Bye Bye Sunak..

[dinny_g]

Therein lies the problem...Agreeing what's in and whats out.

I would disagree with you on both. While Religion is nor important to me, it is important for many.

And as far as claiming tax back, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Tax credits are so bloody complicated (another discussion topic) and I wouldn't like any parent to have to convince the Tax Office of the level of their child's disability. My brother has been through that and it's horrible. (Requiring proof of the level of his son's Autism and then, yearly, proving he hasn't got "any better")

[ZedLeg]

That's always the problem though isn't it. Whenever you try and improve anything, you just find another layer of shit left by government decisions. The entire disability benefit system is a nightmare to navigate.

[dinny_g]

Sadly very True Zed…

[duncs500]

For what it's worth I do feel for people on lower incomes that feel that going private is their only option. It's a pretty damning indictment of how much we (as a country) have failed the state school system.

Maybe if I was in charge I'd have a concerted program of school improvements before bringing in any vat change, give parents a better choice.

That's the point for me, it's a long game, but education really is the cornerstone of how we make this country better, and it seems like it's just not good enough at the moment. I worry about waste when it comes to spending, but I feel like education in particular should have a bit more sent its way. I don't see the same waste as I see in some of the other sectors.

I'm not even looking for world class facilities, but I do want to know that if I send my daughter to state schools she's going to get the same level of curriculum as her cousins at a private school, and have the opportunity to learn as much as she's able to at a level she's comfortable with.

At the moment, as I understand it, if you send your child to a state junior school and decided to move them to a private senior school you will need to invest in extra tuition for quite some time to prepare them for the higher level they'll be operating at. That's just plain wrong. In my day private schools had better facilities, perhaps better contacts for the future, and were better at preparing you for exams, but you wouldn't expect the kids to be fundamentally better educated. Seems like that is the case now.

[Beany]

...and it was bad enough before austerity; now, getting a benefit that you are absolutely entitled to and there is no shame in applying for is aggressively set up against you to make you fail and to make you feel guilty for trying to claim.

I still remember when I was out of work after my dad died (I was sacked the day after his funeral - the person who sacked me knew that, too) and a couple of months into being out of work and still in a very bad place mentally, I accidentally mixed up a paperwork check appointment and a job search appointment.

Lost a third of the income, it threw me into debt, and the benefits office couldn't have given less of a fuck that they had made me suicidal as a result of *one* mix up - I had to borrow money to pay the rent.

Which is exactly what you need when you're down on your luck.

[Mito Man]

At the moment, as I understand it, if you send your child to a state junior school and decided to move them to a private senior school you will need to invest in extra tuition for quite some time to prepare them for the higher level they'll be operating at. That's just plain wrong. In my day private schools had better facilities, perhaps better contacts for the future, and were better at preparing you for exams, but you wouldn't expect the kids to be fundamentally better educated. Seems like that is the case now.

When I went from state to private it was the same and that was nearly 20 years ago. All the kids were studying for 11+ exams but I had my own curriculum which the local private schools requested. Then I had to take exams at each of those private schools before being invited and I do recall having to have private tuition to help me.
It is naturally a higher level as you go to school from 8am-6.30pm Monday to Saturday. I found university to be easier than my schooling.

[duncs500]

I found university to be easier than my schooling.

I think that's the same for most people though, the jump from school to uni isn't that big as I suppose they need to find a level playing field amongst a load of different backgrounds (incl international).

Maybe I was just lucky with my state school, maybe it was ever thus and I'm only finding out now I have a child. Still doesn't make it right though, there's got to be a way to bring the state level up.

[ZedLeg]

I went to a catholic school so it was quite good thanks to that extra church funding. The building was still falling apart though and it was only 40 years old when I was there. It's been torn down for a housing scheme now, the school is on a joined campus with another local school that was our arch nemesis back in the day

[Mito Man]

I must say I don’t understand how religious schools work, there’s a CoE one I walk past everyday and I would estimate half the pupils to be Muslim? Then again I suppose they can’t discriminate and say Christians only can they

[ZedLeg]

Some have a religious requirement and some don't (mines didn't) everyone had to go to mass though. I was brought up catholic so I went to a catholic primary school too, which basically only taught kids from the local catholic church. I can't imagine you'd get enough kids for class that way now.

