Bridget Phillipson non-sequitur
School absenteeism is a huge problem; it's linked to policies that Labour vigorously supported, and to striking teachers....it's unclear why it's Eton's fault
Two days in a row for this blog’s friendship with Bridget Phillipson, whose interview with Camilla Tominey didn’t indicate much concern for children whose education she’s happy to harm. I covered it here.
Today’s post: some remarks she made about famous schools and her logical inter-galactic leap to non-attendance at state school. It’s pretty revealing, see here. Her focus is that she will deal with advance-payment schemes that are in place in some independent schools. On current arrangements these may be a way for parents legitimately to avoid VAT on - a savvy Bursar will have, in his drawer, agreement with HMRC to that effect, and so it’s not entirely straightforward to unpick, however that will only get a handful of parents off-the-hook, and only for a couple of years.
Non sequitur
Instead of the edge-issue of advance payments, we should focus on the following remarks where she complains about poor attendance, claiming it has something to do with where the Government sends their children:
“Because it isn’t Winchester, is it, where half the children fail to turn up at least one day a fortnight? It isn’t Charterhouse. It isn’t Eton, and it isn’t Rugby. No.
“For the Tories, the attendance crisis is always, and invariably, about other people’s children.”
Here’s her story: they don’t care about taxpayer-funded schools, I do. Here are my main objections:
First, as I said yesterday, I’d love her to show an inkling of concern for other people’s children. She’s happy to force (best case) 20,000 children out of schools she doesn’t approve of, into free taxpayer-funded destinations that she’s bravely assuming both exist and are suitable (from a work/life/home perspective as well as quality and children’s individual needs).
Second, as a small-c conservative I personally have huge personal concern for the state sector that I pay for other people’s children to use. The state’s involved in education because it’s a merit good as covered here - my neighbours, friends and colleagues use state schools, as do people that sell me tomatoes, repair my car, and join the Armed Forces. I’m very aware that if those children flourish, I and my children flourish and that I, and they, are all let down if free taxpayer-funded schools are disappointing. I’m pretty sure my sentiment is near-universal among conservatives and Conservatives alike.
Third, conservatives like me do have sympathy and empathy. She’s rude and I’m deeply offended, for what it’s worth. We strongly doubt the state does much for the less well-off. It’s not that we don’t care, it’s that we see greater value in unifying social institutions (family, manners, duty, responsibility), voluntary institutions (charity, love-thy-neighbour) and economic freedom (opportunities, rewards, self-sufficiency), than Phillipson’s divisive authoritarian solutions (taxes, state control, welfare, dependency).
Fourth, there are several root causes of absenteeism. Perhaps the most prominent is covered here.
The reported increase in absenteeism is most likely the result of the difficulties that young people faced during the period of home learning, as well as for some, extended disengagement from school during school closures.
Can somebody point me towards the bit where Labour, in their greater appreciation of the needs of children, called for schools to stay open during lockdown? Particularly state schools? What did Bridget have to say? Or do we instead think teaching unions and the Labour Party tended to support school closures, for example here, here, and across the pond here? Their actions then betray Phillipson’s words now.
Fifth, and perhaps somebody can help, I’m really struggling to see a bridge between taxing independent schools so that some of them close and the rest become more elite and expensive than they already are, which won’t raise any money, and the social and quality issues surrounding some of our state schools. It’s a typical zero-sum socialist mentality: The Ritz is luxurious, and that’s why Gregg’s is a bit basic. (no offence intended to Greggs).
Sixth, we can make a much better bridge between strike-induced school closures and absenteeism. If teachers aren’t hot on attendance, how can they and Phillipson expect pupils to turn up? How will Labour ensure pupils have schools that they can rely on? Will Labour join conservatives in legislating for minimum service levels in the face of strikes? I’m guessing not.
Seventh, she’ll keep harping on, if we give her a chance, about Eton and Winchester and other famous schools, which together account for perhaps one or two percent of the independent school industry and perhaps 0.1% of children. Because that makes it easier to batter, with the same blunt weapon, the vast majority of private schools that nobody’s ever heard of, where the family and school economics are marginal, and which she is happy to see close.
If this is a pissing contest about who cares most about schools, I recommend all parties should note who really cares about schools i.e., families. If Phillipson really cares about children, she should read The Beautiful Tree by James Tooley and give more freedom, choice and responsibility to parents - allowing middle- and lower-earners the chance of school choice and encouraging the growth of more affordable private schools. Ironically, that’s what would really threaten the “posh schools” she appears to loathe so much.
VAT on independent schools is, of course, a move in precisely the opposite direction. More power to politicians, government and unions, and less power to parents, as the remaining private schools become even more exclusive and expensive than they already are.
You're right, it's the old argument from "equality" that underpins so much on the left. People live to different ages, and that can't be fair when you consider some people die young. The solution? Cull centenarians.