Scrapping VAT and removing charitable schools - Labour policy - do you agree with it ?

[halfmist]

That sounds like it's a sticking plaster (and a very small one), for a broken system.

The extra money this generates will go to the most disadvantaged, and could make a significant difference to their education.

If we're then looking at replacing that sticking plaster with something more substantial, why not ensure that the % of privately educated students going to the top universities, or into publicly funded professions, matches the 7% who attend private school at secondary level. That would bring a lot more less wealthy people into positions of influence than a few more scholarships.

And dumb down the excellent reputation that our Universities have, which could affect the recruitment of overseas Students that pay substantial funds to held run them

 

[bluenova]

It doesnt work. Look at the FTSE 100 CEOs 26% were privately educated, thats against a figure of only 7% attending public school. Its even worse when you look at the the media which has some of the highest numbers of privately educated people. Of the 100 most influential news editors and broadcasters, 43% went to fee-paying schools. Similarly, 44% of newspaper columnists were privately educated, with a third - 33% - attending both an independent school and Oxbridge.

Whilst some of the power is in publicly funded professions, the real power is in banking and private multinationals. They influence policy decisions and the media decide what narrative to play.

If I look at the company I work for, its a multinational business and the higher you go up the tree, the more privately educated people there are, to the extent that at board level there is only one person who didn't go to a public school.

Whilst state schools are clearly underfunded, one of the biggest costs is providing support for kids being brought up in poverty and the problems that it brings. Reducing poverty is the solution to better schools as it is for most of the issues with society. More could be done by increasing taxation on wealth and/or income, but of course nobody wants to talk about that as it wont win votes. Surely on that basis taxing public schools is the token gesture or sticking plaster and an ineffective one at that.

Isn't this policy exactly that?

It's an increase on taxation, aimed at the wealthy, raising up to £1.5 billion, which is then targeted at the most disadvantaged students.

As for the scholarship issue, less than 1% of private school kids get their fees paid - about 6000 pupils across the whole country. Those kids are then brought up inside the same system that perpetuates the privilege, and so when they reach those positions of power, they're less likely to want to create a fairer society. Those kids are almost certainly not from the poorest backgrounds either (any school with selection policies tends to result in discrimination, even when money isn't directly involved).

I agree that businesses with the power are tough to change, but then there have been major strides over the years in the number of women on private boards, and I'd argue that a little social engineering will have much greater impact than letting a few token kids inside the system.

 

[bluenova]

And dumb down the excellent reputation that our Universities have, which could affect the recruitment of overseas Students that pay substantial funds to held run them

Exactly the opposite.

State school kids with the same entrance qualifications, tend to do better in university than privately educated kids.

The quality of students in our top universities won't be dragged down by less intelligent kids who are over-educated because their parents are wealthy.

 

[bluenova]

Why don’t we go the whole hog and just live in a dictatorship, where the state decides whether you’re allowed to go to university, what sort of job you do, what you’re allowed to spend your money on and indeed whether it’s actually worth getting out of bed in the morning?

But the society we already live in is closer to a dictatorship than the one I would advocate.

If the "state" is already run by people who are there because of who their parents are, then your path through life is decided long before you get out of bed in the morning.

If you're left wing, then creating a fairer society should appeal. If you're right wing, then ensuring the capitalist system is based on a meritocratic system should appeal. Win/win across the political spectrum ;)

 

[Kompany Car]

Isn't this policy exactly that?

It's an increase on taxation, aimed at the wealthy, raising up to £1.5 billion, which is then targeted at the most disadvantaged students.

As for the scholarship issue, less than 1% of private school kids get their fees paid - about 6000 pupils across the whole country. Those kids are then brought up inside the same system that perpetuates the privilege, and so when they reach those positions of power, they're less likely to want to create a fairer society. Those kids are almost certainly not from the poorest backgrounds either (any school with selection policies tends to result in discrimination, even when money isn't directly involved).

I agree that businesses with the power are tough to change, but then there have been major strides over the years in the number of women on private boards, and I'd argue that a little social engineering will have much greater impact than letting a few token kids inside the system.

Its not that is it though, its a tax but not exactly the big fish they should be going for, as it only targets the wealthy with kids, which is a subset.

As I said previously, 15% should be the minimum figure for scholarships and I do disagree with your comment regarding selective policies result in discrimination. It only discriminates in the same way as any other exam does, if you're smart enough then you pass, if you're not then you dont.

Ultimately I think "most of us" want the same thing, which is a fairer society, the only thing that differs is the path we should take to get there.

 

[bluenova]

Its not that is it though, its a tax but not exactly the big fish they should be going for, as it only targets the wealthy with kids, which is a subset.

As I said previously, 15% should be the minimum figure for scholarships and I do disagree with your comment regarding selective policies result in discrimination. It only discriminates in the same way as any other exam does, if you're smart enough then you pass, if you're not then you dont.

Ultimately I think "most of us" want the same thing, which is a fairer society, the only thing that differs is the path we should take to get there.