[dinny_g]

At the moment, as I understand it, if you send your child to a state junior school and decided to move them to a private senior school you will need to invest in extra tuition for quite some time to prepare them for the higher level they'll be operating at. That's just plain wrong. In my day private schools had better facilities, perhaps better contacts for the future, and were better at preparing you for exams, but you wouldn't expect the kids to be fundamentally better educated. Seems like that is the case now.

I may be naive here but isn't that the whole point of Private Education - paying for a higher standard of education. Better teachers, better equipment, higher expectations, pushed harder etc. to get better grades and into the harder to qualify Uni Degrees like Medicine or Law ?

[Swervin_Mervin]

At the moment, as I understand it, if you send your child to a state junior school and decided to move them to a private senior school you will need to invest in extra tuition for quite some time to prepare them for the higher level they'll be operating at. That's just plain wrong. In my day private schools had better facilities, perhaps better contacts for the future, and were better at preparing you for exams, but you wouldn't expect the kids to be fundamentally better educated. Seems like that is the case now.

I may be naive here but isn't that the whole point of Private Education - paying for a higher standard of education. Better teachers, better equipment, higher expectations, pushed harder etc. to get better grades and into the harder to qualify Uni Degrees like Medicine or Law ?

It is only one aspect Dinny. A more accurate way of describing it is that you're paying for specialism - whether that's just a generally higher standard of education, religious specialism, boarding, special needs etc.

As for funding - I'm not sure I see the logic of why funding state schools would in any way result in detriment to those from ordinary backgrounds. If the state system levels up as a whole, that should not happen. And indeed, it should start to address other aspects of disparity such as house prices.

I agree with Duncs, in that of all the private sector spending, education to me seems to be the one that's proportionately lowest and least wasted. Which is perverse given that our economy and futures fundamentally rely upon that more than anything else.

[V8Granite]

When I was at school the only difference between private and state was that of choice.

3 of my friends went to Kings school as Kings came to St John’s primary in year 5 and tested everyone. The top ones who did well were offered a place which I think is their version of “care in the community” and they had taxis pick them up and bring them home etc.

The difference was extracurricular. Mark was a very good musician and he had his own Tuba and 2 or 3 lessons a week. At Bushfield you had one lesson a week and had to sign out your instrument each term. Helen was a great swimmer and was doing regular swimming work, getting picked up at 06:00 and taken for swimming before class etc.

The only other difference was they had a more expensive drug problem than us and wore blazers, it seemed a bit of a grown up situation for young people. We had 2 start at work and they both didn’t seem to understand how the world worked.

We’ve visited 2 schools for ours now, they will be going to a state school after speaking to a few students we know through other activities and can’t see that changing.

Dave!

[Gavster]

They're really pulling all the cheap vote-winning stops out

[Jimexpl]

For what it's worth I do feel for people on lower incomes that feel that going private is their only option. It's a pretty damning indictment of how much we (as a country) have failed the state school system.

Maybe if I was in charge I'd have a concerted program of school improvements before bringing in any vat change, give parents a better choice.

That's the point for me, it's a long game, but education really is the cornerstone of how we make this country better, and it seems like it's just not good enough at the moment. I worry about waste when it comes to spending, but I feel like education in particular should have a bit more sent its way. I don't see the same waste as I see in some of the other sectors.

I'm not even looking for world class facilities, but I do want to know that if I send my daughter to state schools she's going to get the same level of curriculum as her cousins at a private school, and have the opportunity to learn as much as she's able to at a level she's comfortable with.

