly there is no reason whatsover that the 7% who send their children to private schools should be subsidised through tax exemption

Indeed. That's the point to removing charitable tax status.

Norah

^certainly there is no reason whatsover that the 7% who send their children to private schools should be subsidised through tax exemption^

Indeed. That's the point to removing charitable tax status.

Why not remove it from donkey sanctuaries? Not all donkeys benefit.

Norah

^certainly there is no reason whatsover that the 7% who send their children to private schools should be subsidised through tax exemption^

Indeed. That's the point to removing charitable tax status.

I am tempted to say whatever! However by adding about 8k to 42k annual fees would
1. Ensure that even more sons and daughters of oligarchs were educated here
2. Reduce the number of medium income families in private day education,say children of doctors, hospital consultants and accountants maybe IT consultants sort of middle England if that makes sense
3. Make private education even more elitist if that were possible

Not to worry….
1. A voucher system would enable a transferable payment scheme between State and private schools. Say roughly £5k a year per child … is that roughly the cost of a secondary school place? Might help the middle middle classes at day schools although small beer for the top boarding schools.

2. Consider the law of unintended consequences

Because as far as I know, there's not a national look-after-the-donkeys service for then to use.

4% in Scotland Norah.

We're more developed, socially. (hard hat on)

growstuff

Callistemon21

Fee-based schools are benefited an estimated £3 Billion a Year by their tax exemptions. That could fall to the state schools.

Other reports estimate £1.7 billion.

🤔

That's because the schools themselves aren't very transparent about their accounting. I did some research on this and the most frequently quoted figure is "about £3 billion".

growstuff

How much would you estimate it would cost if all privately educated pupils were transferred to state education, bearing in mind this would require new premises, staff and all the extra facilities required?
Other costs would have to be factored in, too, perhaps many staff losing their jobs, not paying tax and may need to claim benefits even temporarily.

What would happen to all those pupils who are boarding at present, eg children from other countries and children of British ex-pats?

Do independent schools bring benefits to their area?

I'm not against them perhaps losing charitable status but the questions are more complex than a case of thinking that some children should not be allowed more advantages than others.

Some parents whose children attend state schools can afford to pay for extra-curricular classes, keep ponies, pay for extra tuition. Society will always be unequal unless everyone's income is levelled.

All children should be offered the best possible opportunities in education.

DaisyAnne

Norah

certainly there is no reason whatsover that the 7% who send their children to private schools should be subsidised through tax exemption

Indeed. That's the point to removing charitable tax status.

Why not remove it from donkey sanctuaries? Not all donkeys benefit.

Oh I do love a well argued sensible debate, doh!

volver

4% in Scotland Norah.

We're more developed, socially. (hard hat on)

I quoted Fleurpepper and forgot to add her name.

However, 7% in UK does seem consistent to what I read.

I've been thinking about the way that the NHS came into being. I believe that there wasn't universal approval. That there were lots of comments about how it would work, how some people would be disadvantaged etc.

Then I thought about votes for women. How people said it was silly, that the men did the voting. Its working fine, don't change it.

And to really stretch the analogy, slavery. That we could never get rid of slavery because it would cost so much money. Who would work on the plantations?

Some things are worth doing even if they're not easy. Even if some people get their noses put out of joint when its done. Because its the right thing to do. So coming up with short term financial reasons for not doing it isn't going to change the minds of people who think that buying privilege is a disgrace.

One of the ways academies prosper and maintain standards is by excluding problem children. They then become the responsibility of the LEA and have to be accommodated in their schools. It is effectively selection. Why would anyone want to pay public money to the chief executives of academies (round about £100,000 per annum) when that money could pay more teachers?
Here's what's wrong with academies weownit.org.uk/public-ownership/schools