Sadly that isn't the case.

Exam based selections indirectly discriminate by wealth, but even with schools that have no exam based selection, there is discrimination.

The most popular free school in my local authority is a CofE school. They get the best results, but also have unusually low levels of kids on free school meals.

They are not actively deciding to discriminate against poorer kids, yet that link is there. The reason? Because they have a selection criteria - you need to attend church, or live in certain areas, volunteer at events, fill out longer forms. All things that may seem fair, but tend to discriminate in favour of those kids whose parents are comfortable, with stable home lives, and who can plan years in advance which schools they plan to apply to.

That pattern is repeated in pretty much every school where there are selection criteria - no matter how meritocratic is seems.

 

[lloydie]

Its not that is it though, its a tax but not exactly the big fish they should be going for, as it only targets the wealthy with kids, which is a subset.

As I said previously, 15% should be the minimum figure for scholarships and I do disagree with your comment regarding selective policies result in discrimination. It only discriminates in the same way as any other exam does, if you're smart enough then you pass, if you're not then you dont.

Ultimately I think "most of us" want the same thing, which is a fairer society, the only thing that differs is the path we should take to get there.

I seem to recall that Independents use a less demanding/rigorous exam system that is, for some reason, regarded on a par with the obligatory, superior and more demanding system the state sector is subject to.

 

[Kompany Car]

I seem to recall that Independents use a less demanding/rigorous exam system that is, for some reason, regarded on a par with the obligatory, superior and more demanding system the state sector is subject to.

Some use the iGCSE which is much more flexible and generally seen as easier. Many however use the same AQA, OCR and Edexcel (which is arguably the hardest) that state schools use.

 

[Rascal]

I certainly do. Why do the kids of the super rich already a couple of rungs up the ladder of life get a further boost at the expense of funding for the less well off schools. Research shows that on a small %age would have to drop out on the grounds of affordability.

Fees have been rising fast over the last 15 years - out stripping inflation - but they have all hung in there. The idea its removing opportunities from loads of kids is for the birds. The schools - especially the top ones - are attended by the kids of the very rich from around the globe. It does not surprise me that Patel was greatly concerned about students coming from China to UK universities because they might over stay once their course is done. There no shortage of Visa's for kids of rich Chinese families to attend Eton and Harrow.

The days of a chartered accountant or a local solicitor being able to afford to send their kids to public schools has long gone - maybe if more kids from wealthier backgrounds go into local state schools maybe their parent will lobby their MP when the meet in the Con Club for a drink to ask them to drive up the quality of state schooling.

Meanwhile the oiks who have no choice are more and more deciding how best to feed their kids to stave off malnutrition and rickets and are thanking god you can buy a school uniform for a fiver in Lidl

I have a very simple idea, anybody that attends a fee paying school is barred from public office. Only state educated people can become MPs, be part of the Judiciary, have the highest ranks in the armed forces, be representatives in local government and be civil servants. Those who still want to send their kids to these schools can, the overseas pupils will still get educated and this country does not end up with a clown show of over educated unintelligent morons believing they have a right to run our country. fuck em, fuck the lot of the fuckers.

That we trust a small monied elite to produce the people who actually run the country is abhorrent, it is a waste of so much talent that is barred from their elitist clubs. There are people on here I would trust to run the country more than i do fucking halfwits like 50p Lee, Bridgen, Mogg etc etc. Imagine Zen's compassion and understanding of the world being our PM , that would be a great start but we need is MPs who represent our interests, who understand our lives, who understand poverty, not who lived in a bubble of wealth induced superiority. Look at Johnson, a prime example of everything wrong with our country.

As for VAT, it is regressive taxation at its worst, it affects those with least the most and is one of the reasons leaving the EU was the correct move as I would hope a Labour government gets rid of this tax on spending power and replaces it with a tax on wealth.

 

[Kompany Car]

Sadly that isn't the case.

Exam based selections indirectly discriminate by wealth, but even with schools that have no exam based selection, there is discrimination.

The most popular free school in my local authority is a CofE school. They get the best results, but also have unusually low levels of kids on free school meals.

They are not actively deciding to discriminate against poorer kids, yet that link is there. The reason? Because they have a selection criteria - you need to attend church, or live in certain areas, volunteer at events, fill out longer forms. All things that may seem fair, but tend to discriminate in favour of those kids whose parents are comfortable, with stable home lives, and who can plan years in advance which schools they plan to apply to.

That pattern is repeated in pretty much every school where there are selection criteria - no matter how meritocratic is seems.

Look, i must say that I am an advocate of streaming kids in the same way as the 11 plus used to do, albeit 11 seems a bit too young. The tests should not be factual tests but instead based on intelligence, so abstract reasoning and everyone should have a chance to take it, the top 15% being offered places.

You're never going to get a perfectly level playing field, the only way you will do that is by removing people from poverty, but its at least more level than what there is at the moment.

Change has to be achieved in steps not giant leaps, particularly when inequality is as ingrained as it is in the UK.