How soon before the next step to privatising the state schools?

MaizieD

Labour's academies were completely different from the tory academies, Mollygo. The extra money was to improve the school.

That might have been the aim, but it affected those who didn’t take the offer negatively and the management of the infrastructure started then.

Labour's academies were completely different from the tory academies, Mollygo. The extra money was to improve the school.

That’s not a list Daisy Anne, just some things that stood out for me whilst trawling through the posts. Labour started academies. The promise was that if you became an academy you would get more funding. As with anything new, new infrastructure was introduced to manage the funding, which ate away at the money. Because we refused to become an Academy, we saw a fall in our funding. Then that became especially noticeable when compared with those schools who took up the offer. For quite a long time, we were one of the poorest schools in the area. Is it more equal now I wonder when Academy funding is siphoned off to feed the expanding management?

DaisyAnne I am not disagreeing that we all (you included) are posting our perceptions and opinions. I don't really see what else we can do, and find it a bit strange that this keeps being reiterated. It's a discussion board, and we are discussing those opinions and perceptions.

Just to point out that Cuba has good standards of education. Including a literacy rate that many English speaking countries come nowhere near to. Nothing wrong with the Cuba route.

And that the Labour version of Academies was intended to put money and expertise into poorly performing schools to improve their standards. A policy which the tories promptly turned on its head by Academising 'good' schools, mainly, it seems with a view to releasing them from local authority control. And from the National Curriculum.

Doodledog

No, in my world facts are facts, just as I'm sure they are in yours. Nonetheless, it is seldom that two people asked about the same event tell the same story. Neither is fraudulent, or even, (to sound less aggressive or unpleasant) mistaken. They see the facts differently, is all.

I have no desire to replicate anything from North Korea or Cuba, and nothing I (or anyone else on this thread) have said would suggest otherwise.

No, in my world facts are facts, just as I'm sure they are in yours. Nonetheless, it is seldom that two people asked about the same event tell the same story. Neither is fraudulent, or even, (to sound less aggressive or unpleasant) mistaken. They see the facts differently, is all.

That is perception. If I stand on the ground and see the number 6 on a door as a number 6 that is perception, and it is fact. If you hang upside down in order to tell me that it is not a number 6 but a number 9 that is, I will agree, a different perception. Certainly, you are telling me what you can see. However, it is by deception or even, if it is done to create an advantage, it is fraud.

Some "perceptions" on this thread are of that ilk.

You may not be thinking of going down the route of North Korea or Cuba. However, once you have forced out the privately paid for schools what will you decide is best for all, next? Once you have felt the power you would have taken over others, who knows?

Mollygo

Several things in this thread that are true stand out for me.
1. Re Academies, the brainchild of Tony Blair in 2000, as some have pointed out, they skim money from school funding.
2. Not all decision makers send their children to private schools.
3. We need to increase taxation and pour money into education. (We need to ensure that the money poured in isn’t siphoned off to pay the salaries of the Academy chiefs.)
I’ve read really unpleasant implications that children with disabilities are not provided for in state schools and that state schools can be held responsible for lack of parental commitment.
I read a really funny criticism of those who spend money on school fees because they could spend their money contributing to the education of all children, but, “They’re not really in favour of sharing.”
Funny because second home owners could give their homes to the homeless, two car families could give their second cars up to a family who needs one and multiple holiday people could give one up to a family who has none or can’t afford one because of the single supplement. But when it applies to us, rather than all those paying private school fees . . . Do we do it?

Congratulations Molly. That is an interesting list, but I can't see that it backs banning private schools. Maybe I misread your reason for contacting your MP?

What is does seem to push the argument towards is better state education which no one on this thread, as far as I can see, disagrees with.

No, in my world facts are facts, just as I'm sure they are in yours. Nonetheless, it is seldom that two people asked about the same event tell the same story. Neither is fraudulent, or even, (to sound less aggressive or unpleasant) mistaken. They see the facts differently, is all.

I have no desire to replicate anything from North Korea or Cuba, and nothing I (or anyone else on this thread) have said would suggest otherwise.

Doodledog

It can only be proved if or when it happened. Even then, what is 'proved' will depend on who is demanding the proof, as well as who is providing it and who is telling the story. Facts are notoriously fluid things.

Incidentally, I think it goes without saying that pretty much anything any of us say on here are opinions.

I don't think that is true Doodledog. If another country had done what some (a minority) are suggesting, we would have facts and figures we could study.

Maybe in your world facts and figures are fluid. I think there is a name for that - fraud. In the world of those who set out to find the truth and not just prove their opinion is right I don't think that is the case.

You could check out Cuba and North Korea; they both ban private education. North Korea also bans all organized political opposition, independent media, civil society, and trade unions. Perhaps this is where the extreme left will take us once they have force out the private schools.

Doodledog sorry that was in reply to 19.42 comment.

Yes, the 2nd.
Probably for another thread, Doodledog, but I was thinking that in the past, top journalists were traditionally privately educated, (then went on to Oxbridge), and subsequently sent their own children to independent schools.
The face of journalism then drastically changed around 20 years ago, and the demise resulted in far fewer current journalists now being able to afford a private education for their children.
Maybe that makes them more vociferous.