At the moment, as I understand it, if you send your child to a state junior school and decided to move them to a private senior school you will need to invest in extra tuition for quite some time to prepare them for the higher level they'll be operating at. That's just plain wrong. In my day private schools had better facilities, perhaps better contacts for the future, and were better at preparing you for exams, but you wouldn't expect the kids to be fundamentally better educated. Seems like that is the case now.

State schools that I'm aware of massively over spend on agency staff, as it comes out of a different pot to their other employment. The agency staff are underpaid (40-50% often goes to the agency), and they are far less likely to be interested in the overall performance of the school and have any loyalty to it or the kids.
Change this crazy set up and you would suddenly have two teachers for every one agency teacher, and a better school. A friends wife works in a 600 kid school in south London, which has 6 agency teachers and 8 agency assistants. Double both those figures with permanent staff and I guarantee a significant improvement in the school.
Facilities up to 11+ aren't really important - just sufficient space for classrooms. You don't even need a playground if there's a local park that can be used/managed.

[duncs500]

I may be naive here but isn't that the whole point of Private Education - paying for a higher standard of education. Better teachers, better equipment, higher expectations, pushed harder etc. to get better grades and into the harder to qualify Uni Degrees like Medicine or Law ?

It's always been that they're a bit smarter about getting through exams, and sure, higher teacher salaries probably mean they can be a bit more choosy with the quality of their staff. In general though, good state school students should be able to learn exactly the same stuff in the same level of detail and reasonably expect to be at a similar level of capability IMO. I was always taught to aim high and believe that I could do well.

Then yes, you do have all the extra curricular stuff too, which is the kind of thing you'd expect to get when you're paying a premium.

I guess the comparison that springs to mind (or how I think it should be) is like a basic gym vs a fancy one. You might not get all the frills, but you should be able to get just as fit.

[duncs500]

State schools that I'm aware of massively over spend on agency staff, as it comes out of a different pot to their other employment. The agency staff are underpaid (40-50% often goes to the agency), and they are far less likely to be interested in the overall performance of the school and have any loyalty to it or the kids.
Change this crazy set up and you would suddenly have two teachers for every one agency teacher, and a better school. A friends wife works in a 600 kid school in south London, which has 6 agency teachers and 8 agency assistants. Double both those figures with permanent staff and I guarantee a significant improvement in the school.
Facilities up to 11+ aren't really important - just sufficient space for classrooms. You don't even need a playground if there's a local park that can be used/managed.

Sounds logical. I often find when you go into these government organisations for a short while some wins like that are really obvious with a bit of a tweak to the bureaucracy. Sometimes very hard to get them implemented though!

The improved packages for Stem subjects seems to have been one of the better policies someone came up with. I've know a couple of people working in my industry who weren't particularly happy who it encouraged to give teaching a try and they've never looked back.

[dinny_g]

Two headlines about Suella Braverman's speach at the Tory Party Conference:

The Guardian: "Mad, bad, and dangerous to know: We are witnessing the Tories final descent into absurdity."

The Mail: "What a wig-lifter from Suella! This was the first properly spellbinding, dramatically assured speech seen at a conference for years"

[ZedLeg]

Novara had a bit about Farage’s conference shmoozing. Not quite saying that he’d get involved with the party if they lose the election but not not saying it either

[Swervin_Mervin]

I increasingly think (hope) Jobbo is right here - the Cons are going to get annihilated at the next election. For 2-3 weeks now the rumour about the HS2 leg to Manchester has refused to go away (I'm fairly sure they released the rumour themselves) and the conference has just been dominated by it. The only blip in coverage of that one issue was Braverman's inflammatory nonsense speech yesterday (which again, only serves to appeal to the die hard Tory faithful) and yet only a day later it looks that they've confirmed the rumours about HS2. It just shows how inept they are even at handling any comms/PR - they'd have been better off just saying 3 weeks ago that it was canned and allowing the fuss to die back a bit.

And credit to Burnham - commenting that one of the Con messages this conference has been about long term strategy/planning, whilst at the sime time canning a long-term project