Cheer up, Bridget, your lucky day is nigh!

All things will never be equal.
That's a given.

Those privately educating their children need to pay tax.

It’s interesting that at the private schools in my area quite a few of the parents are teachers in the state sector. I wonder why that is?

Im not arguing for the removal of private education GrannyGravy13, I don’t think that will ever happen. What I’m trying to say is that if sending a child to private school means a whole family sacrifices all the fun things in life to pay for that education, they would be far better to fight for the child in the state education system.

Casdon

Im not arguing for the removal of private education GrannyGravy13, I don’t think that will ever happen. What I’m trying to say is that if sending a child to private school means a whole family sacrifices all the fun things in life to pay for that education, they would be far better to fight for the child in the state education system.

By the time improvements are made their child might have left school.

"GrannyGravy13 Tue 31-Dec-24 19:11:57
It’s simple really improve state education, reintroduce grammar schools UK wide.

Do you mean grammar schools for every child? Not every child thrives at the same kind of school, and state education, by definition, aims to educate every child. Grammar schools are good schools for some, not so much so for others - and the others deserve to have money and effort spent on their education too, otherwise they will grow up uneducated and ignorant. An educated workforce is a national asset. An uneducated and ignorant one is not.

The rationale for grammar schools was that some pupils learnt faster and deeper than others while some needed to go more slowly, some could follow lecture-style lessons in a large class while some needed one-to-one tuition, some could sit still for an hour or more at a time, while some did better if shorter bouts of theory were interspersed with periods of physical activity, some had clever minds, some clever hands, some clever hearts. Some would have a future in academic or theoretical work, some with hand skills, some in caring for others. Those were different abilities and it was thought that schools with different approaches would suit different learning styles.

So were born grammar schools (which offered to selected clever pupils a free education which didn't end for all at about 14, as it did previously unless their parents sent them to private schools either because they had the spare money to afford it or because they won a scholarship funded by a philanthropist that paid the fees of a few outstanding pauper children.) Other possibilities were free technical schools (for the budding artisans and tradesmen) or the free new secondary moderns (for those who neither qualified as clever enough for a grammar school nor showed signs of inheriting enough of a manual skill to go to a technical school.

Then there were the different DISabilities. Some had problems with their sight, or their hearing, or their mobility, or their mental, emotional, or physical development. There were special schools where the teaching style was suited to the abilities of these children.

All these different types of schools needed more teachers, trained in the different teaching styles needed. This cost money, as did the multiplication of buildings and their maintenance and ancillary staff. Gradually, partly for financial/political reasons and partly because it was discovered that, surprise surprise, not all children are ready at age 11 to be put into a permanent category for life, policies changed to teaching all children in one secondary school, whatever their learning style, whatever abilities and subjects suited them, and whatever disabilities they suffered from. A teacher was expected to teach in several styles and levels simultaneously in one classroom, and often to teach subjects at secondary level other than their own specialist knowledge when there were not the funds to support more staff.

After decades of trying to run a state education system without enough funding there is at last the beginning of an attempt to make up for what has been lost. It should not focus just on educating the academic/intellectual/theoretical section of the workforce. "State Education" is more than that.

Allira

Casdon

Im not arguing for the removal of private education GrannyGravy13, I don’t think that will ever happen. What I’m trying to say is that if sending a child to private school means a whole family sacrifices all the fun things in life to pay for that education, they would be far better to fight for the child in the state education system.

By the time improvements are made their child might have left school.

But other children, whose parents for one reason or another are not in a position to either fight for change or to pay to bypass any faults in the system, have to live with whatever shortcomings have driven some to transfer their child to a private school. Is it right that the children should just have to put up with them?

One of the strengths of a good state education system is that when articulate middleclass parents send their children to a local community school, they have the confidence to speak out about things that could be better, and to join parent-teacher associations to try to improve them. If they just decamp because they can afford to, they abandon those who can't afford it.

An active parent-teacher association can be a thorn in the side of the head and the staff, if they badger them unsympathetically, but a good PTA and a good head working together can improve morale immensely.

ronib the poorest cohort in private education will have to join the 97% of the rest who go to state schools. I worked in an independent school that was seriously posh, but it was a lovely place to work. What’s not to like with smaller classes, longer holidays, more money? I know the VAT hasn’t made a difference to their numbers, in fact applications have increased. There are many bursaries for those to help with fees. The really hard up could apply for those.

MissAdventure

It's a matter of living within your means.
If people can't afford private education for their children, well..

Yes but even those who don’t support private education, do better than poorer parents who can’t afford to be
^ a mouthy middle class mother who^ could afford to drive him to and from a distant school
instead of doing their best to improve the school where he was to get the best for all children.
But parents who want to do the best for their children and may struggle to pay for private education should be further penalised.

Mollygo

MissAdventure

It's a matter of living within your means.
If people can't afford private education for their children, well..

Yes but even those who don’t support private education, do better than poorer parents who can’t afford to be
^ a mouthy middle class mother who^ could afford to drive him to and from a distant school
instead of doing their best to improve the school where he was to get the best for all children.
But parents who want to do the best for their children and may struggle to pay for private education should be further penalised.

