Cheer up, Bridget, your lucky day is nigh!

Why when education across Europe is not subject to VAT would this vindictive government decide to destroy the future of so many children? Perhaps it’s not only the farmers that Starmer is harming.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Until Labour abolished grammar schools and direct grant places at private schools, able working class children got the same opportunity for a selective academic education. Labour stopped that

And what about the not so able children (the majority) who missed out on grammar and direct grant schools?

Bixiboo

Why when education across Europe is not subject to VAT would this vindictive government decide to destroy the future of so many children? Perhaps it’s not only the farmers that Starmer is harming.

So you’re saying that any child that is state educated has no future? And, if that isn’t the case, why should they need to go to a private school.

If we were still in the EU, Labour would not have been able to introduce VAT on school fees. It is against EU rules.

It does sit uneasily with me, that children's education should be subject to VAT, plus private schools will be treated as businesses and not as centres of education of children.

growstuff

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Until Labour abolished grammar schools and direct grant places at private schools, able working class children got the same opportunity for a selective academic education. Labour stopped that

And what about the not so able children (the majority) who missed out on grammar and direct grant schools?

It depends on the schools.

The secondary modern schools for boys and girls in the town where I grew up were excellent, far better than many comprehensive schools I have encountered in more recent years. They were encouraging and friends who went there achieved good results and consequently trained for good careers.

Parental choice MayBee70.

Allira

growstuff

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Until Labour abolished grammar schools and direct grant places at private schools, able working class children got the same opportunity for a selective academic education. Labour stopped that

And what about the not so able children (the majority) who missed out on grammar and direct grant schools?

It depends on the schools.

The secondary modern schools for boys and girls in the town where I grew up were excellent, far better than many comprehensive schools I have encountered in more recent years. They were encouraging and friends who went there achieved good results and consequently trained for good careers.

So presumably the children who went to the excellent secondary moderns didn't suffer when Labour took away their 'opportunity'. There's a bit of a contradiction here.

Bixiboo

Parental choice MayBee70.

Not really when the vast majority of parents don't have that choice because fees are more than their total household income.

Allira

If we were still in the EU, Labour would not have been able to introduce VAT on school fees. It is against EU rules.

It does sit uneasily with me, that children's education should be subject to VAT, plus private schools will be treated as businesses and not as centres of education of children.

I'm sure the Brexiters were aware of that!

11 was far too young to give a life changing test which divided us all up into categories where the majority didnt "get in" to grammar school and cut off opportunities for pupil development of bright children who for whatever reason "failed" at 11..

Bixiboo

Parental choice MayBee70.

But the majority of parents don't have a choice, do they? Why have preferential tax systems to enable those with more money to exercise a choice that is not available to the majority?

The choice that parents have now is the same as before. If parents can afford the fees their children can have a privileged education. If they can't, they will have to go without it - exactly like the majority of children whose parents didn't have the choice in the first place.

Governments have always used tax as a tool to re-distribute wealth.

In this case the wealthier folk have been receiving extremely generous tax breaks in order to educate their children and buy privilege, for many years.

This policy is simply tipping the scales back just a little towards the overwhelming majority of children, in order to improve their education - in this case pupil/teacher ratio.

Private education has not ceased, nor has all its accompanying privileges.

To read some posts you would think that the vast majority of folk privately educate their children.

This of course is not true, only a tiny minority do so. Our children should be supported - they are the county’s future.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Until Labour abolished grammar schools and direct grant places at private schools, able working class children got the same opportunity for a selective academic education. Labour stopped that

This exactly!

The grammar school system in the UK was outstanding.

Why has no party reinstated it?

Sago

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Until Labour abolished grammar schools and direct grant places at private schools, able working class children got the same opportunity for a selective academic education. Labour stopped that

This exactly!

The grammar school system in the UK was outstanding.

Why has no party reinstated it?

Because it wasn’t outstanding, it was only good for some people?

We still have Grammar Schools in my county (Essex) along with many of the Comprehensive Schools having their own tests for out of catchment children, which is basically a Grammar Stream within the school.

It does sit uneasily with me, that children's education should be subject to VAT
Of course, and I'm guessing that that statement could be uttered even by many Labour supporting people because this policy destroys the fundamental concept that there should be no taxation on education.

However, I've moved on from all the theory and ideals stuff because my concern now is that there will be little gain anyway. I honestly can't see 93% of our children suddenly receiving a greatly improved education on the small amount generated. That was my thinking yesterday when wondering what big difference could be instantly apparent when that windfall, £500,000,000, lands on Bridget Phillipson's desk tomorrow. Even ensuring that every child is seen to have the necessary stationery at school next week would be a start!

Wyllow3

11 was far too young to give a life changing test which divided us all up into categories where the majority didnt "get in" to grammar school and cut off opportunities for pupil development of bright children who for whatever reason "failed" at 11..

Passing the 11 plus and getting into Grammar school was a failed concept and didn’t give equal opportunity.
Most Grammar schools had a small intake each year, often around 90 pupils per year in three or four stream entry. Thus keeping classes small.
In areas where there was only one Grammar school for boys and one Grammar school for girls, then only around 180 pupils could gain a place. Thus the cut off number was 90 boys and 90 girls.
Any child who did not achieve the marks above the 90 went to the secondary modern, even though your score might place you at 91.Also the pass mark was skewed so that more boys passed than girls.
In larger urban areas there were more Grammar schools so there was the possibility of getting into a Grammar school when you would be a pupil with a lower mark than your rural counterparts. For example, I did my 11+ in London in the early 1960 and could choose from several girls Grammar schools.

J52 our Grammar Schools have limited places available at 13.

GrannyGravy13

J52 our Grammar Schools have limited places available at 13.

Many of today’s Grammar schools do, it wasn’t the case back when most children took the 11+ as a matter of course.

J52 I went to a Grammar School in London (1968) and I remember new girls arriving in the third year.

GG13 I too remember new children arriving at our grammar school in the third year. Since ours was a 9 form entry grammar school, (9 classes in each year group) it made a huge school even bigger.

I stand corrected! If there were places available you could enter Grammar schools at 13. Having shown ability in the Secondary Modern. They didn’t take entry at 13 at the selective Grammar school, that went to.
Mollygo your Grammar schools was unusually large and was it mixed?

J52

I stand corrected! If there were places available you could enter Grammar schools at 13. Having shown ability in the Secondary Modern. They didn’t take entry at 13 at the selective Grammar school, that went to.
Mollygo your Grammar schools was unusually large and was it mixed?

Yes and yes.
The secondary modern schools were streamed and had a “top stream” from which children took the 13+.

It would be interesting to know the boy/ girl ratio of that top stream.

A popular policy

“The government has accused media critics of its plan to put VAT on private school fees of being detached from the real world after polling showed that the policy, which comes into force tomorrow, is strongly backed by the public.
The poll, commissioned by the Private Education Policy Forum thinktank, found 54% of people backed the idea, with 22% opposing it. This is an even greater margin of support than in similar polls carried out before the election.

The polling of more than 2,000 people showed wider disquiet with the status quo, with 57% saying they found the private education system to be unfair and 22% disagreeing. It also showed strong support for the idea of private schools being obliged to make a quarter of their places available free of charge to local children, to improve social mixing.“