Just one more push comrades, just a little bit more money & we shall reach the promised land!

The armed forces have a saying 'Don't reinforce failure'. If only the politicians would listen.

Thersites

Posted by: Thersites at March 30, 2005 06:01 PM

The only way to improve social mobility is to reintroduce selective education where poor children are not necessarily condemned to a poorer education. Naturally the Labour brothers and unions hate such elitism, based on ability rather than ability to pay, except in sport.

Posted by: Snafu at April 1, 2005 06:46 AM

I do hope that Ruth Kelly despises her parents for sending her to a top private school rather than the local comprehensive.

Posted by: Snafu at April 1, 2005 03:58 PM

State education is only failing because the Tory criminals neglected it for so long. I dont think youll find they have the same problems with properly funded state education in European countries like Germany, France and Sweden. What your proposing would reverse social progress in Britain by 200 years, just to save you a few pounds on your tax bill.

Posted by: joe at April 4, 2005 03:15 PM

Joe,
Take an objective view for a moment - the left have set the terms of the debate on education and social provision more or less unchecked since the war. During this time, Britain's educational performance has declined by all international standards regardless of which party has been in power. The answer is obviously not to do more of the same thing - it clearly is not working.

It is time for the left to move out of the way and let the whole system be opened up to new providers coming in, and (shock horror!) giving the parents what they want.
Trust the people, not the system.

Posted by: Ricky at April 4, 2005 05:19 PM

Joe,

In Germany you have a constitutional right to choose an independent school and have the state handing over same the funding as for the state sector.

In France, similar arrangements apply. In Sweden they have introduced freedom for practically anyone to set up a new school and to have the funding follow the pupil.

All these factors keep state schools on their toes, albeit perhaps not to a sufficient extent, but still better than here.

The problem here is that the government not only funds the schools, it insists on running them on a monopoly basis. When the government hugely increased funding a couple of years ago, did it get through to pupils? No - over three quarters of it went into teachers salaries and pension plans and higher national insurance - a clear case of producer interest.

There is a debate to be had about whether schools should be state funded (James Bartholomew believes other arrangements would be better) but social justice is not furthered by having a monopoly supplier and giving the disadvantaged no choice. If you really had the interests of the poorest and most disadvantaged at heart you would want to make sure that they had the same choice as the richest - they're just as capable of making such choices, they presently just lack the opportunity.

Posted by: HJHJ at April 5, 2005 11:16 AM

I would support funding following pupils to specialist schools if with it state education spending and standards rose to European levels. But only if it were linked to earnings.

Behind these ideas lie the desire to decrease your tax bill at the expense of the less advantaged. The poor would have the choice of schools, none of which they could afford. These are not new ideas they are OLD ones i guess next we should re-introduce work houses and slavery (no need thanks to neo-liberal globalisation).

State education isnt a failure, its the only way, worldwide we have of improving our lot. The reason our state education doesnt work is because it has been neglected by tories who send their children to private schools and so couldnt care less.

Posted by: joe at April 5, 2005 02:09 PM

Joe,
Thanks for responding.
If anyone needs their tax bill reducing it is the poorest sections of society, who pay much higher marginal rates of tax than the well off. It is a scandal that even modest earners like schoolteachers are now paying tax at 40%.
The poor deserve a better deal than they get now, and the central problem is that the state runs a virtual monopoly system for the poor, and puts obstacles in the way of other groups opening up schools. Not only that, the state treats the poor as hopeless and helpless, whereas in fact they have the same aspirations as the rest of society.
It is easy to blame 'the Tories' - in fact the number of cildren at private schools has gone up under Labour. This shows that when they can, people will vote with their feet. The answer must surely be to enable even more people, and especially the poor, to exercise their choice to go private if they wish. The state should recognise their wishes, and not get in their way.
If more private schools came into the market, prices would come down. Coupled with a targeted bursary scheme, we could create a much more dynamic education system, and harness the talents of even the poorest.

Posted by: Ricky at April 7, 2005 11:21 AM

Joe,

The problem is that your argument is based on a false premise. The UK spends a similar amount of its GDP on education as most European countries.

I think that your argument is ridiculous and completely lacking in analysis. There may be some who like the state-independent divide, but I am not one of them. Just because I disagree profoundly with your preferred method of making good quality of education for all (which experience shows just doesn't work), you attempt to impugn my motives. Perhaps your motives are less than pure, perhaps you make a good living out of the current system dominated by producer interests?

You may be interested to know that my daughter attends an independent school which is only possible because of a charitable bursary scheme - there is no way that I could afford it otherwise (I was put out of work when Gordon Brown's tax on mobile licences put most of the wireless infrastructure development industry out of business) . The normal school fees are almost exactly what the state spends, on average, per pupil. My local state school, I considered totally unsuitable, but the state could offer no choice. I just want others - all others - to have the same choice as I had courtesy of the independent sector. This would end the divide between private and public sectors.

As for cutting taxes, I think that this is desirable for all sorts of economic reasons. Our current high taxes are espcaially inequitable to the poor, who pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the rich and who suffer the highest rates of marginal tax. Were I chancellor, my first priorities would be to raise personal allowances to take the poor out of tax altogether and to simplify the tax system. Helping the poor would be my first priority. I take a moral position on this - Gordon Brown sees fit to tax people before they earn enough to live on (and he has increased the proportion they pay in tax) which is a disgrace, in my opinion.

Posted by: HJHJ at April 7, 2005 12:34 PM