The educational psychologist was involved Mollygo and we took her advice that there was a specialist teacher in the school 15 miles away who would be right for him. Moving state schools was then, and I would guess still is, right for some children. I don’t think with the best will in the world that every state school will ever have the specialist expertise needed for every presenting child, some will have to move to get the best for them- nor do I think a private school focussed on academic success can do the best for every child.

It's not penalising someone to expect them to pay tax.

Whoever was involved, you had the advantage of being able to do what you thought was right for your child. I have no problem with that.

But what about the parents who couldn’t have afforded to drive 15 miles to take their child to another school even if they ed psych said they should?

(^The government collects taxes to pay for schools, hospitals, the police, the army and other public services.^)

Parents, who are already paying taxes which contribute to their children and other children’s education might, like you,
choose to do what they can for their children.
Those who have struggled to do that will now have to accept whatever’s on offer, just like any parents who, unlike you, couldn’t afford to drive long distances to another school, even if an EdPsych advised it.

MissAdventure

It's not penalising someone to expect them to pay tax.

It's whether it's an ethical tax which is the question.
Parenrs who are British taxpayers will already have paid substantial amounts of income tax.

I acknowledged that in my post though Mollygo, I specifically said that I knew I was privileged and not everybody would be in the same position? In a case similar to mine, additional funding would be a solution to allow all children who needed it to access a free bus to the alternative school that could meet their child’s needs. It would still not be used by every child who needed it though, of course.

GrannyGravy13

Casdon I mostly agree with your post.

I totally agree with choice, and that includes private education.

As a free country we shouldn’t remove things due to some not being able to afford or want them.

It is a fact of life that we all should have the ability to improve our lot and then live within our means

All being equal is a communist pipe dream, totally unworkable and untrue.

A free country should expect all its adult citizens to pay tax and organise the proceeds of that tax take so that everyone who pays in gets out what is appropriate for their needs, regardless of their means.

Some getting more than others out whilst paying less in is a pipe dream based on elitism and the notion that some should work to pay for others to get a free ride.

Luckily we now have a government who agrees that this is unfair and is putting a stop to the tax breaks of the few in favour of fairnesss for the many. Long may it continue.

But what about the parents who couldn’t have afforded to drive 15 miles to take their child to another school even if the ed psych said they should?
Or would not have been able to get to work on time themselves if they did.
A 30 mile round trip twice a day?

I agree Casdon that state schools will never ever have the specialist teaching expertise found in the independent sector. I don't just mean in academic subjects, but in Sport, Music, Art, Drama etc. It also needs specialist facilities to take children with exceptional talents to the highest level, and this requires real estate and state of the art premises. Most parents at private schools won't want to make their children poorer in their sporting and cultural life, so they will pay more knowing that their children are receiving the best of the best that can never be equalled by a state school.

Allira

^But what about the parents who couldn’t have afforded to drive 15 miles to take their child to another school even if the ed psych said they should?^
Or would not have been able to get to work on time themselves if they did.
A 30 mile round trip twice a day?

Initially I shared the driving with my husband, but after he died, I dropped my son off to breakfast club on my way to work at 8.00, and picked him up from after school club or my childminder at 6pm. It was challenging, but it was the right thing for him.

Allira

^But what about the parents who couldn’t have afforded to drive 15 miles to take their child to another school even if the ed psych said they should?^
Or would not have been able to get to work on time themselves if they did.
A 30 mile round trip twice a day?

It doesn’t evidently matter, as long as you put the cost of private schools up.

Of course it matters, but as everyone has said, all things will never be equal.
Just pay tax.

I suppose there were no breakfast clubs or after-school clubs when mine were young so that is a new and welcome concept.

Allira

I suppose there were no breakfast clubs or after-school clubs when mine were young so that is a new and welcome concept.

There were no breakfast clubs for mine, so I and others set them up. We all worked but managed to find time to volunteer around it somehow.

The notion that others should provide is alien to me, and I just don't understand why others expect to have things provided all the time.

Parents who want their children to either get higher levels of support in academic subjects or do music, dance, art, drama can do it without paying for full-time private education.

Tutors, clubs and lessons, holiday schools are well within the reach of those who can't quite afford private education anymore.

Wyllow3

Parents who want their children to either get higher levels of support in academic subjects or do music, dance, art, drama can do it without paying for full-time private education.

Tutors, clubs and lessons, holiday schools are well within the reach of those who can't quite afford private education anymore.

And are being encouraged to do that, by it being made more difficult to pay for private education. Which has made some people very happy, probably including those with second homes or other advantages that they wouldn’t willingly give up.

I passed the 11 plus in 1960, and went to an all girls grammar school. My best friend didn’t, but went to the local junior secondary school where she completed fourth year, and sat and passed O Levels which then allowed her entry to fifth year at the grammar school at which I was a pupil. So, failing the 11 Plus wasn’t necessarily the end of further education. This was in Scotland. I’m not sure if this was possible within the English system.