I'm not sure that whataboutery is ever very useful. As I've said, I think it's understandable that people faced with the choice between a poor school and going private will choose the latter - for me it is the system that I criticise, not the parents who use it.

I also think that there is no basis in the suggestion that it is hypocritical not to give up everything over what is needed for basic survival if you favour a more equal society. That way of thinking just excuses doing nothing at all.

The concept of so-called 'champagne socialism' sits perfectly well with me. It's not all or nothing, and if you do your bit while you wait for what you campaign or vote for to come to pass, there is no need to do it in sackcloth and ashes.

Mollygo I read a really funny criticism of those who spend money on school fees because they could spend their money contributing to the education of all children, but, “They’re not really in favour of sharing.”
Funny because second home owners could give their homes to the homeless, two car families could give their second cars up to a family who needs one and multiple holiday people could give one up to a family who has none or can’t afford one because of the single supplement. But when it applies to us, rather than all those paying private school fees . . . Do we do it?

Good point

Always easier to criticise others.

Several things in this thread that are true stand out for me.
1. Re Academies, the brainchild of Tony Blair in 2000, as some have pointed out, they skim money from school funding.
2. Not all decision makers send their children to private schools.
3. We need to increase taxation and pour money into education. (We need to ensure that the money poured in isn’t siphoned off to pay the salaries of the Academy chiefs.)
I’ve read really unpleasant implications that children with disabilities are not provided for in state schools and that state schools can be held responsible for lack of parental commitment.
I read a really funny criticism of those who spend money on school fees because they could spend their money contributing to the education of all children, but, “They’re not really in favour of sharing.”
Funny because second home owners could give their homes to the homeless, two car families could give their second cars up to a family who needs one and multiple holiday people could give one up to a family who has none or can’t afford one because of the single supplement. But when it applies to us, rather than all those paying private school fees . . . Do we do it?

'Could' only be proved.

It can only be proved if or when it happened. Even then, what is 'proved' will depend on who is demanding the proof, as well as who is providing it and who is telling the story. Facts are notoriously fluid things.

Incidentally, I think it goes without saying that pretty much anything any of us say on here are opinions.

Doodledog

Or because they don't approve of it for reasons other than jealousy? They do exist, you know .

They do as opinions as Molly said, Doodledog. However, on this thread we kept being told that banning such schools would improve the state school. As people keep declaring this as a fact, I would really like to see the proof. Finland has gone the furthest, but it has not banned such schools. It has put huge amount of money into state schools.

I doubt a Labour government, which could be left with a crashed economy, would be able to find such money straight away - although I hope they could. In 2017 (the latest I could find) fee-paying schools generated £4.12 billion in tax revenues (equivalent to the city of Liverpool's contribution to the economy) and supported 303,000 jobs.

Labour will need the centre and centre left votes. In a poll in 2019, 68% thought parents should be able to pay for their children’s education. Perhaps Keir Starmer will not worry about this. Perhaps he will. 68% is a really decent majority and no one wants to throw votes away.

Joseanne

Where was jealousy alluded to Doodledog?
More a case of their earnings are not what they used to be in comparison with 20 years ago.

Oh. My mistake then. Jealousy appeared to be implied with 'of course they ('they' being people who used to use the public school system) become more outspoken and critical of a system they can no longer enter due to costs.'

Or were you actually saying that they were suddenly and collectively possessed of a desire to criticise the system at a time that purely coincidentally coincided with a decline in earnings that left them unable to make use of it? Apologies if so.

Mollygo

I could sort that, though I don’t think any of the arguments prove “those wanting to ban directly paid for education are right, and that it should be banned throughout the country”
any more than arguments by those wanting the right to choose directly paid for education prove that they are right.
I would just like to see if I get a response and if Labour put it in their manifesto AND carry it out.

That's okay Molly. It would still be interesting to see the list.

I would guess Labour has enough on their plate and would find it a vote looser with the centre and centre-left voters they need to get anywhere near winning the next time.

Where was jealousy alluded to Doodledog?
More a case of their earnings are not what they used to be in comparison with 20 years ago.

Or because they don't approve of it for reasons other than jealousy? They do exist, you know .

I think the time is ripe for KS to give it a whirl. His professional background should tell him how fraught with legalities the notion of removing charitable status actually is, (it really is), and whether it would be far too complicated and time consuming. If after consideration he feels it is achievable, then no doubt he will include it in his manifesto.

The role the media plays is an interesting one in either supporting or bashing private education Mollygo. 20 years ago many journalists had their children educated at private schools and so remained pretty quiet on the issue. Nowadays far fewer journos can afford the schools fees and so of course they become more outspoken and critical of a system they can no longer enter due to costs.

I know, but if so many people think it’s a good idea, KS might like it as a vote catcher, as long as the media don’t portray it as denial of free choice.

Even Jeremy Corbyn wasn't asking for Private Education to be banned. I think he might have wanted to remove their Charitable Status or charge VAT but certainly he wasn't thinking of banning them altogether.

I could sort that, though I don’t think any of the arguments prove “those wanting to ban directly paid for education are right, and that it should be banned throughout the country”
any more than arguments by those wanting the right to choose directly paid for education prove that they are right.
I would just like to see if I get a response and if Labour put it in their manifesto AND carry it out.